As the country’s prosecution service has long been confronted by the overloading of cases, as well as insufficient resources and manpower, the police commission and justice department have decided to give powers to the Chiefs of Police (CoPs) to act as prosecutors. Under this system, the CoPs are required to first secure permission from any local prosecutors’ offices, on a case by case basis. The CoPs new powers are applicable in “far-flung” municipalities and in areas where either the public prosecutors have too heavy workloads or where no prosecutors are present at all.
These measures give no guarantees that they will ensure the government’s “commitment to further speed up the administration of justice,” but rather gives rise to serious threats to the very foundations of the criminal justice system. There is nothing wrong with appointing persons in order to hasten the administration of justice, but such persons must have certain qualities and qualifications in order to function effectively. They must be credible, independent and highly capable. Members of the police force cannot be considered for this role as they cannot, by definition, be considered as being independent or capable of carrying out such functions under present conditions.
Republic Act (RA 6975), Section 24 (c) clearly stipulates the police force is empowered to “investigate and prevent crimes, effect the arrest of criminal offenders, bring offenders to justice and assist in the prosecution.” The law that established the Philippine National Police (PNP) clearly limits the police’s role to providing “assistance” and not to prosecuting case themselves. The police’s training concentrates on law enforcement and peace and order, not criminal prosecution, criminal law or litigation. To give prosecutory powers to the police is therefore a matter of serious concern.
On May 24, 2005, the National Police Commission (Napolcom), a body with oversight over the PNP, announced it had approved the production of a handbook for CoPs to function as prosecutors. However, in the Supreme Court (SC) En Banc resolution (A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC) dated May 1, 2002, which amends Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, nowhere was there mention giving powers to the police to act as prosecutors mentioned. Only private prosecutors are allowed to carry out such functions and only with the court’s approval.
Furthermore, the selection of areas in which the police can act as prosecutors – in “far-flung” municipalities, where either there is no public prosecutor or those present have heavy workloads – is vague and unacceptable. Not only does it deprive the citizens in these areas of equal access to justice, it also indirectly encourages abuses by the police. If the police control two of the essential pillars of the criminal justice system – the policing and prosecution systems – it dangerously undermines any checks and balances on their actions. The appointment of police officers to remedy a problem in the prosecution system, which includes poor resources, both in financial and human terms, is a “solution” that gives rise to a tangible risk of human rights abuses and further degradation of the rule of law.
How can a police force that already stands accused of being corrupt, conducting arbitrary arrests, routinely using torture as means of investigation, with impunity, and filing false and fabricated charges in court, effectively perform such a role with credibility? Is it not the case that greater safeguards against such police abuses should be put in place rather than conferring greater powers upon this institution? Where will victims of violations turn to seek legal remedies if the perpetrators are part of the agency that conducts investigations, files charges and prosecutes such cases in court? Should the police be given powers to prosecute cases given these factors? These appointments, which are meant to remedy the failings in the prosecutorial system, will only likely lead to greater system collapse and human rights violations. This decision must be retracted immediately.
The functioning of the prosecution system must be ensured by giving more resources to the National Prosecution Service (NPS), which is the agency mandated by law to prosecute cases. The provision of resources, both financial and human, is vital to ensure that justice is enabled with credibility, independence and fairness. The protection of human rights and rule of law are highly dependent on this being carried out in the Philippines with all speed, while the current plan to have the police carry out prosecutions can only fail and add to the already grim human rights situation in the country.
