by Atty. Ronaldo T. Reyes
Founding President, People’s Law Enforcement Board Association
The war against drugs has thrust the Philippine National Police (PNP) in the limelight as the lead agency to implement the administrations’ top policy to eradicate drugs and criminality.
The rising statistics of those killed in legitimate police operations or by persons unknown with estimates as high as 20,000 since 2016 have increasingly generated grave concern among various sectors of society beyond the human rights advocates. These statistics are coupled with an apparent low prosecution much less conviction rate of those charged as responsible for these actions.
In light of the foregoing factual antecedents, much concern has been aired about these questions:
- Where can the people complain when there are perceived abuses committed during police operations?
- In cases where the police operations took place in distant places, how would the people affected, namely relatives, spouses, and children be able to access the agency concerned for their grievances?
- How certain are the people who complain that the proceedings will be transparent, fair and just?
- In short, who will police the police?
In our attempt to answer these and other relevant questions, it is timely and proper to review the PNP organization and structure including the available mechanisms embodied in the PNP law for reliefs or redress of such grievances.
The 1987 Constitution provides that “the State shall establish and maintain one police force which shall be national in scope and civilian in character to be administered and controlled by a national police commission”. (Sec. 6, Art. XVI Constitution)
In compliance with the foregoing mandate, the PNP was created under RA 6975 otherwise known as the “Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990” as amended by RA 8551 otherwise known as the “Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998.”
To emphasize the civilian character of the police, RA 6975 provides that: “Its national scope and civilian in character shall be paramount. No element of the police force shall be military nor shall any position thereof be occupied by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.” (Sec. 2, RA 6975)
RA 8551 states furthermore, that the PNP shall be so organized to ensure accountability and uprightness in police exercise of discretion as well as to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of its members and units in the exercise of their functions.” Sec. 2, RA 8551)
RA 6975 as amended created several administrative disciplinary machineries of the PNP, namely: Chiefs of police, Mayors of cities or municipalities, the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB), the NAPOLCOM, the Chief PNP and the various levels of police officials with jurisdiction depending on the categories of offenses. The PLEB is the most independent and powerful of these entities.
The latest implementing rules and regulations of the NAPOLCOM, MC N o. 2016-02 entitled “Revised Rules of Procedure before the Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and the Internal Afffairs Service of the PNP” includes the following as administrative disciplinary authorities: city or municipal mayors, chiefs of police or equivalent supervisors, provincial directors or equivalent supervisors, regional directors or equivalent supervisors, People’s Law Enforcement Board, Chief of the PNP and the NAPOLCOM.
What is the PLEB and what are its powers?
The PLEB is a board composed of 5 persons from the local community with majority of its members coming from the private sector. It has jurisdiction to hear and decide citizens’ complaints or cases filed by natural or juridical persons against erring officers and members of the PNP. It shall be the central receiving entity for any citizen’s complaint against officers and members of the PNP.
What distinguishes the PLEB from other administrative disciplinary machineries and what are the advantages that citizens have in the PLEB?
1. The PLEB has the most number of offices i.e., one in each municipality, city or legislative district, unlike other bodies which have provincial or regional offices. This is significant because it reduces the expense in time, effort, and money which the complainant will spend to prosecute the case. Thus, Sec. 43 of RA 6975 states:
Sec. 43 thereof provides: “Within 30 days from the issuance of the implementing rules and regulations by the Commission, there shall be created by the sangguniang panglungsod/bayan in every city and municipality such number of PLEBs as may be necessary: Provided, that there shall be at least one (1) PLEB for every municipality and for each legislative district in a city..”
2. The ratio of the required number of PLEBs to serve the public helps assure that the PLEB will be more responsive and effective in its duty as grievance machinery. Thus, Sec. 43, RA 6975 provides that there shall be at least 1 PLEB for every 500 city or municipal police personnel.
3. The membership of the PLEB comes from the local community appointed by the sangguniang panlunsod/bayan – one (1) member of the sangguniang panlunsod/bayan, one (1) barangay captain of the city or municipality and three (3) respected members of the community chosen by the local peace and order council known for their probity and integrity, one of whom must be a woman, one a lawyer, a college graduate, or a principal, which helps generate trust and confidence in its proceedings. (Sec. 43 (b), RA 6975.)
4. The PLEB has jurisdiction to hear and decide citizen’s complaints or cases filed against erring officers and members of the PNP and it is clothed with sufficient powers to discipline erring policemen including the power of withholding privileges, restriction to specified limits, forfeiture of salary, suspension for more than 30 days, demotion or dismissal from the service. (Sec. 66, RA 8551 and MC 2016-02)
5. The PLEB can ask any authorized supervisor for the preventive suspension of the respondent who refuses to heed the PLEB summons, or subpoena; who has been charged with offenses involving bodily harm or grave threats, who is in a position to tamper with the evidence and who can unduly influence the witnesses. (Sec. 71, RA 8551)
6. The proceedings before the PLEB are summary in nature much like those in preliminary investigations of cases in the prosecutor’s office.
7. The Decisions of the PLEB are final and executory with right to appeal limited to decisions involving demotion or dismissal from the service.
What are the remedial steps required to revive and strengthen the PLEB?
1. The DILG which has supervisory powers and control over LGU mayors and the sanggunians should direct these entities to operationalize the PLEBs in their areas;
2. The mayors and the local sanggunian bayan/ panglunsod should enact local ordinances to organize their PLEBs and provide for their budget and staff support including presentable offices;
3. The PNP should be directed to extend full support and cooperation to the PLEB, its processes and its decisions since the PLEB is part of its administrative disciplinary machinery under RA 6975;
4. Start an information campaign to inform the public about the role of the PLEB as a grievance machinery and encourage them to use it ;
5. Urge the community to support the PLEB and its operations to obtain speedy justice to those aggrieved by police abuses;
6. Adopt support mechanisms to provide moral and other support to citizens who may file complaints in the PLEB;
7. Amend Sec. 69 of RA 8551 Compensation and Benefits. – to read:
(c) PLEB members shall be considered as employees of the local government unit where they are created and shall receive a salary, allowances, insurance coverage and other benefits equivalent to public school teachers and may be supplemented from city or municipal funds as may be determined by the city or municipal council. The DILG shall provide budgetary support for expenses of PLEB members in certain low income municipalities;
8. Create a new staff service in the NAPOLCOM for the proper operation and support of the PLEB as the central receiving entity for any citizen’s complaint against members of the PNP; to monitor compliance by the LGUs of their duties and responsibilities concerning the PLEBs, its organization, support and operations.
Conclusion:
It is axiomatic that government should be of laws rather than of men in a country that professes to be a democracy. Certain fundamental principles are enshrined in our Constitution: the Bill of Rights, the Rule of Law, the Right to Due Process, the presumption of innocence, and the sanctity of life are just some of this bedrock principles. Extrajudicial killings and state sanctioned violence have chilling effects on the nation as a whole and are antithetical to our shared beliefs on what a democratic government should be. These constitute gross violations of human rights.
The PLEB is an established system of accountability of the PNP, a check and balance mechanism under existing laws. It is part of the rule of law and a manifestation of our adherence to the principle of due process in this country. The role and participation of the local residents of a community in its operation cannot be minimized. The PLEB will add credibility and trust to our law enforcement operations.
In an atmosphere where our country is on the receiving end of negative perceptions, the policy of reviving the PLEB can be appreciated as a concrete action of the governments’ commitment to the rule of law and the doctrine of accountability.
Reviving the PLEB which will go a long way to neutralize and counter allegations that the government has a policy of state sanctioned violence and that perpetrators of offenses from the ranks of our law enforcers are immune from any responsibility. It will answer the question who will police the police because at the end of the day we, the people, through the PLEB, can do that function and make sure that our law enforces remain true to their mission and be accountable to the people they profess to serve.
Manila, February 11, 2019.
ATTY. RONALDO T. REYES
