In 1991, a law creating the People’s Law Enforcement Board (Pleb), an external disciplining mechanism of policemen, was enacted. Its board members, who have the power to conduct summary hearings of cases of administrative complaints against policemen, are all civilians. The board’s composition was deliberately devised to empower civilians to become involved in disciplining members of the police in their community. The board can demote a police officer or even dismiss them from the police force.
Having an institution that can effectively deal with disciplining the police is wise in a functioning democracy, and consequently, it is unacceptable to undermine such an institution. However, this is what has occurred in the Philippines. Deliberate acts, including acts of omission, by local government units (LGU), which have the obligation to create a Pleb in their respective locality and to ensure it is adequately functioning, have made its very existence ineffective.
Seventeen years after the law was enacted creating Plebs in the country their largely unknown existence and role in communities in the Philippines and among the victims of police abuse have been done deliberately. The lack of control and accountability of these boards allow its members to abuse their authority, such as by using their position for their own self-interest and by routinely delaying the disposition of cases, failing to protect complainants facing threats, etc. The required 60-day period to complete a proceeding are routinely ignored, for example, thereby allowing cases to drag on for years. The declining number of complaints in the cities of General Santos and Davao is a byproduct of the failure to properly implement this mechanism.
Furthermore, a number of LGUs either fail or have yet to convene their own board. The LGUs’ obligations to establish one board in every community, or one for every 500 police officers, has been openly and widely ignored. Moreover, even those LGUs which have a Pleb fail to make sure that it functions effectively, for instance, by not allocating adequate resources, not providing a protection mechanism for complainants, not ensuring that the composition and appointment of its members are credible and apolitical, not furnishing legal aid and so forth.
The lack of adequate resources permits the practice of hiring staff members who lack the proper job qualifications even though they have duties that are equal to those of a court, for example, preserving evidence and the documents of cases. In addition, staff members working for these boards have no obligations or accountability under the civil service system. Their manner of recruitment, hiring and appointment is also heavily influenced by local politicians. It explains why some staff members cannot even provide proper legal aid to people coming to their office to file a complaint.
It is also the lack of control and accountability that allows the Plebs to be deeply politicised, thereby undermining its credibility. The board’s present composition includes members of the city or municipal council, the Association of Barangay (Village) Council and three people chosen by the Peace and Order Council (POC). The three representatives from the POC, as required by law, should be a person respected in the community, a member of the Philippine Bar and a school principal.
However, in practice, most members from the POC are appointees of a local chief executive, thus creating the possibility of political influence by the local chief executive in deciding cases, especially since representatives from the POC comprise a majority of the Pleb. For instance, in the cities of General Santos and Davao, none of those who have been chosen by the POC are school principals. The chief executive also determines who is a “person respected in the community,” thereby effectively increasing the possibility of a member dispensing their duties to suit the interests of the chief executive.
It is the state’s obligation that victims of atrocities and abuses are afforded effective legal remedies and redress. The declining number of complaints filed is incompatible with the increasing number of reports of police abuses. A police force, which has its roots from the military’s armed forces, should have a stricter control and disciplining mechanism in place. The hope for Pleb, which recognises civilian authority over the institution of the police, has been seriously eroded. Moreover, this mechanism has deliberately been made ineffective by the state.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) urges the concerned authorities, particularly the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), which has oversight in implementation of this mechanism, to review and seriously examine and evaluate its present condition. Failure to do so makes the state itself complicit in the acts of commission and omission that undermine it.
