After nearly two years, the Office of the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (Moleo) has resolved to “close and terminate” the investigation they were conducting into the complaint against policemen who threatened, arrested, detained and filed false charges against eight workers in September 2006. In dismissing the complaint, the Ombudsman’s graft prevention control officer, Danilo Remonte, argued in his final resolution dated 18 January 2008 that they cannot be held accountable in invoking the principle of “presumption of regularity”, which means that the policemen were basically performing their job.
When the workers were arrested, it was Arnold Cruz, an officer of the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (Peza) in Rosario, Cavite, who filed a complaint for trespassing against them, although he himself was fully aware that the workers had actually sought his permission and obtained his consent before occupying a warehouse where they were later arrested. However, the charge against the workers was dismissed in July 2007 after Arnold himself executed an affidavit of desistance, which means he is no longer interested in prosecuting the case in court.
However, at the time of arrest the Peza policemen allegedly threatened to kill one of them, Gemma Lape. She was told that she would be “salvage” as they are aware of her involvement in labour activism. This threat was made as she and her companions were being taken to the nearby Rosario Municipal Police Station (RMPS). In the Philippines, the term “salvage” was commonly used during the Martial Law years and implied an “extrajudicial killing”. Upon arriving at the police station, they were detained, questioned in absence of their legal counsel and subsequently falsely charged for trespassing. The police also illegally searched their personal belongings and tried to include charges of possession of subversive documents upon finding reading materials on labour rights. These charges were later rejected by the prosecutor.
The police also intimidated one of the paralegal officers who had gone to the police station to provide legal assistance to the workers. One of the policemen warned a paralegal about his supposed disrespectful attitude merely for asking them questions. They warned him that he was inside their police station — which implied that they could detain him. There was no doubt in the minds of the paralegals and attested workers that they were at the mercy of the police and that the officers could do anything they wanted with them. The police had also ordered paralegals to leave the room while Gemma was being questioned.
In the Ombudsman’s resolution, Remonte concluded that neither the policemen from Peza nor Rosario could be held accountable for their actions arguing that they are merely acting on the complaint made by Arnold. Furthermore, Remonte declared the AHRC’s appeals demanding the dropping of the charges against the workers in September 2006 had become “moot and academic”. Apparently, it is the failure of the Ombudsman to act promptly on the complaint filed with them against the policemen that made the demands irrelevant following the dropping of charges — which itself violates their own mandate under Section 13, the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (RA 6770) that they should have ” acted promptly on the complaints “.
Not only did the Ombudsman fail in acting promptly on the complaints, they also tacitly tolerated the illegal acts of the police officers involved by subverting the notion of the State’s responsibility and their obligations by invoking the “presumption of regularity”. While it is true that the policemen acted merely on the complaints made by Arnold; to threaten one of the arrestees and to intimidate the paralegals who tried to help them are criminal acts for which the State bears a heavy obligation to investigate and act upon. Criminal acts can never be justified as being part of the work of police officers in arresting persons, taking them into custody and thereby depriving them of their liberty without just cause. This in no way can be justified as being part of the normal duty of the police.
The obligation of the Ombudsman is to investigate violations or abuses by policemen promptly; and to file appropriate charges if there is a reasonable “probability” that the violations had been committed. In this case though, none of the workers or their legal counsels had been able to or given opportunity to submit their versions of the story. The Ombudsman concluded its investigation based only on the statements of the policemen and court documents. All the annexes to which the Ombudsman referred to in their report are documents originating from the very same police unit the workers had accused of threatening and intimidating them; thereby making the Ombudsman’s manner of investigation questionable. (Please see the full text of the resolution).
Also, to decide whether or not the action taken by the police falls under the “principle of the presumption of regularity” is for a competent court to decide, not the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s mandate is to investigate allegations of abuses by policemen and to prosecute them once there is sufficient proof or evidence; they have no power over that of the judiciary. In deciding to terminate the complaint the Ombudsman has effectively prevented any possibility of determining the truth behind allegations of threats and intimidation by the police. In terminating the complaint without acting on the concerns mentioned above, the Ombudsman has themselves become protectors of policemen who commit criminal acts and not protectors of the people as they ought to be. They have effectively shielded the policemen from being prosecuted. They have also deprived the victims of any possibility of legal redress to have those policemen held to account. The Ombudsman’s decision will have tremendous consequences into cases involving violations of rights committed by security forces and will also embolden the same police unit to commit similar acts as they know that they will not be held responsible for their actions.
The AHRC strongly rejects the Ombudsman’s decision and it calls upon them to reconsider and to retract their findings. They must also ensure the workers or victims involved are given opportunity to have their version of the story included in the investigation they are conducting. The Ombudsman must also provide adequate explanations as to why it failed to act and resolve this complaint promptly according to its mandate.
