1 hour ago
2
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
At the height of the many problems the country is facing — fuel crisis and corruption, to name a few — President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s administration introduced a policy that focuses on “making” the country’s capital safer.
The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) launched the “Safer Metro Manila Plan” or Safer Cities campaign, on April 6 with the goal of strengthening the safety of communities “through…measurable and sustainable action.”
“Actually, this is in line with the directive of the President to the PNP and he says, and I quote, ‘Don’t just cut crime, make people safe at all times,'” PNP’s acting director for operations Police Brigadier General Rogelio Peñones Jr. said.
The project, according to the interior department, aims to improve police visibility in highly-populated areas in Metro Manila. Police will be deployed in schools, transportation hubs, and other places of convergence like malls.
DILG Secretary Juanito Victor “Jonvic” Remulla said there will be a month-long trial in the National Capital Region (NCR), before the campaign is launched in other cities like Baguio, Bacolod, Cebu, and Davao.
But beyond beefing up the police numbers in the said areas, Remulla said the police will implement existing ordinances of cities in the NCR. This means the police will apprehend the following:
- those who drink or smoke in public places
- men with no shirts on
- those who do videokes beyond 10 pm
- minors who violate curfew hours
‘Anti-poor,’ misdirected
Progressive and human rights groups immediately condemned the Marcos administration’s new policy, calling it misdirected and a “crackdown against the poor.” This was because the apprehended individuals were, and more likely will be, from lower-income areas.
“Let us be clear: this is not about safety. This is a crackdown on the poor, plain and simple,” Karapatan secretary general Cristina Palabay said. “We have seen this before. Thousands were rounded up in the name of ‘order,’ yet nothing changed for the better in the lives of the people. Instead, the poor were harassed, detained, some of them even get killed in these operations.”
Malacañang, defended the campaign on Friday, saying that it’s meant for security.
“Hindi naman po ibig sabihin ng pagdi-disiplina sa mga kabataan para mas maging safe sila at protected ay anti-poor na (Disciplining the youth to make their environment safer and protected is not anti-poor),” Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro said.
But apart from “anti-poor” concerns, several groups also questioned the legality of the thousands of arrests in the campaign. As of April 12, police have already apprehended a total of 61,549 violators.
Of this number, 1,027 were sued in court, 21,317 were fined, while 39,205 received warnings and were later released.
The breakdown of alleged violations is as follows:
- Drinking, smoking in public places – 18,904
- Roaming streets without a shirt – 5,894
- Curfew violations of minors – 5,232
- Videoke beyond 10 pm – 1,276
- Others – 30,243
“When officers are deployed without a deep, practical understanding of human rights and de-escalation, their presence becomes a liability. We cannot talk about safety while ignoring the lack of accountability and the history of overreach that continues to haunt our neighborhoods,” the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates said.
On Monday, April 13, Remulla admitted that he did not give clear instructions when they rolled out the plan. He also issued an apology to the shirtless man who was apprehended while mixing cement outside his home in Mandaluyong City last week.
“I will make amends and I will make sure that we’ll talk to clear things out,” the DILG chief said in a mix of FIlipino and English. “Nevertheless, the Safer Cities Initiative has begun and it will progress. It will progress to other forms of making the city safer, which I will announce in the next few weeks as we perfect this.”
Beware of unlawful arrests
It’s basic – a person cannot be arrested without a warrant issued by a court. There are exceptions, however, under the Rules of Court.
Rule 113, Section 5 states that a person may be arrested without a warrant under these circumstances:
- In flagrante delicto (caught in the act) – “When, in his (officer’s) presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.”
- Hot pursuit – “When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed.”
- Escapees – “When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.”
“Basis of an ordinance, really,” Remulla answered when asked about the basis of the police arrests under the campaign. But will this suffice?
The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) argued that if the alleged violations of ordinances are punishable only by fines, then there’s no ground to arrest or keep people under custody. In other words, police should first check the penalty specified under the ordinance they are implementing before meting out punishment on violators.
In Luz v. People, the SC explained that if a person who committed an offense is penalized with only a fine, no warrant of arrest is needed. Because “it may be stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense.” Meaning, a person cannot be arrested if his/her violation is punishable by a fine only.
Additionally, the High Court said in Ridon v. People case of 2023 that violations of ordinances and regulations are not sufficient to trigger warrantless search and seizure, “especially when the penalty does not involve imprisonment.”
“Under the Local Government Code, LGUs may enact penal ordinances, but the penalties they may impose are limited, and many in practice impose fines rather than imprisonment. If the applicable ordinance carries only a fine, these arrests have no clear legal basis,” the NUPL added.
So for example, in Quezon City, NUPL President Ephraim Cortez noted that the local government unit issues “Ordinance Violations Receipts” to ordinance violators, instead of being arrested.
“Applying Ridon vs. People, at least in Quezon City (where reports indicate that 4,336 were arrested), these alleged ordinance violators cannot be validly arrested, since the Quezon City Government imposes a fine for the violation of its ordinances,” Cortez said.
Curfew limitations
Although he did not directly say that Remulla will order the arrest of those who violate curfew hours, the interior chief threatened them with arrest.
“‘Yung mga rugby boys diyan, ‘yung mga geng geng diyan, mga gago sa kalye diyan, magtago na kayo, umuwi na kayo kapag 10 o’clock. Huhulihin namin kayo, klaro ‘yan ah, sinasabi ko na dito ngayon,” the DILG chief said. (Those rugby boys, geng gengs, troublemakers, beware and go home at 10 o’clock. We will arrest you. That’s clear, I’m telling you now.)
But arresting minors over curfew violations is not allowed under the law.
In the SPARK v. Quezon City case of 2017, the SC clearly said that penalties could not be imposed against minors for curfew violations. This is against Sections 57 and 57(a) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, as amended by RA No. 10630.
Under Section 57(a), children who violated ordinances — like curfew — should not be punished, but instead be brought to their residence or to any barangay official at the barangay hall to be released to their parents. Penalties are defined as “punishment imposed on a wrongdoer usually in the form of imprisonment or fine.”
But this does not mean that there will be no legal consequences for minors if violations were committed. They will undergo intervention programs, like community-based programs, according to the SC.
“In other words, the disciplinary measures of community-based programs and admonition are clearly not penalties — as they are not punitive in nature — and are generally less intrusive on the rights and conduct of the minor,” the High Court said in SPARK v. Quezon City. – Rappler.com
