On Mission Orders and Memorandum Receipts

This is to answer the questions we have been getting regarding Mission Orders and memorandum Receipts (MR) being issued to civilians.

A memorandum Receipt is a record of government ownership of a firearm. It is similar to a license except that in such case the government is the owner. An MR can be validly issued only if the firearm is government property.

A Mission Order is an authority from a government agency to carry a firearm in pursuance of a specific mission or task on behalf of the agency. This authority is usually derived from the law or organic Act creating the agency. MOs are usually issued to agents or employees of the specific agency. However, sometimes, the agency has so-called “civilian agents” or “intelligence agents” who are not per se employees of the agency but who are deemed as “assets” or close associations of the agency. Thus, the NBI has it’s “Confidential Agents” and ISAF has its “civilian” or “intelligence” agents.

The issuance of MOs to civlian assets or intelligence agent is valid as long as the organic law of the agency grants it the power to do so, or is broad enough to allow the issuance of MOs to its civilian assets. Thus, if you are issued an MO you may validly carry your licensed firearm.

However, the problem occurs if you are caught or involved in a shooting incident. In such cases, certain government agencies will DENY or  WITHDRAW the validity of your MO to avoid undue embarrassment or press attention.  In such case, the validity of your MO depends upon whether or not the agency will honor your MO. This has been known to be done in particular, by the NBI in several famous cases such as the Robin Padilla case and the Valle Verde carnapping incident. Recently, certain policies have been circulating that only regular agents in the roster and on the payroll of the agency may be issued MOs, but still the practice continues up to this day to issue MOs to civlians. The beneficiaries are usually those who are close to the head of the particular agency.

In view of these circumstances, we recommend that MOs be used only if the intention is to bring the firearm to the firing range or for competition or sporting purposes. However, we do not recommend that the MO be used as a basis for a defense in a shooting incident. In which case, the validity of your defense would depend upon whether or not the issuing agency will stand by and honor your MO.

4 responses to “On Mission Orders and Memorandum Receipts

  1. MR or Memorandum Receipts are used if Government Assests are issued to you, such as Computers, Government Cars, Tables and Chairs and Yes! even stapler.  Each government employee should track down its MR’s for accounting purposes and he/she should be the one to take of utmost care of the item issued to him/her.  If the item is damaged or out of service, it should be returned to the corresponding Department which is also the issuing authority. At the end of your service (retirement) all MR’s will be accounted and audited, if an individual could not return or transfer the said MR’s, at cost of the reciept will be deducted to his/her retirement pay.

    MR is not a license, it is just a documented paper that an item is entrusted to you. That includes Firearms.

    1. Thank you for the clarification. That is why i said that an MR is “similar to a license”, but not a license, with the government as the owner of the firearm.

      On the issue of having to return the firearm upon retirement or separation from the government service it should be pointed out that a lot of government retireees in the police and military do NOT return and/or account for their firearms that are issued to them. Or alternatively some of them have “paltiks” or locally made copies made with the same serial numbers on them, then they return the fake “paltik” and keep the originally issued firearm.

      1. I have heard of this especially on the issued .38 caliber revolver and .45 caliber pistol, But recently on the 9mm Caliber, mahihirapan sila kopyahin ang Berretta at Jericho… ;D

        If this is the case, it is the liability on part of the PNP, at kasalanan rin ng inspector bakit hiniyaan nya na maisoli ang paltik hindi ang original o baka hindi lang bihasa sa baril mag identify ng Fake o Hindi…nevertheless it is a liability in part of the PNP.

        1. As of early this year, the PNP initiated Oplan Balik Boga, which essentially cited the fact that several hundred retired police officers had failed o return their service firearms which were covered by Memorandum Receipts (MRs). So how come they were able to retire with such outstanding liability? I was likewise shocked to find out that there was no sufficient system for recording of issued firearms, and more importantly periodical auditing of issued firearms as to who and where the firearm is with at any given time. So it appeared that there were hundreds of PNP issued firearms which were thus rendered as “Loose firearms”. In turn, these “loose” unaccounted government issued firearms could even be LICENSED in the name of whoever during the amnesty period since apparently there was no record of its ownership.

          Regarding the substitution of genuine firearms by fake or “paltik” guns, I have encountered personally some court cases wherein when the case went to trial, it was discovered that the genuine gun which was being held as evidence was switched with a fake paltik gun. Very ingenious.

Want to comment? Post a response on your blog and link back to this article.