Pcoper Manual PDF

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
PNPM-DPL-DS-5-1-03
POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING (PCOPER) SYSTEM
Directorate for Plans
PCOPER Committee:
POLICE DIRECTOR HERCULES G CATALUÑA

POLICE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT LIBRADO B MATIBAG
POLICE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT LUIZO C TICMAN
POLICE SUPERINTENDENT JACINTO C DIÑO
POLICE SUPERINTENDENT LESTER O CAMBA
POLICE SUPERINTENDENT ALLEN B FORTES
POLICE SUPERINTENDENT NOEL A BARACEROS
POLICE SUPERINTENDENT RAMON O PURUGGANAN
POLICE SUPERINTENDENT ROEL B OBUSAN
POLICE CHIEF INSPECTOR ROMMEL FRANCISCO O MARBIL
POLICE SENIOR INSPECTOR RADEL DL RAMOS
POLICE SENIOR INSPECTOR ERCY NANETTE M TOMAS
PO1 Lilibeth L Elefanio
NUP Cynthia S Rosales
NUP Ester R Galvez
NUP Ma. Fe J Chan
NUP Ma. Luz M Megino
NUP Christy L Lingan
NUP Lemuel A Divinagracia
NUP Nhelbie S Foncardas
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Preface Iv
CHAPTER INTRODUCTION
I:
1.1 Background 1
1.2 General Policy 1
1.3 Purpose 2
1.4 Scope 2
CHAPTER POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER PERFORMANCE

2: EVALUATION RATING (PCOPER) SYSTEM
2.1 Description of the PNCOPER System 3

2.2 Five Levels in the Rating Scale 3
2.3 Three Major Parts of the PCOPER 4
2.4 Mechanics of Implementation of the PCOPER 4
System
2.5 Completion and Submission of the PCOPER 6
Report
CHAPTER GUIDELINES ON RATING, REVIEWING AND

3: TRANSMITTING THE
PCOPER REPORT
3.1 Duties and Responsibilities of the Rater, Ratee, Reviewer 7

and Admin
PCO
3.1.1 Duties and Responsibilities of Rater 7

3.1.2 Duties and Responsibilities of Ratee 7
3.1.3 Duties and Responsibilities of 8
Reviewer
3.1.4 Duties and Responsibilities of Admin 8
PCO
3.2 Rater/Reviewer Designation 9
3.2.1 Directorial Staff 9

3.2.2 Regional Offices/Units 10
3.2.3 National Support Units 11
3.3 Resolution of Conflict in the Designation of the Rater and 12
Reviewer
CHAPTER OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PCOPER REPORT AND
4: PROPAGATION AND APPLICATION OF THE PCOPER SYSTEM
4.1Performance Evaluation Section (PES) 4.1
4.2 Propagation and Application of the 4.2
PCOPER System
4.2
CHAPTER CREATION OF GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
5:
5.1 Grievance Committees 14
CHAPTER ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS

6:
6.1 Administrative Sanctions 16
Annexes
“A” Instructions on How to Accomplish the Police 17

Non-Commissioned Officer Performance
Evaluation Rating Forms (PNCOPER) 3A & 3B
For SPO3 to SPO4 (Third Level)
“B” Instructions on How to Accomplish the Police 34

For SPO1 to SPO2 (Second Level)
“C” Instructions on How to Accomplish the Police 51

For PO1 to PO3 (First Level)
References
Republic of the Philippines
Department of the Interior and Local Government
National Police Commission
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
Office of the Chief, PNP
FOREWORD
An essential element of “O.N.E.” Philippine National Police is its human
resource. For the PNP to become an efficient and effective organization, it must consist of
personnel that “talk less” and deliver more.
To attain our goal, we shall implement a new standard of performance

evaluation that is open, explicit and development-focused. It will be a basis for a
policeman’s retention or relief, promotion and assignment or attrition.
The Police Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating System

(PCOPER) presented in this manual addresses the weaknesses of the old PNP Performance
Evaluation System (PNPPES) otherwise known as individual performance evaluation
system, where overall effectiveness is measured in terms of the traditional policing of crime
fighting. This time, we will measure individual competence and behavioral dimensions that
contribute to the accomplishment of the PNP’s Vision, Mission and Goals.
Let this manual be the policeman’s guide to better performance. Let me

emphasize, there is no room for non-performers in the Philippine National Police.
Republic of the Philippines

Department of the Interior and Local Government
National Headquarters, Philippine National Police
DIRECTORATE FOR PLANS
Camp Crame, Quezon City
PREFACE
It has been a formidable challenge for the personnel of the Directorate for
Plans to come up and flesh out the details in this Police Commissioned Officer Performance
Evaluation Rating (PCOPER) System Manual. Consistent with the C, PNP’s O.N.E.
PNP Action Plan, the System is a major refinement of the old individual performance
evaluation system.
As differentiated from the old system, the PCOPER system covers the
totality of the true nature of police service as performed/delivered by a Police Commissioned
Officer. The performance of the PCO in the new system will be measured in terms of these
dimensions: Output; Core Competencies on job knowledge, supervisory control, people
management, and organizational responsiveness; and Personal Qualities. Each dimension
is divided into several performance indicators that would help pinpoint the strong or weak
areas that a PCO needs to enhance or improve on. His/Her rating becomes a basis for
his/her assignment, retention or relief, promotion, and attrition from the service.
With the PCOPER System, it is hoped that the PNP will be able to
truly recognize and reward those who perform well and get rid of the “A-B-K-D Pulis”, in
particular and insulate the organization from external interference, in general.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Republic Act 6975, otherwise known as “The Department of the

Interior and Local Government Act of 1990, as amended” provides for the
establishment of a Performance Evaluation System which shall be administered in
accordance with the rules, regulations and standards, and a code of
conduct promulgated by the National Police Commission for members of the
Philippine National Police (PNP).
1.1.2 In line with this provision, the National Police Commission issued
Memorandum Circular No. 92-012, entitled “PNP Performance Evaluation System
(PNPPES),” otherwise known as individual performance evaluation system on
November 13, 1992 to implement an evaluation system for the improvement of
individual efficiency, discipline and organizational effectiveness. On Sept. 23,
1993, NAPOLCOM issued Memorandum Circular No. 93-019 amending
Memorandum Circular No. 92-012, prescribing the use of five-point rating scale in
compliance to the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 12, series of
1993.
1.1.3 Analysis of the individual performance evaluation system shows that it

is output-oriented and basically related to the traditional model of policing where the
overall effectiveness is measured in terms of crime fighting. Moreover, the
parameters being used are not development–focused as called for in the
community oriented policing model.
1.1.4 The Police Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating

(PCOPER) System addresses the above concerns in order to better assess and
measure individual efficiency, effectiveness, competence and behavioral or personal
dimensions. Also, it identifies strong and weak points of PCOs and the areas for
development.
1.2 General Policy
The PCOPER System shall be made an integral part of the Human Resource
Development Program of the PNP. It is designed to suit its unique functions of
quantifying performance given the nature of police work and the frequency of
rotation in job assignments. It shall be in accordance with the following policies:
a. The PCO shall be apprised of what are expected of him as well as his rights
under the System and shall be kept informed of how well he is performing;
b. The PCO’s immediate supervisor shall be cognizant of weaknesses and

deficiencies of his subordinates and provide the opportunity to remedy the
same;
c. Appropriate recognition of a job well done which contributed to the overall

effectiveness and efficiency of the organization must be extended to the PCO
concerned;
d. A continuing record of PCO’s performance rating shall be kept as part of his

personal file; and
e. Continuing education and information shall be provided to ensure effective

implementation of the System.
1.3 Purpose
Consistent with the general policy, the aim of this PCOPER System is to
attain the following objectives:
a. To foster the improvement of individual efficiency, work ethics and
behavioral discipline of the PCOs;
b. To provide a basis for professional growth and to determine those

who possess outstanding abilities for conferment of greater responsibility
or higher position;
c. To identify specific areas of individual weaknesses with a view towards

improvement and to motivate the personnel in working to the fullest; and
d. To provide an impartial evaluation of PCOs who appear unable to meet

the standards and should therefore be considered for attrition from the
service.
1.4. Scope
The Police Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating
(PCOPER) System shall apply to all PCOs of the PNP. It shall be used to assess
the performance of a PCO in terms of his contribution to the attainment of the PNP
Mission and Vision, his skills and competencies and attitude towards work. The
PCOPER shall be a requirement and parameter for promotion, assignment/
designation and attrition from the service.
CHAPTER 2
POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING
(PCOPER) SYSTEM
2.1 Description of the PCOPER System
2.1.1 The Police Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating

System prescribes the procedures for evaluating the performance of individual
PCOs based on his rank. The PCOPER shall be grouped in three (3)
categories: (a) Senior Superintendent Up (Third Level); (b) Chief Inspector to
Superintendent (Second Level); and (c) Inspector to Senior Inspector (First Level).
Depending on the rank of the ratee, the rater shall use the appropriate form for the
performance evaluation.
2.1.2 Rating shall be done/accomplished by the immediate supervisor

(RATER) of the individual to be rated (RATEE), and reviewed by the next higher
supervisor of the ratee.
2.1.3 Rating of the individual performance shall be undertaken every six (6)
months. Evaluation report covering the period January to June shall be submitted
within the first twenty (20) working days of July, while for the period July to
December shall be submitted within the first twenty (20) working days of January of
the succeeding year.
2.2 Five (5) Levels in the Rating Scale

The five (5) levels in the rating scale in the performance evaluation shall be
the following:
2.2.1 Outstanding (OS) – Achieved exceptional performance clearly higher

than competent peers. Exceeded all or most objectives and added value beyond the
scope of the normal job.
2.2.2 Very Satisfactory (VS) – Achieved completely all aspects of most

objectives of the normal job and even exceeded in some areas. Consistently
demonstrated competency.
2.2.3 Satisfactory (SF) – Achieved the essential requirements and minimum

expectations. Usually demonstrated competency.
2.2.4 Poor (PR) – Fell short of expectations and still needs improvement.
Demonstrated little competency and needs skills/capability upgrading.
2.2.5 Very Poor (VP) – Did not achieve minimum expectations and needs
major improvement. Demonstrated very little or no competence at all.
2.3 Three Major Parts of the PCOPER

The PCO performance evaluation rating shall consist of three (3) major parts,
divided into several dimensions and indicators, as follows:
2.3.1 PART I. OUTPUT – this includes the quantity, quality, and timeliness of
work done vis-à-vis the required target output.
2.3.2 PART II. CORE COMPETENCIES – this refers to the core

competencies which are basic and essential in order to efficiently and effectively
deliver required services. This aspect includes the following:
a. Job Knowledge
b. Supervisory Control
c. People Management
d. Organizational Responsiveness
2.3.3 PART III. PERSONAL QUALITIES – this refers to personal

characteristics which enhance or adversely affect individual performance.
2.3.4 RATER’S ASSESSMENT OF RATEE – this refers to the overall

assessment of PCO based on his performance evaluation rating whether or not
he/she can be recommended for promotion, designated to higher position or relieved
from his/her position.
2.3.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/COMMENTS – this contains the

signatures/comments of the rater, ratee and reviewer to attest to the objective
conduct of performance evaluation of the ratee.
2.4 Mechanics of Implementation of the PCOPER System

The PCO performance evaluation rating shall be conducted by the
immediate supervisor (rater) to his/her subordinates (ratee) every six (6) months
covering the period from January to June and from July to December. It shall be
submitted to PES, PPD, DPRM within twenty (20) working days after the rating
period. The rater shall observe the following in the performance evaluation of PCOs:
a. In the event that a PCO would be transferred or detailed to another

Office/Unit or there would be change in position/designation due to job rotation or
promotion in the middle of the rating period, the immediate Supervisor (old unit)
should make a performance evaluation of the PCO for the lapsed period and
should furnish a copy to the immediate supervisor of the receiving unit who would
attach it to his/her evaluation of the said officer at the end of the rating period. The
same shall be applied for any movement of PCO within the same Office/Unit.
b. PCOs who are on official study leave shall not be rated during his leave of
absence. However, he/she must secure his/her rating prior to leave. On the other
hand, PCOs on service schooling must submit, together with his/her academic
grades in school, his last performance evaluation rating to the new unit/office upon
completion of schooling or training.
c. PCOs who are on secondment status shall secure their latest

performance evaluation rating prior to secondment and submit it to his/her new
Office/Unit upon return, including a copy of his performance rating on secondment.
d. PCOs who are on non-duty status; meaning those who do not hold any
duty designation or position during the rating period shall not be rated. Failure to
acquire rating for four (4) consecutive rating periods or a rating of Poor (PR) or
Very Poor (VR) for six cumulative ratings shall be a ground for attrition.
2.5 Completion and Submission of PCOPER Report
The PCO performance evaluation rating report shall be accomplished by the
rater in three (3) to five (5) copies, depending on the assignment of the ratee. The
PCOs concerned shall observe the flow of submission of the PCOPER Report as
illustrated in Figure 1.
PES, PPD, ODPRM
PRO Admin D-Staff

PCO Admin PCO NSUs Hqs
Admin PCO
PPO/CPO/
RMG D- NATI
Admin PCO
Staff ONA
RAT L
EE SUPP
MPS/CPS/
PMG
ORT
NSUs
(Regional/
Admin PCO
UNIT
Provincial/
City)
Admin PCO
Admin PCO
MPS/CPS/
PMG
RATEE
Figure 1. Flow of Submission of the PCOPER Report

CHAPTER 3
GUIDELINES ON RATING, REVIEWING AND

TRANSMITTING THE PCOPER REPORT
3.1 Duties and Responsibilities of the Rater, Ratee,

Reviewer and Admin PCO
3.1.1 Duties and Responsibilities of Rater
a. For the purpose of evaluation, the immediate supervisor has the

responsibility of rating his/her subordinates. The rater should be able to rate
his/her subordinates within ten (10) working days after the rating period. He
should bear in mind that the PCOPER is a documentary evidence in which
comments and observations should be properly recorded and attested. It
shall be the rater’s responsibility also to ensure that the duly accomplished
and signed rating form is transmitted by the Admin PCO to the ratee for
his/her concurrence and signature within the same ten (10) working day
period . The rater thru his/her Admin PCO shall take note of the date and
time the ratee receives his/her rating report.
b. When the rater gives extreme rating (highest or lowest), he/she
shall support/justify his/her rating of his/her subordinates by citing
significant/critical incidents in the space provided in the PCOPER
worksheet. The significant/critical incidents are situations or incidents that
the ratee manifested during the rating period that have a bearing in the
performance of his/her duties.
3.1.2. Duties and Responsibilities of Ratee
a. The ratee, who conforms with his/her supervisor’s or rater’s

evaluation of his/her performance, shall affix his/her signature and the date
on his/her rating report within two (2) working days from receipt or tender of
the rating . During the said period, he/she shall forward his/her rating
report to the reviewer who in turn, shall transmit the same to the Admin
Officer. Once signed, the ratee shall keep an authenticated copy of his/her
rating report for the period.
b. A ratee who disagrees with the rater must submit a written

request for a review of rating to the reviewer, copy furnished the rater, not
later than five (5) days from receipt or tender of the rating. In this case,
the twenty-day working period within which to observe the
submission of the performance rating report to DPRM shall not apply. In
his/her request for review, the ratee must include the following:
1. Copy of the PCOPER report; and
2. List of performance factor ratings that are in dispute and written

explanation why he/she deserves a different rating.
c. If the disagreement stands after the clarificatory meeting called

by the reviewer, the ratee must appeal within five (5) days, after the
meeting, copy furnished the rater and reviewer, to the Grievance Committee
who shall review, re-evaluate and resolve the case within thirty (30) days
upon receipt of the request. Otherwise, the rating becomes final. The
request for appeal must include the same requirements earlier mentioned.
3.1.3. Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewer

a. It shall be the duty of the Reviewing Officer to peruse and attest
the rater’s evaluation of the ratee within eight (8) working days after receipt
or tender of the rating. The reviewer shall insure also that the PCOPER is
duly accomplished and signed by the rater and ratee. Subsequently, he/she
shall transmit the rating report to the Admin PCO within the same eight (8)
working days after receipt of the rating.
b. In case the ratee requests for a review of his performance rating,
the reviewer should schedule or arrange a meeting with the rater or
supervisor and the ratee to discuss and clarify the report not later than five
(5) days from receipt of the request.
3.1.4. Duties and Responsibilities of Admin PCO

a. The Admin PCO shall strictly observe the transmittal of the
PCOPER within the first twenty (20) working days of January/July as
required. For official documentation, he/she shall keep the received copy of
transmittal to the ratee and reviewer.
b. Within eight (8) working days, the Admin PCO in the PRO shall
consolidate and encode all the rating summary reports of the PCOPER in the
diskette. For easy access, retrieval and fast processing, he/she may unload
the PCOPER and rating summary forms in the PNP website or e-mail
address. Also, the Admin PCO shall submit to the Performance Evaluation
Section, Personnel Plans and Policies (PES, PPD), DPRM the diskette
containing only the rating summary reports and the original hardcopy of the
same, bearing the signatures of the rater, ratee and reviewer.
c. In addition, the Admin PCO in the PRO/NSU shall maintain the

original copy of the PCOPER and the diskette. He/she shall provide an
authenticated copy of the rating summary report and the PCOPER to the
ratee and to the Office/Unit, particularly to the Personnel Division in the
PPO/CPO/RMG or MPS/CPS/PMG where the ratee is assigned.
3.2 Rater/Reviewer Designation

3.2.1 Directorial Staff
At the National Headquarters, PCOs in the Division shall be rated by

their Division Chief with their EX-O as reviewer. The Division Chiefs shall be
rated by their EX-O with their Deputy Director as reviewer. The EX-O shall
be rated by the Deputy Director with the Director as reviewer. The Deputy
Director shall be rated by the Director with TCDS as reviewer. The
Directors of the D- Staff shall be rated by TCDS and with TDCO as
reviewer. Figure 2 shows the rater/reviewer designation
RATER REVIEWER
TCDS TDCO
D-STAFF TCDS
DEP D-STAFF
EX-O DEP
DIVISION EX-O
CHIEFS
*PC
Os in
the
*See paragraph no. 3.3 of this
Chapter.
Divis
Figure 2. Rater/Reviewer Designation in the D-Staff
ion
3.2.2 Regional Offices/Units
PCOs in the Police Stations shall be rated by their respective Deputy Chief
of Police with their Chief of Police as reviewer. The Deputy Chief of Police shall
be rated by their Chief of Police with their Deputy Provincial Director/City Director
as reviewer. The Chiefs of Police and PCOs in the Provincial HQs /City Police
Office/RMG shall be rated by their Deputy Provincial/City/RMG Director with their
Provincial/City/RMG Director as reviewer. The Deputy Provincial/City/RMG
Director shall be rated by their Provincial/City/RMG Director with their
CRDS as reviewer. The Provincial/City/RMG Director and the Regional Staff
shall be rated by their CRDS with their DRDO as reviewer. All other PCOs in the
Regional Headquarters shall be rated by their respective Regional Staff Officer
with their CRDS as reviewer. CRDS shall be rated by the DRDO with the DRDA
as reviewer. DRDO shall be rated by the DRDA with the RD as reviewer. DRDA
shall be rated by the RD with TCDS as reviewer. The RD shall be rated by
TCDS with TDCO as reviewer.
RATER REVIEWER
TCDS TDCO
RD TCDS
DRDA RD
DRDO DRDA
CRDS D RD
PD RCDS
R-STAFF
RHQ DEP PD PD
*PCOs
COP DEP PD
PPO -STAFF
Dep COP COP
PPO HQ
*PCOs
PS
*PCOs
*See paragraph no. 3.3 of this Chapter .
Figure 3. Rater/reviewer Designation in the Regional Offices/Units
3.2.3 National Support Units

3.2.3.1 At the NSUs, the line PCOs shall be rated by their Provincial
Officer (PO) with their Regional Officer (RO) as reviewer. The POs shall be
rated by their RO with their Chief of Staff as reviewer. The ROs shall be
rated by their Chief of Staff with their Deputy Director as reviewer. *The
PCOs at the NSUHQ shall be rated by their respective Unit Staff with their
Deputy Director/Chief of Staff as reviewer. The NSU Staff shall be rated by
the Deputy Director/Chief of Staff with their Director as reviewer. The Chief of
Staff shall be rated by the Deputy Director with the Director as reviewer. The
Deputy Director shall be rated by the Director with the concerned D-Staff
Supervisor (depending on one’s functional group) as the reviewer. The NSU
Director shall be rated by the concerned D-Staff Supervisor with TCDS as
reviewer.
Rater Reviewer
D-Staff
Supervisor TCDS
NSU D-Staff
DIRECTOR Supervisor
DEP DIRECTOR
CDS DEP
RO
CDS
NSU STAFF
NSUHQ PO RO
Officers
*Line PCOs
Figure 4. Rater/Reviewer Designation in the NSUs

3.3 Resolution of Conflict in the Designation of the Rater
and Reviewer
In case conflict arises in the designation of the rater and reviewer, the PNP
Chain of Command shall at all times be observed. Thus, the hierarchical structure
of the Office/Unit shall be the deciding factor in the resolution of conflict. In this
case, the rater shall be the immediate supervisor or PCO who has the immediate
supervision over his subordinate or ratee in the hierarchical structure of the Office
or Unit. The reviewer, on the other hand, shall be the next higher supervisor of the
ratee.
CHAPTER 4
OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PCOPER REPORT

AND
PROPAGATION AND APPLICATION OF THE PCOPER
SYSTEM
4.1 Performance Evaluation Section (PES)
4.1.1 The PES shall be responsible in receiving, maintaining and updating the
records of the PCOs on their performance evaluation rating. It shall receive and
check the diskette containing the rating summary sheets and the original hardcopy
of the same, bearing the signatures of the rater, ratee and reviewer of the PCOs
in the different Offices/Units. In case of discrepancy between the hardcopy and the
diskette, the hardcopy shall prevail.
4.1.2 The PES shall also initiate in providing copies of the PCOPER Report,
particularly those who are due for promotion, assignment/designation and attrition
from the service, to the Placement and Promotion Board and Attrition Board.
4.2 Propagation and Application of the PCOPER

System.
All PCOs shall fully abide by and willfully promote adherence to the PCOPER
System as this shall be used in a highly objective assessment of individual
performance that contributes to the attainment of PNP Mission and Vision. The
PCOPER shall be a basis in the assignment or reassignment, promotion or attrition,
and training or skills enhancement of personnel.
CHAPTER 5
CREATION OF GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES
5.1 Grievance Committees

5.1.1. There shall be four (4) Grievance Committees, such as: 1.) National
Grievance Committee; 2.) NCR Grievance Committee; 3.) Regional Grievance
Committee; and, 4.) Provincial Grievance Committee. The Grievance Committees
shall review, evaluate and render a final decision on the appeal filed by the ratee
within thirty (30) days from receipt of the appeal. In no case, the rater and reviewer
be designated as members of the Grievance Committees. The decision of the
Committees shall be final and executory.
5.1.2. The composition of each Committee shall be the following:
a. National Grievance Committees (NGC) – shall be composed of

five (5) different levels to act on the appeals of the PCOs in the different
Offices/Units in the National Headquarters, such as:
1. National Grievance Committee A (NGC A) - shall be

composed of TDCA and Directors of the D-Staff to act on the
appeals of other Directors of D-Staff/NSUs and PRO
Command Group.
2. National Grievance Committee B (NGC B) - shall be

composed of TDCO and Deputies of the D-Staff to act on the
appeals of other Deputies of the D-Staff/NSUs.
3. National Grievance Committee C (NGC C) – shall be

composed of TCDS, SDS and EX-Os of the D-Staff to act on the
appeals of the EX-Os of other D-Staff/NSUs.
4. National Grievance Committee D (NGC D) – shall be

composed of the Director of the D-Staff or NSU (depending on who
files the appeal) and SDS to act on the appeals of the Division
Chiefs of the D-Staff or NSUs.
5. National Grievance Committee E (NGC E) – shall be

composed of the Deputy Director of the D-Staff or NSUs (depending
on who files the appeal) to act on the appeals of other PCOs in the
D-Staff or NSUs.
b. NCR Grievance Committees ( NCRGC) - shall have two (2)
levels, such as:
1. NCR Grievance Committee A (NCRGC A) - shall be
composed of RD, DRDA and members of the D-Staff of NCRPO
to act the appeals of the Command Group in the District Offices.
2. NCR Grievance Committee B (NCRGC B)- shall be
composed of the NCRPO CRDS, members of the Regional Staff,
District Director to act on the appeals of the line and staff PCOs in
the NCRPO.
.
c. Regional Grievance Committees (RGC) – shall have two levels,
such as:
1. Regional Grievance Committee A (RGC A) – shall be
composed of RD and DRDA to act on the appeals of the PRO
staff.
2. Regional Grievance Committee B (RGC B) –shall be
composed of DRDA and three (3) Regional Staff to act on the
appeals of Director, PPO, CPO and RMG and other line PCOs in
the PRO. DRDO and the same three (3) Regional Staff above
shall act on the appeals of Deputy PD/CPO/RMG and PCOs
Staff in the PPO, CPO and RMG.
3. Regional Grievance Committee C (RGC C) – shall be
composed of Chief Regional Directorial Staff and three PRO staff to
act on the appeals of the COP, Precinct/City Commander/Director.
DRDO and same (3) PRO staff shall act on the appeals PCOs in
the PPO, CPO and RMG excluding PPO, CPO and RMG staff.
d. Provincial Grievance Committees (PGC) - shall have two levels,

such as:
1. Provincial Grievance Committee A (PGC A) – shall be
composed of the Provincial Director and the two other staff. It
shall act on the appeals of the Deputy COP, Deputy Precinct/City
Commander/Director. The same shall apply to PMG.
2. Provincial Grievance Committee B (PGC B) - shall be
composed of the Deputy Provincial Director and two Provincial
Staff. It shall act on the appeals of PCOs lower than the Deputy
COP, Deputy Precinct/City Commander/Director. The same shall
apply to PMG.
CHAPTER 6
ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS
6.1 Administrative Sanctions
6.1.1 Failure of the rater, ratee, reviewer and Admin PCO to accomplish, sign
and transmit the PCOPER within the period required from each one of them
resulting in its non-submission to PES, PPD, ODPRM within twenty (20) workings
days after the rating period is a ground for an administrative case for simple neglect
of duty, and if found guilty, shall be a cause for :
a. relief from his present position;
b. disqualification for training or scholarship grants;
c. forfeiture of productivity incentive bonus for one year; and
d. other penalties as provided for under PNP Manual on Summary

Proceedings.
6.1.2 Procedure for filing of complaints and imposing administrative
sanctions shall be in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the
PNP and NAPOLCOM.
ANNEXES
Annex “A”
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THE POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING FORMS (PCOPERF) 3A & 3B
FOR SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT UP (THIRD LEVEL)
This Police Officer Performance Evaluation Rating form has three (3) major
parts, namely: Part I. Output; Part II. Core Competencies; and Part III.
Personal Qualities. Parts I and II are divided into dimensions and indicators. Part III
is a checklist of PCO’s personal qualities.
Using the PCOPERF 3A or the rating summary form as guide, read carefully
the dimensions and their respective indicators. For Parts I and II, rate the PCO by
placing in the box/blank space provided in the PCOPERF 3B or worksheet the
numerical rating for every performance indicator. On the space provided, please cite
the significant/critical incident/s to support extreme rating (highest or lowest) on a
specific performance indicator. For Part III, check in the box the trait(s) exhibited by
the PCO.
All ratings should be reflected/recorded in the PCOPERF 3A. Other items in

this form should be properly accomplished/filled out . After rating the PCO in the
PCOPERF 3B, please multiply the point allocation by the numerical rating for every
performance indicator to get the weighted score. To get the numerical performance
rating (NPR), add the weighted scores to get the total weighted score (TWS) and
divide the sum by 5.
To translate the numerical performance rating (NPR) to its equivalent

adjectival performance rating (APR), please be guided of the conversion table below
.
Conversion Table for Numerical Performance Rating (NPR)
to Adjectival Performance Rating (APR)
NPR APR
91 - 100 Outstanding (OS) – Achieved exceptional performance clearly higher than
competent peers. Exceeded all or most objectives and added value beyond
the scope of the normal job.
81 – 90.99 Very Satisfactory (VS) – Achieved completely all aspects of most objectives
of the normal job and even exceeded in some areas. Consistently
demonstrated competency.
71 – 80.99 Satisfactory(SF) – Achieved the essential requirements and attained
minimum expectations. Usually demonstrated competency.
70.99 - below Poor (PR) – Fell short of expectations and still needs improvement.
PCOPERF 3A (Rating Summary)
Form)
POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
FOR SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT UP (THIRD LEVEL)
Rating Period: ________________________________
1. Ratee’s Name 2. Rank
(Last Name) (Given Name) (Middle Name)

3. Position/Designation 4. Unit Assignment/Station/District
5. Years and Months in Current Position:
Point Numerical
PARTS DIMENSIONS PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Weighted Score
Allocation Rating
a. Quality of work 9.0 x =
Output 9.0 x =
I. b. Timeliness of work
(25 pts)
c. Quantity of work 7.0 x =
a. Decision-making 4.0 x =
b. Planning 3.0 x =
II.
c. Implementation of Instructions 3.0 x =
d. Creativity/Resourcefulness 2.0 x =
C Job Knowledge 3.0 x =
e. Analytical Ability
O (25 pts)
f. Problem Solving/Troubleshooting 3.0 x =
R g. Oral and Written Communication 3.0 x =
E h. Community Oriented Policing 2.0 x =
i. Law Enforcement and Maintenance of Law and Order 2.0 x =
a. Control of Activities 4.0 x =
C
b. Cost Control 3.0 x =
O
c. Records Mgmt and Submission of Reports 3.0 x =
M Supervisory Control
d. Compliance with and Implementation of Policies/SOPs 3.0 x =
(20 pts)
P e. Sense of Priority 3.0 x =
E f. Client Satisfaction/Orientation 2.0 x =
T g. Involvement/Presence in Activities 2.0 x =

a. Motivation 2.0 x =
E
b. Workgroup Management 2.0 x =
N People Management c. Work Organization/Delegation 2.0 x =
C (10 pts) d. Interpersonal Relations 2.0 x =
I e. Promoting Personnel Development 1.0 x =
E f. Training of Subordinates 1.0

Organizational a. Housekeeping and Safety/Security Consciousness 3.0 x =
S
Responsiveness b. Preservation of Unit Properties/Interests 3.0 x =
(10 pts) c. Coordination 4.0 x =
Personal Trait  Personal Trait 
Morally Upright Fair & Just
Honest Civic-minded
Personal Qualities 10.0 x =
III. Loyal to the Organization Well-groomed
(10 pts)
Initiates Positive
Responsible
Action(s)
Dedicated to Service Courteous/Tactful
Nr of Traits with Check Marks
TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE (TWS)
NUMERICAL PERFORMANCE RATING (NPR) = TWS ÷ 5
EQUIVALENT ADJECTIVAL PERFORMANCE RATING (APR) (Please refer to NPR-APR Table)
Rater’s Assessment of Ratee: I certify that this report represents my best judgment. [ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion
(b) designation to higher position (c) relief.
This personnel needs improvement on the following:
Significant/Critical Incident(s)
Acknowledged: Conformed: Attested:
RATER RATEE REVIEWER
(IF REFERRED TO THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE)
I certify that this report was referred to the Grievance Committee for review and evaluation.
______________________________
Signature
Head, Grievance Committee
Rating Table for Performance Indicators Rating Table for Personal
Traits
Numerical Rating Rating Criteria Numerical Number of Traits
5 Exceeds standards Rating
4 Always meets standards 5 Nine (9) to Ten (10)
3 Occasionally meets standards 4 Seven (7) to Eight (8)
2 Seldom meets standards 3 Five (5) to Six (6)
1 Never meets standards 2 Three (3) to Four (4)
1 Two (2) or less
(NOTE: Refer to This Table for Parts I and II)

(NOTE: Refer to This Table for
Part III)
NPR-APR Table
Numerical Adjectival
Performance Rating Performance Rating
(NPR) (APR)
91 – 100 Outstanding (OS)
81 – 90.99 Very Satisfactory (VS)
71 – 80.99 Satisfactory (SF)
70.99 - below Poor (PR)
(NOTE: Refer to This Table to get the Equivalent APR)
(Extra Space for Significant/Critical Incidents)

PCOPERF 3B (WORKSHEET)
Part I . OUTPUT – (25 pts)
a. QUALITY OF WORK 9.0
RATING CRITERIA NUMERICAL RATING

- Always exceptionally accurate, work is neat and complete in all 5
details, no errors committed
- Almost always exceptionally accurate, work is neat and complete in 4
all details, errors are minimal
- Occasionally accurate, work is neat and commits errors 3
- Seldom accurate, work is neat and commits errors 2
- Never accurate and frequently commits errors 1
SIGNIFICANT/CRITICAL INCIDENT/S:
b. TIMELINESS OF WORK 9.0

- Always ahead of the schedule/ deadline 5
- Almost always ahead of the schedule 4
- Occasionally meets the schedule 3
- Seldom meets the schedule 2
- Never meets the schedule 1
c. QUANTITY OF WORK 7.0

- Always exceeds the expected output within the desired time frame 5
- Almost always exceeds the expected output within the desired time 4
frame
- Occasionally meets the expected output within the desired time 3
frame
- Seldom meets the expected output 2
- Never meets the expected output 1
*Significant (highest rating)/critical incidents (lowest rating) are situations or incidents that
the ratee manifested during the rating period that have bearing in the performance of
his/her duties.
PART II. CORE COMPETENCIES – (65 pts)
This refers to the core competencies which are basic and essential in order to deliver
effectively. On the space provided, please cite critical incidents to support extreme rating of each
competence.
1. JOB KNOWLEDGE - 25 %
(This dimension measures the PCO’s broad understanding of the job, techniques,
principles, technical disciplines, procedures, other professional skills and application to
relevant fields of work that contribute significantly to the attainment of the unit’s goals).
a. DECISION-MAKING 4.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations, arrives at sound decisions even 5
on important and complex matters
- Always meets standards/expectations, arrives at sound 4
decisions even on important and complex matters
- Occasionally arrives at sound decisions generally expected of the 3
job
- Seldom makes sound decisions on important and complex matter 2
- Never makes decisions at all 1
b. PLANNING 3.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations, prepares appropriate actions 5
beyond normal expectations
- Always meets standards/expectations, prepares appropriate 4
actions beyond normal expectations
- Occasionally prepares appropriate action plans as required 3
- Seldom prepares appropriate action plans 2
- Never prepares action plans 1
c. IMPLEMENTATION OF INSTRUCTIONS 3.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations, performs an assigned task with 5
less general instructions
- Always meets standards/expectations, performs an assigned task 4
with less general instruction
- Occasionally performs an assigned task with less general 3
instruction
- Seldom performs an assigned task given detailed instruction 2
- Never performs an assigned task even when detailed instructions 1
are given
d. CREATIVITY/RESOURCEFULLNESS 2.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations, recommends new ideas, 5
methods or improvisation to make the work better even when not
required
- Always meets standards, recommends new ideas and methods or 4
improvisation to make the work better even when not required
- Occasionally recommends new ideas, methods or improvisation to 3
make the work better when required
- Seldom recommends new ideas, methods or improvisation to 2
- Never recommends new ideas, methods or improvisation to make 1
work better
e. ANALYTICAL ABILITY 3.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations, able to identify problem and 5
causes by seeking out pertinent data and taking all relevant
considerations into account.
- Always meets standards/expectations, able to identify problem 4
and causes by seeking out pertinent data and taking all relevant
considerations into account
- Occasionally able to identify problem and its causes 3
- Seldom able to identify problem and its causes 2
- Never able to identify problem and its causes 1
f. PROBLEM SOLVING/TROUBLESHOOTING 3.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations, readily implements the best 5
standards solutions to problems encountered on the job using
available facts
- Always meets standards/expectations, implements the best 4
standard solutions to problems encountered in the job using
available facts
- Occasionally implements acceptable standards solutions to 3
problems encountered on the job using available facts
- Seldom implements acceptable standard solutions to problems 2
encountered on the job
- Never implements acceptable solutions to problems 1
g. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 3.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations, sends and receives accurate, 5
brief and clear ideas thoughts, etc in both oral and written form
- Always meets standards/expectations, sends and receives 4
accurate, brief and clear ideas thoughts, etc in both oral and
written forms
- Occasionally sends and receives accurate, brief and clear ideas, 3
thoughts etc. with a minimum of gestures, bodily movement,
audio visual aids, etc.
- Seldom sends and receives accurate, brief and clear ideas, 2.
thought, etc. in both oral and written form
- Never sends and receives accurate, brief and clear ideas… 1
h. COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING 2.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations, involves the community in 5
determining Neighborhood Policing Strategies and tactics which
impact on their lives and jointly working with them to solve
neighborhood problems
- Always meets standards/expectations, involves the community in 4
determining Neighborhood Policing Strategies and Tactics which
impact on their lives and jointly working with them to solve
neighborhood problems.
- Occasionally involves the community in determining Neighborhood 3
Policing Strategies and Tactics which impact on their lives and
jointly working with them to solve neighborhood problems
- Seldom involves the community in determining 2

Neighborhood Policing Strategies and Tactics which impact on
their lives and jointly working with them to solve neighborhood
problems
- Never involves the community in determining Neighborhood 1
Policing Strategies and Tactics which impact on their lives
i. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER 2.0

- Exceeds standards, able to contribute to effective law 5
enforcement and maintenance of law and order beyond
expectations
- Always meets standards/expectations, able to contribute to 4
effective law enforcement and maintenance of law and order
- Occasionally able to contribute to effective law enforcement and 3
maintenance of law and order
- Seldom able to contribute to effective law enforcement and 2
- Never able to contribute to effective law enforcement and 1
2. SUPERVISORY CONTROL – (20 pts)

(This dimension measures the PCO’s awareness of control procedures in doing the
job).
a. CONTROL OF ACTIVITIES 4.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in closely monitoring activities 5
of subordinates in the AOR
- Always closely monitors activities subordinates in the AOR 4
- Occasionally monitors activities of subordinates in the AOR 3
when required
- Seldom monitors the activities of subordinates in the AOR 2
- Never monitors the activities of subordinates in the AOR 1
b. COST CONTROL 3.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in reducing the expenses on 5
supplies and materials used in operations without sacrificing
efficiency.
- Always reduces the expenses on supplies and materials used in 4
operations without sacrificing efficiency
- Occasionally reduces expenses on supplies and materials used 3
in operations
- Seldom reduces expenses on supplies and materials used in 2
operations
- Never reduces expenses on supplies and materials used in 1
operations
c. RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND SUBMISSION OF REPORTS 3.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in keeping orderly and up-to- 5
date records and/or submits ahead of time, accurate, reliable,
complete and neat reports.
- Always keeps orderly and up-to-date records and/or submits 4
ahead of time, accurate, reliable, complete and neat reports
- Occasionally keeps orderly and up-to-date records and/or 3
submits on time, accurate, reliable, complete and neat reports
- Seldom keeps orderly and up-to-date records and/or submitting 2
accurate, reliable, complete and neat reports
- Never maintains records and/or submits accurate, reliable, 1
d. COMPLIANCE WITH AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES/SOPs 3.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in compliance with and 5
implementation of policies and/or SOPs and takes extra
step(s) in the dissemination of policies/SOPs
- Always complies with and implements policies and SOPs; no 4
policy/SOP is violated
- Occasionally complies and commits minor violations of 3
policies and/or SOPs
- Seldom complies and commits minor violations of 2
policies and/or SOPs
- Never complies nor implements policies and/or SOPs; 1
receives penalties (reprimand, suspension, salary deductions,
etc.) for violations of policies and/or SOPs
e. SENSE OF PRIORITY 3.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in prioritizing various tasks 5
and accomplishes these within a given time frame
- Always able to prioritize various tasks and always 4
accomplishes these within a given time frame
- Occasionally able to prioritize various tasks and occasionally 3
- Seldom able to prioritize various tasks and seldom 2
- Never able to prioritize various tasks and never accomplishes 1
these within a given time frame
f. CLIENT SATISFACTION/ORIENTATION 2.0

(Note: This includes the timely resolution of subordinate’s concerns.)

- Exceeds expectations in identifying and satisfying the 5
requirements of clientele (internal and external) beyond the
set standards
- Always able to identify and satisfy the requirements of 4
clientele (internal and external) based on the set standards
- Occasionally able to identify and satisfy the requirements of 3
clientele (internal and external) based on the set standards.
- Seldom able to identify and satisfy the requirements of 2
- Never able to identify and satisfy the requirements of clientele 1
(internal and external) based on the set standards.
g. INVOLVEMENT/PRESENCE IN ACTIVITIES 2.0

The PCO should be given a perfect score of 2.0 for the rating period if his
attendance during the period is perfect, and deduction of (0.1) point for each of absence.
Approved leaves, authorized travel and official meetings outside of office premises shall not be
considered an absence.
RATING CRITERIA NUMIERCIAL RATING

- Exceeds the standards in his/her involvement/presence in 5
unit/office activities
- Always involved/present in unit/office activities 4
- Occasionally involved/present in unit/office activities 3
- Seldom involved/present in unit/office activities 2
- Never involved/present in unit/office activities 1
3. PEOPLE MANAGEMENT - (10 pts)
(This dimension measures the manner by which a PCO accomplished his work
through other people).
a. MOTIVATION 2.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in encouraging and inspiring 5
subordinates to give their best in their job.
- Always encourages and inspires subordinates to give their 4
best in their job.
- Occasionally encourages and inspires subordinates to give 3
their best in their job as required.
- Seldom encourages and inspires subordinates to give their 2
best in their job.
- Never inspires and encourages subordinates. 1
b. WORKGROUP MANAGEMENT 2.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in maintaining a high degree 5
of teamwork among subordinates
- Always maintains a high degree of teamwork 4
among subordinates
- Occasionally maintains teamwork among subordinates 3
as expected
- Seldom maintains teamwork among subordinates 2
- Never maintains teamwork among subordinates 1
c. WORK ORGANIZATION/DELEGATION 2.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in assigning or delegating 5
major portion of his work to subordinates who can do the job
well
- Always assigns or delegates major portion of his work to 4
subordinates who can do the job well
- Occasionally assigns or delegates major portion of his work to 3
- Seldom assigns or delegates major portion of his work 2

to subordinates
- Never assigns or delegates work to subordinates 1
d. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS 2.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in maintaining a highly 5
harmonious or friendly relations with superiors, peers and
subordinates
- Always maintains a harmonious or friendly relations with 4
superiors, peers and subordinates
- Occasionally maintains harmonious or friendly relations with 3
superiors, subordinates and peers.
- Seldom maintains harmonious or friendly relations with 2
- Never maintains harmonious or friendly relations with 1
e. PROMOTING PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT 1.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in seeking activities 5
appropriate for personnel development as in job rotation
assignments, mentoring/coaching, participation in
committees/tasks forces, etc.
- Always seeks for activities appropriate for personnel 4
development as in job rotation assignments,
mentoring/coaching, participation in committees/tasks forces,
etc.
- Occasionally seeks for activities appropriate for personnel 3
etc.
- Seldom seeks for activities appropriate for personnel 2
etc.
- Never seeks for activities appropriate for personnel 1
development
f. TRAINING OF SUBORDINATES 1.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in providing 5
subordinates training required for the job and for career
advancement and development
- Always provides subordinates training beyond what is 4
required for the job
- Occasionally provides subordinates training for them 3
to be able to do the job
- Seldom provides subordinates training required for the job 2
- Never provides subordinates training required for the job 1
4. ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIVENESS - (10 pts)

(This dimension measures the extent by which a PCO relates his personal goals with
that of the units’ objectives)
a. HOUSEKEEPING AND SAFETY/SECURITY CONSCIOUSNESS 3.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in observing and 5
implementing safety/security measures within work AOR
- Always observes and implements safety/security measures 4
within work AOR
- Occasionally observes and implements safety/security 3
measures within work AOR
- Seldom observes and implements safety/security 2
- Never follows safety/security measures 1
b. PRESERVATION OF UNIT PROPERTIES/INTERESTS 3.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in safeguarding and 5
preserving unit properties/interests
- Always safeguards, protects and preserves assigned/issued 4
unit properties/interests
- Occasionally safeguards, protects and preserves unit 3
properties/interests
- Seldom safeguards and preserves unit properties/interests 2
- Never safeguards and preserves unit properties/interests 1
c. COORDINATION 4.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in coordinating with other 5
units/agencies to promote the interest and welfare of all
concerned parties/offices
- Always coordinates with other units/agencies to promote the 4
interest and welfare of all concerned parties/offices
- Occasionally coordinates with other units/agencies to promote 3
the interest and welfare of all concerned parties/offices
- Seldom coordinates with other units/agencies to promote 2
- Never coordinates with other units/agencies to promote the 1
PART III. PERSONAL QUALITIES - 10%

(This refers to PCO’s personal characteristics or traits which enhance his performance)
INSTRUCTIONS: Listed below are traits that a PCO is expected to possess. If during the evaluation
period a PCO exhibited any of the traits listed below, place a check mark corresponding to the trait
exhibited. Rate the PCO according to the rating scale found at the bottom part of this page. If
he/she exhibited good/desirable traits not included in the list, write them inside the box provided
(Note: avoid listing down synonym traits –i.e. courteous – polite, etc.)
Personal Traits Check Mark

1. Morally Upright
2. Honest
3. Loyal
4. Initiates Positive Action(s)
5. Dedicated to Service
6. Fair and Just
7. Civic-minded
8. Well-groomed
9. Responsible
10. Courteous
RATING CRITERIA:
Numerical Rating Number of Traits

5 9-10
4 7-8
3 5-6
2 3-4
1 2 or less
ASSESSMENT OF RATEE
I certify that this report represents my best judgment.
[ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion

This personnel needs improvement on the

following:____________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/COMMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGED:
SIGNATURE: ___________________________________________________________
RANK/NAME: ___________________________________________________________
(LAST) (FIRST)
(MIDDLE)
DESIGNATION: _________________________________________________________
DATE ACCOMPLISHED: __________________________________________________
COMMENTS:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
CONFORMED:
SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________________
RANK/NAME: ___________________________________________________________
(LAST) (FIRST)
(MIDDLE)
DESIGNATION: _________________________________________________________
COMMENTS:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
ATTESTED:
SIGNATURE: ___________________________________________________________
NAME: ________________________________________________________________
(LAST) (FIRST)
(MIDDLE)
DESIGNATION: _________________________________________________________
COMMENTS:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Annex “B”

FOR CHIEF INSPECTOR TO SUPERINTENDENT (SECOND LEVEL)
parts, namely: Part I –Output; Part II - Core Competencies; and Part III - Personal
Qualities. Parts I and II are divided into dimensions and indicators. Part III is a
checklist of PCO’s personal qualities.
numerical rating for every performance indicator. On the space provided, please cite
the significant/critical incident/s to support extreme rating (highest or lowest) on a
specific performance indicator. For Part III, check in the box the trait(s) exhibited by
the PCO.


adjectival performance rating (APR), please be guided of the conversion table below.
Conversion Table for Numerical Performance Rating (NPR) to Adjectival

Performance Rating (APR)
NPR APR
91 – 100 Outstanding (OS) – Achieved exceptional performance clearly higher than competent
peers. Exceeded all or most objectives and added value beyond the scope of the
normal job.
81 – 90.99 Very Satisfactory (VS) – Achieved completely all aspects of most objectives of the
normal job and even exceeded in some areas. Consistently demonstrated competency.
71 – 80.99 Satisfactory(SF) – Achieved the essential requirements and attained minimum

70.99 - below Poor (PR) – Fell short of expectations and still needs improvement. Demonstrated little
competency and needs skills/capability upgrading.
PCOPERF 2A (Rating Summary Form)

FOR CHIEF INSPECTOR TO SUPERINTENDENT (SECOND LEVEL)
Rating Period: ________________________________

Point Numerical Weighted

PARTS DIMENSIONS PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Allocation Rating Score
d. Quality of work 7.0 x =
Output 7.0 x =
I. e. Timeliness of work
(20 pts)
f. Quantity of work 6.0 x =
j. Decision-making 3.0 x =
k. Planning 3.0 x =
II.
l. Implementation of Instructions 3.0 x =
m. Creativity/Resourcefulness 2.0 x =
C Job Knowledge =
n. Analytical Ability 3.0 x
O (25 pts)
o. Problem Solving/Troubleshooting 3.0 x =
R p. Oral and Written Communication 3.0 x =
E q. Community Oriented Policing 3.0 x =
r. Law Enforcement and Maintenance of Law and Order 2.0 x =
d. Control of Activities 4.0 x =
C
e. Cost Control 3.0 x =
O
f. Records Mgmt and Submission of Reports 4.0 x =
(25 pts)
P h. Sense of Priority 4.0 x =
E i. Client Satisfaction/Orientation 3.0 x =
T j. Involvement/Presence in Activities 3.0 x =

d. Motivation 2.0 x =
E
e. Workgroup Management 2.0 x =
N f. Work Organization/Delegation 2.0 x =
People Management
E g. Training of Subordinates 1.0

S
Responsiveness d. Preservation of Unit Properties/Interests 3.0 x =
(10 pts) e. Coordination 4.0 x =
Honest Civic-minded
III.
(10 pts) Loyal to the Organization Well-groomed
Initiates Positive Action(s) Responsible
Rater’s Assessment of Ratee: I certify that this report represents my best judgment . [ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion
______________________________
Signature
Rating Table for Performance Indicators Rating Table for Personal
Traits
1 Two (2) or less

(NOTE: Refer to This Table for Part
III)
NPR-APR Table
(NPR) (APR)


- Exceeds standards/expected quality of work, work is neat and 5
complete in all details, no errors committed
- Always meets the standards/expected quality of work, work is 4
neat and complete in all details, errors are minimal
- Occasionally meets the standards/expected quality of work 3
- Seldom meets the standards/expected quality of work 2
- Never meets the standards/expected quality of work and 1
frequently commits errors
*SIGNIFICANT/CRITICAL INCIDENT/S:

- Exceeds standards/expectations, submits output ahead of the 5
schedule/ deadline
- Always meets standards/expectations, submits output on 4
schedule/deadline
- Occasionally meets the schedule/deadline 3
- Seldom meets the schedule/deadline 2
- Never meets the schedule/deadline 1

- Exceeds the expected output within the desired time frame 5
- Always meets the expected output within the desired time frame 4
frame
his/her duties.
(This refers to the core competencies which are basic and essential in order to deliver
competence).
1. JOB KNOWLEDGE - 25 pts


- Exceeds standards/expectations, arrives at sound decisions 5
even on important and complex matters
- Occasionally arrives at sound decisions generally expected of 3
the job
- Seldom makes sound decisions on important and complex 2
matter
b. PLANNING 3.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations, performs an assigned task 5
with less general instructions
- Always meets standards/expectations, performs an assigned 4
task with less general instruction
instruction
- Never performs an assigned task even when detailed 1
instructions are given
d. CREATIVITY/RESOURCEFULLNESS 2.0

methods or improvisation to make the work better even when
not required
- Always meets standards, recommends new ideas and methods 4
or improvisation to make the work better even when not
required
- Occasionally recommends new ideas, methods or improvisation 3
to make the work better when required
- Never recommends new ideas, methods or improvisation to 1
make work better


available facts
available facts

written forms
- Occasionally sends and receives accurate, brief and clear 3
ideas, thoughts etc. with a minimum of gestures, bodily
movement, audio visual aids, etc.

determining Neighborhood Policing Strategies and tactics
which impact on their lives and jointly working with them to
solve neighborhood problems
- Always meets standards/expectations, involves the community 4
in determining Neighborhood Policing Strategies and Tactics
solve neighborhood problems.
- Occasionally involves the community in determining 3
problems
Neighborhood Policing Strategies and Tactics which impact
on their lives and jointly working with them to solve

expectations
- Occasionally able to contribute to effective law enforcement 3
and maintenance of law and order
job).

when required
b. COST CONTROL 3.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in reducing the expenses 5
on supplies and materials used in operations without
sacrificing efficiency.
- Always reduces the expenses on supplies and materials used 4
in operations without sacrificing efficiency
- Occasionally reduces expenses on supplies and materials 3
used in operations
operations
operations


implementation of policies and/or SOPs and takes extra step(s)
in the dissemination of policies/SOPs
- Occasionally complies and commits minor violations of policies 3
and/or SOPs
- Seldom complies and commits minor violations of policies 2
and/or SOPs

- Always able to prioritize various tasks and always accomplishes 4


requirements of clientele (internal and external) beyond the set
standards
- Always able to identify and satisfy the requirements of clientele 4
(internal and external) based on the set standards
- Seldom able to identify and satisfy the requirements of clientele 2

Approved leaves, authorized travel and official meetings outside of office premises shall not
be considered an absence.

- Exceeds the standards in his involvement/presence in 5

(This dimension measures the manner by which a PCO accomplished his work
e. MOTIVATION 2.0

- Always encourages and inspires subordinates to give their best 4
in their job.
best in their job.
f. WORKGROUP MANAGEMENT 2.0

among subordinates
as expected
g. WORK ORGANIZATION/DELEGATION 2.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in assigning or delegating major 5
portion of his work to subordinates who can do the job well
to subordinates
h. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS 2.0

subordinates

- Exceeds standards/expectations in seeking activities
assignments, mentoring/coaching, participation in 5
- Always seeks for activities appropriate for personnel
mentoring/coaching, participation in committees/tasks forces, 4
etc.
- Occasionally seeks for activities appropriate for personnel
etc.
- Seldom seeks for activities appropriate for personnel
etc.
- Never seeks for activities appropriate for personnel
development 1

- Exceeds standards/expectations in providing subordinates 5
training required for the job and for career advancement and
development
- Always provides subordinates training beyond what is required 4
for the job
- Occasionally provides subordinates training for them to 3
be able to do the job


within work AOR

c. COORDINATION 4.0

- Seldom coordinates with other units/agencies to promote the 2
PART III. PERSONAL QUALITIES - (10 pts)

1. Morally Upright
2. Honest
3. Loyal
6. Fair and Just
7. Civic-minded
8. Well-groomed
9. Responsible
10. Courteous
RATING CRITERIA:

5 9-10
4 7-8
3 5-6
2 3-4
1 2 or less
ASSESSMENT OF RATEE
[ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion (b)

designation to higher position (c) relief.
This personnel needs improvement on the following: ______________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
ACKNOWLEDGED:
SIGNATURE: ___________________________________________________________
RANK/NAME: ___________________________________________________________
(LAST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE)
DESIGNATION: _________________________________________________________
COMMENTS:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
CONFORMED:
SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________________
RANK/NAME: ____________________________________________________________
(LAST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE)
DESIGNATION: __________________________________________________________

COMMENTS:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
ATTESTED:
SIGNATURE: ___________________________________________________________
NAME: ________________________________________________________________
( LAST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE)
DESIGNATION: _________________________________________________________
COMMENTS:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Annex “C”

FOR INSPECTOR TO SENIOR INSPECTOR (FIRST LEVEL)
parts, namely: Part I –Output; Part II - Core Competencies; and Part III - Personal
Qualities. Parts I and II are divided into dimensions and indicators. Part III is a
checklist of PCO’s personal qualities.
numerical rating for every performance indicator . On the space provided, please cite
the significant/critical incident/s to support extreme rating on a specific performance
indicator. For Part III, check in the box the trait(s) exhibited by the PCO.


adjectival performance rating (APR), please be guided of the conversion table below
.
Conversion Table for Numerical Performance Rating (NPR)

to Adjectival Performance Rating (APR)
NPR APR
91 - 100 Outstanding (OS) – Achieved exceptional performance clearly higher than
competent peers. Exceeded all or most objectives and added value beyond the
scope of the normal job.
81 – 90.99 Very Satisfactory (VS) – Achieved completely all aspects of most objectives of
the normal job and even exceeded in some areas. Consistently demonstrated
competency.
71 – 80.99 Satisfactory(SF) – Achieved the essential requirements and attained minimum
70.99 - below Poor (PR) – Fell short of expectations and still needs improvement.
PCOPERF 1A (Rating Summary Form)

FOR INSPECTOR TO SENIOR INSPECTOR (FIRST LEVEL)
Rating Period: ________________________________

Point Numerical Weighted

PARTS DIMENSIONS PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Allocation Rating Score
g. Quality of work 5.0 x =
Output 5.0 x =
I. h. Timeliness of work
(15 pts)
i. Quantity of work 5.0 x =
s. Decision-making 2.0 x =
t. Planning 2.0 x =
II.
u. Implementation of Instructions 2.0 x =
v. Creativity/Resourcefulness 1.0 x =
C Job Knowledge 1.0 x =
w. Analytical Ability
O (15 pts)
x. Problem Solving/Troubleshooting 1.0 x =
R y. Oral and Written Communication 1.0 x =
E z. Community Oriented Policing 3.0 x =
aa. Law Enforcement and Maintenance of Law and Order 2.0 x =
g. Control of Activities 4.0 x =
C
h. Cost Control 3.0 x =
O
i. Records Mgmt and Submission of Reports 4.0 x =
(25 pts)
P k. Sense of Priority 4.0 x =
E l. Client Satisfaction/Orientation 3.0 x =
T m. Involvement/Presence in Activities 3.0 x =

g. Motivation 5.0 x =
E
h. Workgroup Management 4.0 x =
N i. Work Organization/Delegation 4.0 x =
People Management
E h. Training of Subordinates 4.0

S
Responsiveness b. Preservation of Unit Properties/Interests 3.0 x =
(10 pts) c. Coordination 4.0 x =
Honest Civic-minded
III.
(10 pts) Loyal to the Organization Well-groomed
Initiates Positive Action(s) Responsible
Rater’s Assessment of Ratee: I certify that this report represents my best judgment. [ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion

__________________________________
Signature
Rating Table for Performance Indicators Rating Table for
Personal Traits
1 Two (2) or less
(Note: Refer to This Table for Part III)
NPR-APR Table
(NPR) (APR)


- Exceeds standards/expected quality of work, work is neat and 5
complete in all details, no errors committed
- Always meets the standards/expected quality of work, work is neat 4
and complete in all details, errors are minimal
- Occasionally meets the standards/expected quality of work 3
- Seldom meets the standards/expected quality of work 2
- Never meets the standards/expected quality of work and 1
frequently commits errors
*SIGNIFICANT/CRITICAL INCIDENT/S:

- Exceeds standards/expectations, submits output ahead of the 5
schedule/ deadline
- Always meets standards/expectations, submits output on 4
schedule/deadline
- Occasionally meets the schedule/deadline 3
- Seldom meets the schedule/deadline 2
- Never meets the schedule/deadline 1

- Exceeds the expected output within the desired time frame 5
- Always meets the expected output within the desired time frame 4
frame
his/her duties.
This refers to the core competencies which are basic and essential in order to deliver
competence.
1. JOB KNOWLEDGE - (15 pts)

- Exceeds standards/expectations, arrives at sound decisions 5
even on important and complex matters
- Occasionally arrives at sound decisions generally expected of 3
the job
- Seldom makes sound decisions on important and complex 2
matter
b. PLANNING 2.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations, performs an assigned task 5
with less general instructions
- Always meets standards/expectations, performs an assigned 4
task with less general instruction
instruction
- Never performs an assigned task even when detailed 1
instructions are given
d. CREATIVITY/RESOURCEFULNESS 1.0

methods or improvisation to make the work better even when
not required
- Always meets standards, recommends new ideas and methods 4
or improvisation to make the work better even when not
required
- Occasionally recommends new ideas, methods or improvisation 3
to make the work better when required
- Never recommends new ideas, methods or improvisation to 1
make work better


available facts
available facts

written forms
- Occasionally sends and receives accurate, brief and clear 3
ideas, thoughts etc. with a minimum of gestures, bodily
movement, audio visual aids, etc.

determining Neighborhood Policing Strategies and tactics
solve neighborhood problems
- Always meets standards/expectations, involves the community 4
in determining Neighborhood Policing Strategies and Tactics
solve neighborhood problems.
- Occasionally involves the community in determining 3
problems
Neighborhood Policing Strategies and Tactics which impact
on their lives and jointly working with them to solve

expectations
- Occasionally able to contribute to effective law enforcement and 3

job).

when required
b. COST CONTROL 3.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in reducing the expenses 5
on supplies and materials used in operations without
sacrificing efficiency.
- Always reduces the expenses on supplies and materials used 4
in operations without sacrificing efficiency
- Occasionally reduces expenses on supplies and materials 3
used in operations
operations
operations


implementation of policies and/or SOPs and takes extra step(s)
in the dissemination of policies/SOPs
- Occasionally complies and commits minor violations of policies 3
and/or SOPs
- Seldom complies and commits minor violations of policies 2
and/or SOPs

- Always able to prioritize various tasks and always accomplishes 4


requirements of clientele (internal and external) beyond the set
standards
- Always able to identify and satisfy the requirements of clientele 4
(internal and external) based on the set standards
- Seldom able to identify and satisfy the requirements of clientele 2

Approved leaves, authorized travel and official meetings outside of office premises shall not be
considered an absence.

- Exceeds the standards in his involvement/presence in 5

(This dimension measures the manner by which a PCO accomplished his/her work
i. MOTIVATION 5.0

- Always encourages and inspires subordinates to give their best 4
in their job.
best in their job.
j. WORKGROUP MANAGEMENT 4.0

among subordinates
as expected
k. WORK ORGANIZATION/DELEGATION 4.0

- Exceeds standards/expectations in assigning or delegating major 5
portion of his work to subordinates who can do the job well
to subordinates
l. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS 4.0

subordinates

- Exceeds standards/expectations in seeking activities
assignments, mentoring/coaching, participation in 5
- Always seeks for activities appropriate for personnel
etc.
- Occasionally seeks for activities appropriate for personnel
etc.
- Seldom seeks for activities appropriate for personnel
etc.
- Never seeks for activities appropriate for personnel
development 1

- Exceeds standards/expectations in providing subordinates 5
training required for the job and for career advancement and
development
- Always provides subordinates training beyond what is required 4
for the job
- Occasionally provides subordinates training for them to 3
be able to do the job


within work AOR

c. COORDINATION 4.0

- Seldom coordinates with other units/agencies to promote the 2
PART III. PERSONAL QUALITIES (10 pts)

1. Morally Upright
2. Honest
3. Loyal
6. Fair and Just
7. Civic-minded
8. Well-groomed
9. Responsible
10. Courteous
RATING CRITERIA:

5 9-10
4 7-8
3 5-6
2 3-4
1 2 or less
ASSESSMENT OF RATEE
[ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion (b)

designation to higher position (c) relief.
This personnel needs improvement on the

following:____________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_________
ACKNOWLEDGED:
SIGNATURE: __________________________________________________
RANK/NAME:__________________________________________________
(LAST)
(FIRST) (MIDDLE)
DESIGNATION: ________________________________________________
DATE ACCOMPLISHED: _________________________________________
COMMENTS:
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
CONFORMED:
SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________
RANK/NAME:____________________________________________________
(LAST) (FIRST)
(MIDDLE)
DESIGNATION:___________________________________________________
DATE ACCOMPLISHED: ___________________________________________
COMMENTS:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
ATTESTED:
SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________
NAME: _________________________________________________________
(LAST) (FIRST)
(MIDDLE)
DESIGNATION: __________________________________________________
DATE ACCOMPLISHED: ___________________________________________
COMMENTS:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
1. Republic Act 6975, otherwise known as the “Department of the Interior and
Local Government Act of 1990 as amended”
2. Republic Act 8551, otherwise known as the “Philippine National Police

Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998”
3. NAPOLCOM Memo Circular No. 93-019 “Amendment to MC No. 92-102

dated Nov 12, 1992, entitled “PNP Performance Evaluation System”
4. NAPOLCOM Memo Circular No. 93-022 “Establishing A Complaints And

Grievance Machinery For PNP Uniformed Personnel”
5. PNP Medium Term-Development Plan (MTDP 2001-2004)
6. PNP Circular Nr DPL 001-95 “Providing for the Specific Authority Delegated
to the D-Staff “
7. PNP Staffing Pattern
8. O.N.E. PNP Action Plan for CY 2003
9. PNP Aviation Security Group Manual ( PNPM-D-O-3-1-99 [ASG] )
10. PNP Manual on Summary Proceedings
11. Civil Service Commission 1999 Revised Policies on Performance

Evaluation System
12. Numerical Designation for PNP Manuals dated 26 December 1994
13. Style Guide of the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication

Pcoper Manual PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Pcoper Manual PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER

POLICE DIRECTOR HERCULES G CATALUÑA

CHAPTER POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER PERFORMANCE

2.1 Description of the PNCOPER System 3

CHAPTER GUIDELINES ON RATING, REVIEWING AND

3.1 Duties and Responsibilities of the Rater, Ratee, Reviewer 7

3.1.1 Duties and Responsibilities of Rater 7

3.2 Rater/Reviewer Designation 9

3.2.1 Directorial Staff 9

CHAPTER ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS

“A” Instructions on How to Accomplish the Police 17

“B” Instructions on How to Accomplish the Police 34

“C” Instructions on How to Accomplish the Police 51

To attain our goal, we shall implement a new standard of performance

The Police Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating System

Let this manual be the policeman’s guide to better performance. Let me

Republic of the Philippines

1.1.1 Republic Act 6975, otherwise known as “The Department of the

1.1.3 Analysis of the individual performance evaluation system shows that it

1.1.4 The Police Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating

1.2 General Policy

b. The PCO’s immediate supervisor shall be cognizant of weaknesses and

c. Appropriate recognition of a job well done which contributed to the overall

d. A continuing record of PCO’s performance rating shall be kept as part of his

e. Continuing education and information shall be provided to ensure effective

b. To provide a basis for professional growth and to determine those

c. To identify specific areas of individual weaknesses with a view towards

d. To provide an impartial evaluation of PCOs who appear unable to meet

POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER

2.1 Description of the PCOPER System

2.1.1 The Police Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating

2.1.2 Rating shall be done/accomplished by the immediate supervisor

2.2 Five (5) Levels in the Rating Scale

2.2.1 Outstanding (OS) – Achieved exceptional performance clearly higher

2.2.2 Very Satisfactory (VS) – Achieved completely all aspects of most

2.2.3 Satisfactory (SF) – Achieved the essential requirements and minimum

2.3 Three Major Parts of the PCOPER

2.3.2 PART II. CORE COMPETENCIES – this refers to the core

2.3.3 PART III. PERSONAL QUALITIES – this refers to personal

2.3.4 RATER’S ASSESSMENT OF RATEE – this refers to the overall

2.3.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/COMMENTS – this contains the

2.4 Mechanics of Implementation of the PCOPER System

a. In the event that a PCO would be transferred or detailed to another

c. PCOs who are on secondment status shall secure their latest

PES, PPD, ODPRM

PRO Admin D-Staff

Figure 1. Flow of Submission of the PCOPER Report

GUIDELINES ON RATING, REVIEWING AND

3.1 Duties and Responsibilities of the Rater, Ratee,

a. For the purpose of evaluation, the immediate supervisor has the

3.1.2. Duties and Responsibilities of Ratee

a. The ratee, who conforms with his/her supervisor’s or rater’s

b. A ratee who disagrees with the rater must submit a written

2. List of performance factor ratings that are in dispute and written

c. If the disagreement stands after the clarificatory meeting called

3.1.3. Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewer

3.1.4. Duties and Responsibilities of Admin PCO

c. In addition, the Admin PCO in the PRO/NSU shall maintain the

3.2 Rater/Reviewer Designation

At the National Headquarters, PCOs in the Division shall be rated by

Dep COP COP

*See paragraph no. 3.3 of this Chapter .