Page 2 of 21

THE UNIVERSITY OF MANILA

College of Criminology

SUBJECT- SOCIOLOGY OF CRIMES & ETHICS

The Concept of the Philippine Criminal Justice System.

The prevention and control of crime and juvenile delinquency are not the sole task of the government, much less the agency of the criminal justice system alone. Questions of major policy for achieving the objectives and ideals of major policy for achieving the objectives and ideals of the prevention and control of crime and delinquency, undoubtedly, require the coordination of effort and teamwork not only among the police, prosecution, courts and correctional agencies but the active participation of the community as well, thus, the birth of the so called Criminal Justice System of the Philippines. An idea of systematic criminal justice planning could serve as an avenue for the development of inter-agency coordination in the area of prevention and control of crime and delinquency. The Philippine Criminal Justice System is the sum total of instrumentation which a society uses in the prevention and control of crime and juvenile delinquency. Its operation includes but is not limited to. 1. Prevention the commission of crimes;

2. Enforcing the law;

3. Protecting life, individual rights and property;

4. Removing dangerous persons from the community

5. Deterring people from indulging in criminal activities.

6. Investigating, apprehending, prosecuting and imposing penalty upon those who cannot be deterred from violating the rules of society; and

7. Rehabilitating offenders and returning them to the community as law-abiding and useful citizens of the society.

In its inception, the system has four separate, formally organized components, namely: the police, prosecutions, courts and corrections. However, in view of the important role of society in achieving the systems ideals and objectives, the community has been included and considered as the fifth component of the entire criminal justice system, it being the basic element and pivoting factor in the existence of any form of government. For without the support of the community through the active participation of its individual members therein, the system itself will not succeed. According to Ulrich, In any organization, it is not the organizational chart, but men who do the work. Thus, individuals, private groups and public entities, when performing related criminal justice activities, become part of the system. In other words, from the sovereign Filipino people who are the sources of the fundamental laws and statutes of the land to the legislative branch, including to other agencies of the government, all become parts of the system while engaged in activities directly or indirectly related to the prevention and control of crime and juvenile delinquency.

Katarungang Pambarangay(Village Justice)

The existence of the Katarungang Pambarangay (Vilage Justice) plays a vital role in the effective and efficient administration and operation of the Criminal Justice System. Its legislative existence under Republic Act No. 7160, particularly from Sections 399 to 422, also answers the famous saying, The Authority of the Government Emanates from the People. Giving importance of authority, the appropriate Barangay (Village) Chairman and or Barangay Lupon Officials to amicably settle cases within their respective jurisdiction, would somehow help out party litigants the trouble in going to the court of justice, in terms of cost in litigation and labor hour in going to and from the procedural processes before the court of law, and at the same time easing out the delicate task of the regular court of justice in attending to minor offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding one (1) year, or a fine not exceeding Five thousand Pesos(5,000).

It is certainly wise and proper that minor offenses punishable by not exceeding one (1) year imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding 5,000 should fall within the authority of the appropriate Barangay Chairman, or Barangay Lupon to settle amicably without the necessity of elevating it to the regular court of justice, or to the local police station. Hence katarungan Pambarangay is a breakthrough in the administration of the Philippine Criminal Justice System.

Other wise stated, the creation of Katarungang Pambarangay is the positive decentralization of the governments program for the administration and operation of the criminal justice system. Its logical implication is that minor offenses must be resolved by the community through its Barangay Chairman or Lupon with adequate guidance from the proper authorities, not strictly adhering to the technical procedural processes, but without sacrificing the wheel of justice.

Procedures for Amicable Settlement in Barangay Courts

A Cause of Action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal rights of the other for which the latter suffers damage or prejudice and the existence of which affords a party to a right to judicial interference or intervention in his behalf. Section 410 provides the Rules on Procedure foe Amicable Settlement in Barangay Court or the Lupon in the following manner:

a. Who may institute Proceedings?- Upon payment of the appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a cause of action against another individual involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon may complain, orally or in writing to the Lupon Chairman of the Barangay.

b. Mediation by the Lupon Chairman.- Upon receipt of the compliant, the Lupon Chairman, shall within the next working day summon the respondent(s), with notice of the complainant(s) for them and their witnesses to appear personally before him for mediation of their conflicting interest. If he fails in his mediation effort within 15 days from the first meeting or confrontation of the parties before him, he shall forthwith set a date for the Constitution of the Conciliation Panel or Pangkat in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

c. Suspension of Prescriptive Period of Offenses. While the dispute is under mediation, conciliation, or arbitration, the prescriptive period for offenses and cause of action under existing laws shall be inter-period for offenses and cause of actions under existing laws shall be interrupted, or temporarily suspended, so to speak, upon filing of the compliant with the barangay Chairman. This prescriptive period shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the certificate of Repudiation, or of the Certification to File Action issued by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretary: Provided, however, that such interruption shall not exceed 60 days from the filing of the Complaint with the Barangay Chairman.

d. Issuance of Summons: Hearing by the Pangkat and Grounds for Disqualifications of any Lupon or Pangkat Member.- The Pangkat shall convent not later than 3 days from its constitution, on the day and hour set by the Lupon Chairman, to hear both parties and their witnesses, simplify issues, and explore all possibilities for amicable settlement. For this purpose, the Pangkat may issue summons for the personal appearance of parties and witnesses before it. In the event that a party moves to disqualify any member of the Pangkat by reason of relationship, bias, interest, or any other similar grounds discovered after the constitution of the Pangkat, the matter shall be resolved by the affirmative vote of the majority of the majority of the Pangkat whose decision shall be final. Should disqualification be decided upon, the resulting vacancy shall be filled as herein provided.

e. Period to Arrive at a Settlement.- The pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or resolution of the dispute within 15 days from the day it convenes in accordance with this Section. This period shall, at the discretion of the Pangkat, be extendible for another period which shall not exceed 15 days, except in clearly meritorious cases.

All amicable settlement shall be in writing, in language or dialect in known to the parties, signed by them and attested by the Lupon Chairman or Pangkat Chairman, as the case may be. When the parties to the dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the settlement shall be written in the language or dialect known to them. Arbitration by the Lupon Chairman or Pangkat.

Arbitration means the settlement of a dispute by a person or persons chosen to hear both sides and to come to a decision. Section 413 provides the Rules and Arbitration of disputes, including the arbitration award of the Lupon Chairman or Pangkat in the following manner.

a. The parties may, at any stage of the proceedings, agree in writing that they shall abide by the Arbitration Award of the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat. Such agreement to arbitrate may be repudiated with five days from the date thereof for the same grounds and in accordance with the procedure hereinafter prescribed. The Arbitration Award shall be made after the lapse of periods for repudiation and within 10 days thereafter.

b. The Arbitration Award shall be in writing in a language or dialect known to the parties. When the parties to the dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the Award shall be written in the language or dialect known to them.Execution of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award.

Section 417 provides, The Lupon, within 6 months from the date of Settlement, may enforce the Amicable Settlement or Arbitration Award by execution. However, if after the lapse of such time the Lupon, in some way or the other fails to enforce the Settlement or Arbitration Award by execution, the same may be enforced by action in the appropriate city or municipal court.

Effects of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award.

The Amicable Settlement and the arbitration Award shall have the force and effect of the final judgment of a court upon the expiration of 10 days from the date thereof, unless repudiation of the Settlement has been made, or a petition to nullify the Award has been filed before the proper city or municipal court. Transmittal of Settlement and Arbitration to the Court.

The Secretary of the Lupon shall transmit the settlement or the Arbitration Award to the appropriate city or municipal court within 5 days from the date of the award or from the lapse of the 10 day period repudiating the settlement and shall furnish copies thereof to each of the parties to the settlement and the Lupon Chairman.

Law Enforcement

Like all other nations of the world, the Philippines has various law enforcement agencies to police the offices of the government. There are as many law enforcement agencies as there are offices of the government. One of these example, is the Department of Finance. It has the National Customs Police which is responsible for the enforcement and implementation of the customs and tariff laws of the land. The Department of Foreign Affairs has also its law enforcement agency to regulate, control and enforce its laws related to its office functions and responsibilities. The individual law enforcement agencies and many others are one way or the other involved in the criminal justice system. They enforce the laws, and rules and regulations of the government in accordance with their defined functions, duties and responsibilities within their respective jurisdictions. Other law enforcement agencies like the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), and the Philippine National Police (PNP) have direct participation in the Criminal Justice System in the exercise of the statutory power of the people of the police to maintain peace and order, protecting lives and properties of the people and the rights of every one to have tranquility among the members of society. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) had its origin in the Division of Investigation (DI) of the Department of Justice. Its formation was included in the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 181, dated November 1938. Responsible for the conceptualization and creation of the division were the late President Luis Quezon, the late Chief Justice Jose Abad Santos and the late Secretary of Justice Jose Yulo. It was patterned after the FBI, its organization, functions, and objectives. In addition to its normal investigation function, it was oriented towards providing needed assistance to other law enforcement agencies, On June 19, 1947, republic Act No. 157 created the National Bureau of Investigation. The American Occupation

The American Occupation of the Philippines which came after the Filipino-American War from 1898 to 1901, was fol1owed by a period of political ferment and social equilibrium.

On November 30, 1900, the Commission recommended to the Secretary of War the organization of an Insular Police Force. The recommendation having been approved, the Philippine Commission passed Act No. 175 on July 18,1901, entitled

An Act Providing For the Organization and Government of an Insular Constabulary, better known as the Philippine Constabulary by Section 1, Act No. 255, dated October 3 1901. Under the technicalities of the law, the Constabulary is a National Police Institution for preserving the peace, keeping order and enforcing the law. In fact its police nature was expressly and clearly stated in Section 1, Act No. 175, the organic Act creating the Constabulary The same provision was retained in Section 825 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917.

The National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM).

Republic Act No. 4864, otherwise known as the Police Act of 1966, dated September 8, 1966, created the Office of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), originally Police Commission (POLCOM), under the Office of the President at its inception. Originally the NAPOLCOM was created as the supervisory agency to oversee the training and professionalization of the local police forces.

Executive Order No. 1040.

Executive Order 1040, dated July 10, 1985,: transferred the administrative control and supervision of the Integrated National Police (INP) from the Ministry of National Defense (MND) to the Office of the National Police Commission. The order which also transferred the National Police commission from the Ministry of National Defense to the Office of the President, superseded Executive Order no. 1012 which transferred to the city and municipal governments, the operational supervision and direction over all INP units.

As per Executive Order No. 1040, the National Police Commission serves as the Presidential arm in all matters affecting the Integrated National Police. All appropriations for the INP for fiscal year 1985 were also transferred to the NAPOLCOM. Although the operational control and supervision of all the INP units had been transferred to the city and municipal mayors, the INP would remain subject to the command, control and general supervision of the NAPOLCOM which functioned directly under the Office of the President in the maintenance of peace and order and public safety. In effect, the restoration of police power to the Mayors Office as embodied in the executive order was deemed proper as it was coterminous with his political power and responsibility to the people who elected him, making it necessary for any local executive to actively supervise and direct their police forces to ensure that they are efficiently, effectively, economically and harmoniously organized.

Executive Order No. 1040, however, did not in any way affect the Director General of the INP, who continued as such, and the 13 INP Regional Training Centers and the Philippine National Police Academy which continued with their training programs.

In view of Executive Order No. 1040, the training and communication branches which were taken and transferred to the PC/INP from the NAPOLCOM by virtue of Presidential Decree no. 765, then be restored to the latter office.

The Birth of Republic Act No. 4864, dated September 8, 1966.

Reformation and professionalization of the police service, so to speak, gained official recognition when Republic Act No. 4864, otherwise known as the Police Act of 1966 was enacted. This Act has served as the legal cornerstone in initiating and undertaking, at national level, the much needed reforms that resulted in a considerable improvement in police performance and efficiency. But this Act, for all its merits, did not eliminate the various negative factors that had plagued the local police forces, to name a few:

1. the insidious role played by partisan politics in almost all aspects of personnel management such as, appointment, assignment, promotion and separation;

2. Tayo-tayo system or double standard of justice;

3. intrigues, jealousies and rivalries existing among police forces; and

4.the jurisdiction restriction that limits police forces to operate within their respective municipal/city political boundaries.

Under this Act, the city/municipal police forces and personnel were under the administrative and operational control and supervision of the Office of the President through the office of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM). Their individual salaries and other monetary consideration was partly subsidized by the National Government through the NAPOLCOM, while the first half was paid for by the respective local government units. Years later, all of the members of the local police forces were considered as employees of the National Government, such that their salaries and monetary benefits were taken from the National Treasury through the NAPOLCOM.

Martial Law Regime and the Birth of

Presidential Decree No. 765.As a backgrounder Presidential decree no.765, dated August 8, 1975, stipulated that the office of the National Police Commission was under the Office of the Ministry of National Defense. Two of its original branches, that is, the training and communication were transferred to the PC/JNP, together wit its personnel and staff, records, equipment, other resources and powers and functions appertaining thereto. The NAPOLCOM however, retained its powers and functions in relation to the following: 1) attestation of appointments; 2) conducting police qualifying examinations; 3) investigation;

4) adjudication and review of police administrative disciplinary cases; 5) adjudication

and grant of compensation for permanent disability and death benefits; and 6) staff

inspection and audit of police forces which were extended to include the fire and jail

components of the INP.

Presidential Decree No. 765 also provided the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officers

of the NAPOLCOM to investigate administrative complaints against members of the police forces and their claims for permanent disability and death benefits the jurisdiction of the adjudication Board to decide such cases and that of the Special Appellate Committee of the Commission to review decisions of dismissals rendered by the Board. This was also made to embrace the fire and jail components of the INP.

Presidential Decree No. 765 also provided the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officers of the NAPOLCOM to investigate administrative complaints against members of the police forces and their claims for permanent disability and death benefits; the jurisdiction of the adjudication Board to decide such cases and that of the Special Appellate Committee of the Commission to review decisions of dismissals rendered by the Board. This was also made to embrace the fire and jail components of the INP.

The following are some of the salient features of Presidential Decree No. 765:

1.The INP was established and constituted, composed of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) as the nucleus, and the integrated Police Forces as components, under the Department of National Defense;

2.The Head of the INP known as the Director General was the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary;

3.The PC remained and constituted as a major service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP);

4.The powers and functions of the NAPOLCOM in the training of policemen, the establishment of the Police Integrated Communications System, the grant of police subsidy and the adjudication and grant of compensation for temporary disability benefits were transferred to the INP, including personnel, equipment, appropriations and other resources appertaining thereto;

5.The NAPOLCOM was transferred to the Department of National Defense from the Office of the President, and

6.The remaining powers and functions exercised by the NAPOLCOM over local police agencies extended to the police, fire and jail components of the INP.

The Defunct Philippine Constabulary (PC).

On November 30, 1900, the Philippine Commission recommended to the Secretary of War the organization of an Insular Police Force. The recommendation having been approved, the Philippine Commission passed Act No. 175 on July 18, 1901, entitled An Act Providing for the Organization and Government of an Insular Constabulary. It then later became the Philippine Constabulary by Section 1, Act No. 255 on October 3, 1901. Under the technicalities of the law, the Constabulary is a National Police Institution for preserving the peace and for keeping and enforcing the law. In fact, its police nature was expressly and clearly stated in Section 1 of Act No. 175, which was the organic Act creating the Constabulary. The same provision was retained in Section 825 of the Administrative Code. Pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 343 dated June 23, 1938 and Executive Order No. 389 dated December 23, 1950, the Philippine Constabulary was the existing and organized National Police Force of the Country.1

The PC also became one of the four services of the Armed Forces of the Philippines pursuant to Executive Order No. 389 dated December 23, 1940.

Integrated National Police (INP).

As has been discussed earlier, all INP units have been transferred to the administrative control and supervision of the National Police Commission, who functioned directly under the Office of the President in the maintenance of peace and order, and public safety. The Operational control and supervision of the entire INP units have also been transferred to the city and municipal mayors. The new changes have been brought about in view of the 1973 Constitutional provision which states that The State shall establish and maintain integrated national police whose organization, administration and operation shall be provided by law. The concept of the Integrated National Police being purely civilian in nature, it is but proper and adequate that it be under the office of a civilian administrator, not under the control and supervision of the military organization of any branch of service of the Armed Forces. Had the INP remained under the Philippine Constabulary, the Constitutional provision that civilian authority is always supreme, would have been meaningless. History in law enforcement tell us that Police Forces are always civilian in nature, even though they have a para-military operation. It is therefore all right that the INP units are under the Office of the President through the Office of the National Police Commission.

The Integrated National Police being civilian in nature should always bear in mind that a democratic government is one that operates at the will of the people through free elections of the law-making body of the Republic of the Philippines. Thus, laws that are passed by the parliamentary or law-making body are a reflection of the needs and will of the people.

Republic Act No. 6975, An Act Establishing the PNP under a Reorganized Department of the Interior and Local Government, and for Other Purposes, December 13, 1990.

The following are some of the salient features of Republic Act No. 6975, commonly termed as the PNP Law, to wit:

1. Organization:

a.The Department of the Interior and Local Government shall consist of the Department proper, the existing Bureau and Offices of the defunct Department of Local Government (DLG);

b.The National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM);

c. The Philippine Public Safety College and the following Bureaus:

1. The Philippine National Police (PNP),

2. The Bureau of Fire Protection, and

3. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology

2. Nature of Police Organization:Its paramount importance is that it is national in scope and civilian in character. And no element of the police force shall be military nor shall any position thereof be occupied by any active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

3. Nature of Office of the National Police Commission:

The NAPOLCOM is a collegial body within the DILG. It is composed of a Chairman and four regular Commissioners, one of whom is designated as Vice-Chairman by the President. The Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) is the Ex Officio Chairman of the NAPOLCOM, while the Vice Chairman

acts as the Executive Officer of the Commission.

4. Bureau of Fire Protection:

This Bureau has now the power to investigate all causes of fires and, if necessary, file the proper complaints with the city or provincial prosecutor who has jurisdiction over the case.

5. Bureau of Jail Management and Penology.

Has now the, power to exercise supervision control over all city and municipal jails.

6.Public Safety CollegeThe Philippine Public Safety College (PPSC)will be the premier educational institution for training, human resources development and continuing education of all personnel of the Philippine National Police, Fire and Jail Bureaus.

Additional Important Provisions of Republic At No. 6975. 1. Section 27. Powers and Functions of the PNP.

This section refers to what is known as the Statutory Power of the Police and functions of the PNP. Specifically they are:Statutory Power of the Police:

a. Enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the protection of lives and properties; b. Maintain peace and order and take all necessary steps to ensure public safety;

c. Exercise the general powers to make arrest, search and seizures in accordance with the Constitution and pertinent laws;

d. Investigate and prevent crimes, effect the arrest of criminals, bring offenders to justice and assist in their prosecution;

e. To assist other national government agencies, instrumentalities, and subsidiaries in the enforcement of laws pertinent thereto, upon proper request and or deputization; and

f. Detain an arrested person for a period not beyond what is prescribed by law, informing the person so detained of all his rights under the Constitution and pertinent laws.

From among the various Philippine laws governing police service, it can be gleaned that Republic Act No. 6975 dated January 1990 improvises Republic Act No. 4864 - the Police Act of 1966 after Presidential Decree No. 765 had served the vested interest of some irresponsible officers of the defunct Philippine Constabulary at the pretext of integrating the police force with the whims and caprices of a cohesive, uniform and standardized police organization and administration. Making the PC as the nucleus of the INP and at the same time status quo a major service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Statistics indicate that graft and corruptions were committed by some irresponsible officers of the defunct PC, such that some logistics, financial appropriations, office supplies and many things, legally intended for the local police forces, were technically misappropriated and/or personally appropriated by some defunct PC personnel. One good apparent example was when one patrol jeep with its accessories intended for the city police was issued and used by one PC Colonel, thereby depriving said city police of its uses.

Public Understanding of the Police Service.

The Philippines being a democratic and a republican State, it is necessary that the people who are the sovereign authority should also be able to understand the responsibilities of their local police forces, know their functions, understand their problems and difficulties. On the other hand, the local police should earn the publics trust and confidence through effective and efficient service. For news about satisfactory police service would spread from one person to another and soon the people in a particular area would believe that the police force is doing a good job and will assist them in every way possible. This is the type of publicity that every police force wants and which gives the public confidence in their local police force. When a police organization is poorly manned, inadequately managed, and inefficient, the superior officer does not want publicity. The Chief of Police does not want the people to know how poorly he manages his police force nor that he has not been interested in the welfare of his command. A good police administrator does his best to improve his police organization as well as the welfare of his office personnel. When this is done, he does his utmost to get the public to understand the job of the policemen and thereby gain public support of the peace and order campaign of the local police force. Under this condition he also uses every opportunity to point out to the public the excellent job the police officers of his command are doing for the citizenry.

Police Operations.

Police operations shall be under the supervision and direction of the Chief of Police. These police operations include but are not limited to the following:

1. Prevention of crime. This activity or mission which seeks to minimize the causes of crime requires the police to mingle with the community where criminal activities originate and breed and where the criminalistic tendencies of individuals motivate them to indulge in anti-social behavior. This would enable the individual peace officer to understand people and the environment in which they live. Crime prevention in essence means the eradication of the desire on the part of the potential criminal to commit a crime.2. Repression of Criminal Activities. This emph4- sizes the presence of an adequate patrol system including the continuous effort toward eliminating or reducing hazards as the principal means of reducing the opportunities for criminal action.

The saying The mouse will play while the cat is away, is doubly true in law enforcement, where the presence of a policeman in uniform, would deter and discourage the would be criminal offender from committing a crime or violating

local ordinance. Crime prevention means the elimination of the opportunity that exists on the part of the would be criminal to commit an act punishable under the law.

3. Preservation of Peace and Order. This requires a peace officer to gain the sympathy of the community so that they may close ranks in combating crimes and any other anti-social behavior. The community should be informed through proper

education of their share and involvement in the maintenance of peace and order in their locality.

4. Protection of Lives and Property. This operation of providing for the safety and convenience of the public is analogous with that of practicing physicians. The doctor protects life by combating disease and promoting public health through preventive measures. The policeman insures public safety by eliminating the hazard of accidents and

by guarding the citizens against the attack of the bad elements of society. The police has the grave obligation to preserve the citizens constitutional guarantees of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

5. Enforcement of Laws and Ordinances and Regulation of Non-Criminal Conduct.

This requires a policeman to constructively integrate or enforce and implement the laws of the land as well as local ordinances without regard to the personal circumstances of the individual citizens and any other persons sojourning in the Philippines, in order to provide tranquility among the members of society. This also includes the regulation of non- criminal conduct in order to obtain the compliance of the public through education on the dangers inherent to the disobedience of regulations. This may be made through the use of a warning device which would inform the citizens without necessity of imposing penalty or sanction.

6. Apprehension of Criminals. This operation defines the statutory power of every policeman as a means of discouraging the would-be criminal offender. The consequence of arrest and prosecution has a deterrent effect intended to discourage crime or any unlawful act. It also lessens repetition by causing suspects to be incarcerated, and it provides an opportunity for the reformation of those convicted. This activity likewise includes the recovery of stolen property in order to restrain those who are accessories to the crime and or those benefiting from the gains of crime.

7. Prompt Execution of the Criminal Processes of the Courts. The prompt execution of criminal processes or writs of the courts is not so much to procure the conviction of one whom they suspect of criminal offenses, whether they are in favor of or against the suspected person, but to present the facts fairly and impartially to the proper court in order that justice may be served. Thus, in the investigation of offenders, investigating officers are in some respect officers of the court, and though they exercise no judicial functions, they must never forget that the whole scheme of justice is founded upon the principle of fairness, reason, and impartiality in its administration. No peace officer shall compromise for crime nor relentlessly prosecute criminals.

8. Coordination and Cooperation with Other LawEnforcement Agencies. This activity underscores the duty of the superior officer of any unit of the Integrated National Police and its subordinates to establish rapport or good relationship with other law enforcement agencies of the government. Through rapport, a superior officer and his subordinates may be able to maintain a harmonious working relationship with other law enforcement agencies of the government whereby coordination and cooperation among them may be established. It may be worthwhile for any police organization to remember to adopt the view that coordination is an essential conduct of command.

9. Safeguarding Public Health and Morals. This involves many activities or missions peripheral to basic law enforcement and public safety, such as sanitation, search and rescue operations, licensing, the inspection of buildings in order to determine whether or not the Presidential Decree on Fire Prevention is strictly obeyed. Likewise it also includes escort duties, civic actions, and many other activities related thereto.

The Police Tasks: Its Challenge and Diversity.

It is generally assumed by the public that the police enforces criminal laws and preserves peace mechanically by simply arresting anyone who has deviated from legislative norms of acceptable behavior.

This concept of the mechanical enforcement of all criminal laws dramatically underplays the difficulties of the police role. First, some local police stations do not have the resources to enforce all criminal laws equally. Second, the other components of the Criminal Justice System simply cannot cope with all law violations. Furthermore, the police are faced with enforcing numerous laws regulating social conduct prostitution and gambling to name a few.

Since the police are always in the front line to prevent crime, they must be constantly alert to potential violators and must attempt to reduce the opportunity for criminal behavior. This requires vigilance on the part of the members of the PNP, an intuitive sense for suspicious conduct, and an understanding of human behavior.

The complexity of the police task, therefore, is perhaps greater than that of any other profession. The people expect the members of the PNP to possess the nurturing, caretaking, sympathetic, empathizing and gentle characteristics of a human being and at the same time command respect, demonstrate courage, control hostile impulses, and meet great physical hazards. We can think of no other profession in this world which constantly demands such seemingly bionic characteristics.

A police agency that vigorously and efficiently enforces the law operates as a definite deterrent to the commission of crime and delinquency and, therefore, contributes in a significant way to the prevention and control of crimes.

The Philippine National Police in general and the local police stations in particular are in a better position to draw up special programs for the prevention and control of crimes for the following reasons:

1. They have the best national statistics on the extent, scope, fluctuation and trend of crime and delinquency;

2. Although perhaps undermanned, the police nevertheless, have more manpower than any other component of the criminal justice system;

3. The police are the best informed regarding the methods of criminals and delinquents;

4. The police are regularly on duty twenty-four hours everyday;

5. Often the police are the first to learn about crime and delinquency;

6. The police usually have the first contact with the juvenile delinquents and often with the pre-delinquent juveniles;

7. The police usually have the most clearly defined legal power and authority to take action;

8. Usually the police are the ones who have the authority to apprehend adults engaged in the exploitation of the youth;

9. The police have access to records which are not open to representatives of private and unauthorized agencies;

10. In order to carry out their functions other agencies often require the assistance of the police; and

11. Police stations are the best equipped to detect and identify individuals and most of the conditions contributing to juvenile delinquency.

Community Relations.

The basic police purpose of preserving peace and protecting life and property is accomplished by controlling the behavior of people. A persons conduct is determined either by what he wants to do, or by what he is afraid of. Compliance with law and regulation is obtained either by developing a public willingness to conform to the desired pattern of behavior or by compelling people to conform by threat of punishment. Hence, the two processes enforcement and the development of attitudes favorable to law observance cannot be completely separated, with the police free to choose one and reject the other. Their use is a matter of judgment varying in degree or emphasis. The police because of its jurisdiction may attempt to accomplish its purpose by enforcement with no attention to positively- motivated compliance which uses a minimum enforcement on individuals when other methods fail.

The active interest and participation of the citizens is a source so vital to an effective, efficient, economic and harmonious law enforcement and public safety that deliberate efforts should be made to arouse, promote and maintain public concern over the objectives and affairs of the Philippine National Police.

The police should not resent such attention nor should they regard as happy a situation in which the public takes no interest in their work and evinces no desire to participate in the solution of their problems. Indifference should not be construed as an indication that the public is satisfied with the work of the police station, but rather as a warning that the public may, under slight provocation, violently object to police procedures merely because they are not familiar with them.

The Meaning of Police Community Relations.

The Police Community Relations is the sum total of dealings of the police with the people it serves and whose goodwill and cooperation it craves for to insure the greatest possible efficiency in public service. It spans: (a) the entire field of public information designed to bridge any communication gap between the police and the public; (b) public relations intended to maintain harmony and mutual support between the police and community development; and (c) mass communications for the purpose of conditioning both the friendly and the hostile public, thereby insuring and facilitating the attainment of police objectives.

Related Definition of Terms.

Public Relations The act of bringing about better understanding, confidence and acceptance of an individual or an organization.

Police Public Relations The continuing process by which endeavors are made to obtain the goodwill and cooperation of the public for the effective enforcement of the law and the accomplishment of police purpose.

Human Relations Consists of those fundamental precepts, both moral and legal, which govern the relationships of men in all aspects of life.

Need for Public Support.

The ultimate objectives of police community relations is to influence the

opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of the public so that they will behave in a manner beneficial to the unit, in particular, and the PNP in general, either directly or indirectly, and to solicit public support in order to make it easier for the police to accomplish their task successfully.

The execution of the plans of police activity requires the active support and

participation of the public. The integrated police, under a government for and by the people, are public servants appointed to protect life and property in a manner approved by the people. If the police are out of step with the people and attempt to impose on them unpopular programs of control, their efforts are doomed to failure; and the administrator who continues to go against the will of the majority in his efforts to regulate the conduct of the people will usually be putting himself in an untenable situation.

Foundation of Good Community Relations.

Efficient service as the basic foundation of good community relations is true in any

organization, most particularly in the police service whose clientele is the general public.

Since action is determined by frames of mind, the police should scrutinize their own

point of view to assure that it is a proper one. Their attitude will be determined by their concept of police function as well as their stand on their duty toward the public. They should be able to distinguish between the police functions. They should realize that the essence of a proper police attitude is the willingness to serve. They should distinguish between service and servility, courtesy and softness. They must be firm, but at the same time courteous; they must avoid an appearance of rudeness. They should develop a friendly, impersonal, and unbiased manner, pleasant and personal in all-restrictive situations but firm and impersonal on occasions calling for regulation and control. They should understand that they are policemen and that the primary police purpose is to prevent violations and to arrest offenders.

Foundation of Public Relations.

Public relations is basically founded on the Golden Rule: Do not do unto others what you do not want others do unto you.

The police is a social institution concerned with social problems. They are the

agency around which the community often rallies in times of tension and emergency. They cannot respond by force alone. They must have other means of developing and sustaining civic peace. Greater emphasis should be placed upon preventive policing, that is, programs aimed at the anticipation and hearing of social conflict, the cause of which are so intimately related to the causes of crime and delinquency. Crime prevention is generally recognized as an important police function. But the police can do little without community cooperation and assistance. The police must take the initiative and show the way, in effect, to assist the community to meet its responsibility, and at the same time, hopefully, to improve police community relations. If the police fail in providing such leadership, the community tends to blame the police for all manifestations of social bankruptcy. The police cry out against such scapegoating, but they have only themselves to blame for the situation.

Thus, each and every member of the Philippine National Police should adhere

to the principles of police community relations in the interest of peace and order in the community, which would then result in tranquility among the members of that society.

Republic Act No. 7438 An Act Defining Certain Rights of a person arrested,

detained or under custodial investigation, as well as the duties of the arresting, detaining, and investigating officers, and providing penalties for violation thereofProsecution

Nature and Office of a Prosecutor.

Prosecution is the process or method whereby accusations are brought before a court of justice to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused. The prosecutor is not just an ordinary official of the government; he is, as well an officer of the court whose criminal responsibility under the law is to carry out the administration of the criminal justice system through an adequate examination of the offense charged and to decide whether or not to prosecute the individual offender, without sacrificing fairness and justice. He serves as a direct contact between the government, through the police agency and the court of justice, and the criminals and the attorneys representing them. His series of contact is made from the moment he receives the case to the criminal proceedings and even until up to the final disposition of that case in the- trial court. He deals with the court and the defendant for and in behalf of the government he represents.

In the criminal proceedings, the prosecutor has the basic responsibility of representing the government in the courts of justice. This responsibility is based on the principle that acts and omissions punishable by law when committed are always against the public interest and not only against the offended individual. It is for this reason that in criminal proceedings the caption of the case is in the name of the People of the Philippines vs. a particular individual(s). If the elements of the crime alleged to have been committed are present, it is the prosecutors task of bringing the offender to the court through criminal proceedings. He must see to it that an innocent party is not unfairly and unjustly prosecuted. He must ensure that sufficient, strong and convincing evidence exists in order to prove the guilt of the accused through the due process of law. The defendant through his lawyer then protects his interest and sees to it that the prosecutor does not unjustly and unfairly prosecute the case. In effect, the trial of the case is some sort of a battle of forensic of law. The prosecutor is the champion of the state he represents, the lawyer is the clients champion.

Procedure in Preliminary Investigation Under the Present Rule of Law.

Long before the Judiciary Reorganization, the most common criticism of the criminal procedure system of the country was the lack of uniformity in the procedure of conducting preliminary investigation. Now under Republic Act No. 5180, dated September 8, 1968, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 911, and lately by the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, dated January 1, 1985, the procedure was made uniform for preliminary investigation conducted by fiscals and other such officers authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigation. The most salient feature of the changes concerned the authority of the affidavit method of preliminary investigation in order to avoid the delays that usually happen during the process.

Duty of the Investigating Fiscal.

If the investigating fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall

prepare the corresponding information to be filed with the court. He shall certify under oath that he has examined the complainant and his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall dismiss the complaint, stating the reasons therefor.

In either case, he shall forward the records of the case including the resolution to

the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor from receipt thereof, immediately informing the parties of said action.

No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed

by an investigating fiscal without prior written authority or approval of the provincial or

city fiscal or chief state prosecutor.

Where the investigating assistant fiscal recommends the dismissal of the case but his findings are reversed by the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the corresponding information against the respondent or direct any other assistant fiscal or state prosecutor to do so, investigation.If upon petition by a proper party, the Department of Justice reverses the resolution of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary investigation or to dismiss or move for dismissal f the complaint or information.Duty of the Investigating Judge.

Within ten (10) days after the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit to the provincial or city fiscal, for appropriate action, the resolution of tike case, stating briefly the findings of facts and the law supporting his action, together with the entire records of the case, which shall include: a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; b) the affidavits and other supporting evidence of the parties; c) the undertaking or bail of the accused; d) the order of release of the accused and cancellation of his bail bond if the resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint.

Should the provincial or city fiscal disagree with the findings of the investigating judge, the fiscal must explain his action in writing furnishing the parties with copies of his resolution, not later than thirty (30) days from receipt of the records from the judge.With the foregoing provisions, the first and foremost task of the prosecutor is to get the facts of the case before doing anything. The reason for this is that the facts of the case determine what law or laws are applicable to a case at bar. The ultimate task of the prosecutor is not to win, but to bring the case to justice, in accordance with the rule of the in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. After evaluating all the evidences, the prosecutor decides whether to file the necessary information or not. This is the process where the prosecutor performs the screening function of the case by reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence before its prosecution.

Screening Functions of the Prosecutor.

The screening functions of the prosecutor are over upon the cessation of the filing of corresponding information whereby the accused is either not held criminally liable for the offense he is alleged to have committed or he settles the case amicably with the complainant.

The first method of screening is resorted to when there is doubt that a conviction can be obtained either because the evidence is insufficient due to a lack or absence of credible witnesses, or non-prosecution or lack of interest on the part of the complainant or the act charged does not constitute the crime alleged to have been committed. The second method is adopted when the accused will do something to right the wrong in accordance with the rule of law. This usually happens when the accused is willing to settle the case amicably with the complainant.

The two methods may be able to eliminate from the administration of criminal justice many cases that do not need further prosecution. They are not tantamount to delaying tactics in the processing of cases by the prosecutor or the court which undermine the publics respect and support of the judicial machinery. These methods would rather lessen the backlog of cases that hamper judicial agencies.

In both methods, a competent prosecutor should task himself the following questions before filing the corresponding information:

1. Is there sufficient probable cause of a prima fade case of the guilt to warrant the prosecution of the suspect and spend the money of the government for the trial of the case? 2. If there is probable cause or prima facie, is there any reason that the filing of the corresponding information should not be made? and

3. Will the filing of the information or non-filing of the same be in the best interest of the administration of justice?

If the filing of information is warranted, the prosecutor should research further on the facts of the case. The prosecutor makes the initial determination based on the facts known to the police officers who conducted the investigation of the crime or who made the arrest.

Court

Judicial Procedure in Pre-Spanish Philippines.

All trials of criminal and civil cases in pre-Spanish Philippines were in public. The litigants in the case pleaded their own case. There were no lawyers, court clerks or stenographers. The litigants presented their witnesses. Before testifying, these witnesses took an oath to tell the truth. The oath was in various forms, such as May the crocodile eat me! May I die if I tell a lie! May no woman love me! or May the moon frown upon me! To our forefathers, their oath was sacred. Perjury was rare in the early trials. The barangay court decided the case in favor of the litigant who presented more proofs than the other.Trial by Ordeal.

In criminal cases, when there was doubt as to who of the accused persons was really guilty of the crime, trial by ordeal was resorted to. It was believed that the gods protected the innocent and punished the guilty. Through the ordeal the gods revealed divine truth to the people. Thus, an accused person who was innocent was believed to be always successful in the ordeal because the gods would make him win.Meaning of Court.

A court is a body to which the public administration of justice is delegated, being a tribunal officially assembled under authority of law at the appropriate time and place for the administration of justice through which the State enforces its sovereign rights and powers. It is an entity or body in which a portion of judicial power is vested.

Meaning of Judge.

A judge is a public officer so named in his commission (written evidence of appointment) and appointed to preside over and to administer the law in a court of justice.

Court and Judge distinguished.

The two terms are frequently used as synonymous with each other. However, distinctions are present. That a court is an incorporeal entity composed of one or more judges. It has a personality separate and distinct from the men who compose it. A judge alone does not necessarily constitute a court, for while he is an indispensable part he is not only a part of the court. It is elementary, however, that a court cannot exist without a judge.

Judicial Power.

According to Article VIII Section 1 of the Constitution, Judicial power shall be vested in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. In a democratic form of government like the Philippines, the two branches, namely the legislative and the executive carry the task or the role of administration and management1 respectively. The legislative branch formulates the laws of the land and the latter implements said laws or policies. The legislation enacted has to be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the rule of law by the judiciary branch of the government.

Judicial power is the power to apply the laws to contests or disputes concerning legally recognized rights or duties between the State and private persons, or between individual litigants in cases properly brought before the judicial tribunal. In effect, judicial power, as defined by Chief Justice Concepcion, is the authority to settle justifiable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice, or the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights.

Scope of Judicial Power.

The judicial power which is vested in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law includes the following:

1. To pass upon the validity or constitutionality of the laws of the State and the acts of the other departments of the government;

2. To interpret and construe them;

3. To render authoritative judgments; and

4. It also includes the incidental powers necessary to the effective discharge of the judicial functions such as the power to punish persons adjudged in contempt.

In line with their power to adjudicate, the following provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines are applicable to it:

Article 8 Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal systems of the Philippines;

Article 9 No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws;

Article 11Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be countenanced;

Article 12 A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence.

The aforementioned provisions show that the task of applying the law enables the judiciary to partake in a limited way in the law-making function, given the lack of precision in language in laws and the need to make legal norms adaptable to novel, yet delicate situations. According to Justice Holmes, the essence of judicial functions, is to investigate, declare and enforce liability as they stand on present or past facts and-under laws supposed already in existence. In order to do this, the judge appraises the evidence submitted by both parties, whether oral, documentary or real.

Power to Punish Persons in Contempt.

The power of the court to punish persons adjudged in contempt is co-terminous with its judicial power. In proceeding against the late Senator Sotto, for irresponsible and defamatory remarks against the Supreme court, it was alleged that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to take any action against him for contempt, was not embraced in the grant of judicial power under the 1935 Constitution. The Supreme court speaking through Justice Feria, rejected such contempt to the effect that the power to punish persons adjudged in contempt is inherent in all courts of superior jurisdiction independent of any special expression of statute. This is a doctrine or principle uniformly accepted and applied by the Court as a last resort in the United States of America, and this is applicable in the Philippine setting since our Constitution and courts of justice are patterned after those in the USA. However, in the People of the Philippines vs. Marcos, Justice Laurel, as ponente, stated that inherent power to punish for contempt should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle; and in the corrective and not on the retaliatory idea of punishment. In the Villavicencio vs. Lukban case, when one is commanded to produce a certain evidence but fails to do so, the court to vindicate its authority may adjudge the respondent guilty of contempt, and order him either imprisoned or fined. An officers failure to produce the body of a person in compliance with the writ of habeas corpus when he has the power to do so, is a contempt committed in the face of the court.

Significance of the Court in the Administration of Criminal Justice.

The courts under the Constitution are entrusted with the function of deciding actual cases and controversies. They do not participate actively in the process of administration, but are rather tasked with adjudication by applying the law to the facts as established. It is precisely the duty of the Supreme Court and inferior courts to apply the Constitution as the Supreme Law. Thus, in some instances, they may annul executive or legislative action. Hence, the court has an influential role in the affairs of the government, much more in the administration of the Criminal Justice.

Judicial independence.

Having been vested by the Constitution the judicial power to settle justice controversies, the judicial independence of the courts is vital and indispensable in the exercise of their judicial functions. No judge worthy of the name can dispose or mete out justice with an impartial eye and an even hand useless he can decide the case or controversy before him on its merits alone. Men of courage, of character, and of conviction, without whom the judiciary of any country is not likely to inspire public confidence, could be available except on the guarantee that in their actuation they bow to no master unless it be the law, as interpreted according to the learning and their conscience. Without such confidence, party litigants would not bring their case to the courts of law, but rather take the law into their hands and redress their own grievances. The judicial independence is not only applicable between private persons but between government agencies, as well. This is so under the principle of a built-in system of checks and balances of the three branches of the government. The courts, in the administration of criminal justice, is free to perform their functions without interferences from the executive or legislative branch of the government. For a government of law, and not of men can be assured only by a judiciary that is independent and free, passionately devoted to the impartial administration of justice.

The Constitutional policy for an independent judiciary is further strengthened by the provisions transferring from the Department of Justice to the Supreme Court the administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof the authority to assign temporarily judges of inferior courts to other stations as the public interest may require, and the provisions giving specific authorization to the Supreme Court to order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Organization of Courts.

1. Regular Courts.

The Philippine Judicial System consists of a hierarchy of courts resembling a pyramid with the Supreme Court at the apex. Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, otherwise known as the Batas Pambansa Big. 129 (Rep. Act No. 129) the other regular courts are

1. Intermediate Appellate Court. This operates in ten (10) divisions, each comprising five (5) members. The court sits en banc only to exercise administrative, ceremonial, or other non-adjudicatory functions;

2. Regional Trial Courts. One which is presided by 720 Regional Trial Judges in each of the thirteen (13) regions of the country;

3. Metropolitan Trial Courts. In each metropolitan area, established by law are a Municipal Trial Court in every city not forming a part of the Metropolitan area and each of the municipalities not comprised within a metropolitan area; as well as a Municipal Circuit Trial Court in each area defined as a municipal circuit comprising of one or more cities and/or one or more municipalities grouped together

according to law.

2. Special Courts.

Aside from the above-mentioned courts, there are also under present laws some

special courts. These are the following:

1. Court of Tax Appeals. Created under Rep. Act No. 1125, as amended, this special court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review on appeal the decisions of the Commission of Internal Revenue involving internal revenue taxes and decisions of the Commissioner of Customs involving customs duties.

2. Sandiganbayan. The Constitution provides that the National Assembly shall create a specialized court, popularly known as Sandiganbayan. The creation was made possible by Presidential Decree No. 1606.

3. Quasi-Judicial Agencies.

There are administrative bodies under the executive branch performing quasi

judicial functions, like the National Labor Relations Commission, Employees Compensation Commission, Board of Transportation, etc., and the Independent Constitutional Commissions which do not form a part of the integrated judicial system. The same is true of the Court Martial. The authority for the ordering of Court Martial pertains to the President as Commander-in-Chief, independently of legislation to aid him properly in commanding the Armed Forces and enforcing the required discipline.

Jurisdiction of Courts.

In the case of Herrera vs. Barretto, jurisdiction is the power and authority of

a court to hear, try and decide a case.

It may be:

1. General When it is empowered to decide all disputes which may come before it, except those assigned to other courts. (Example: jurisdiction of Regional Courts);

2. Limited When it has authority to hear and determine only a few specified cases. (Example: jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals);

3. Original When it can try and decide a case presented for the first time;

4. Appellate When it can take a case already heard and decided by a lower court removed from it by appeal;

5. Exclusive When it can try and decide a case which cannot be presented before any court;

6. Concurrent When any one of two or more courts may take cognizance of a case;

7. Criminal That which exists for the punishment of crime; and

8. Civil That which exists when the subject matter is not of a criminal offense.

Composition of the Supreme Court and Its Sitting Procedure.

The 1973 Constitution expanded the membership of the Supreme Court from

ten (10) members under the 1935 Constitution to fifteen (15) including the Chief Justice, to cope with the increase in the number of cases brought about by the increase in Filipino population.

The Supreme Court may sit en banc (as one body) or in three divisions. It is now the Supreme Court that decides whether or not it will sit in three, five or seven divisions. On the basis of fifteen members, the logical number in one division is seven (7) including the Chief Justice and five (5) in the other. Sitting in three divisions, the Supreme Court doubles its capacity to dispose of cases pending before it.

Cases to be Heard or Decided En Banc and the Number of Votes Required.

The Supreme Court hears and decides cases en banc with the corresponding number of votes required, to wit:

1. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement, or law shall always be healed and decided by the Supreme Court en banc. To declare a treaty, executive agreement, or la- unconstitutional, it shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberation on the issues and voted thereon.

2. All other cases which under the rules of tile Supreme Court are required to be heard en banc shall be decided en banc. The concurrence of at least eight (8) members is required.

3. Cases heard by division, if the concurrence of t least five (5) members is not obtained, shall be decided en banc.

4. Cases modifying or reversing a doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in divisions shall be decided by the court sitting en banc, and;

5. In administrative cases where the decision is for the dismissal of a judge of an inferior court, the vote of at least eight (8) members is necessary to order such dismissal.Power of Judicial Review.

The power of judicial review is the power of the courts, ultimately of the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution and to declare any legislative or executive act invalid because it is in conflict with the fundamental law. This authority is derived by clear implication from the provision of Sections 4(2) and 5(2) Article VIII of the Constitution. Through such power, the Supreme Court particularly, enforces and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution. This is so because the courts are the appropriate official interpreters of the constitution. Thus, a study of the constitution is in a large measure a study of judicial decisions and opinions.

Courts Limitation on the Exercise of Power of Judicial Review.

The Supreme Court, though considered the highest tribunal of the land, has its own limitations on the exercise of power of judicial review. These are the following:

1. There must be a concurrence of at least a majority of the members of the Supreme Court; who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in case and voted thereon.

2. A statute must be sustained unless clearly repugnant to the Constitution in view of the presumption of validity. Otherwise stated, when there are two possible interpretations in which one statute would be unconstitutional and the other would be valid, the court should adopt the latter;

3. The question of wisdom, propriety, or necessity of law is not open to determination by the court; and

4. Political questions which are decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government, cannot be the subject of judicial review.

Along this line, however, the Constitution expressly confers upon the Supreme Court the power to declare a treaty unconstitutional despite the emminently political character of treaty-making.

Procedure in Rendering Decisions.

The Philippine Constitution, particularly Section 13, Article VIII, provides that, The conclusion of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion of the court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.

The apparent purpose of the law is to avoid the practice of assigning a case to one justice for study and decision by him alone, with the other justices affixing their signatures to the decision merely as formal routine. It is thus proper and incumbent on the justices to take a direct part in the consideration and decision of every case. Decisions arrived at either en banc or in divisions, are assigned for the writing of the opinion of the court.

Maximum Period of the Rendition of Decision.

As per Article VIII Section 15 of the Constitution, the court must decide or resolve a case or matter submitted thereto within the following period from the date of submission, to wit:

1. Supreme Court within twenty-four (24) months;

2. Court of Appeals and other Collegiate Appellate Courts within twelve (12)

months unless reduced by the Supreme Court and

3. Inferior Courts within three (3) months unless reduced by the Supreme Court.

With regard to Sandiganbayan, Presidential Decree No. 1606 gives it three (3)

months to decide a case, after it has been submitted for decision.BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129

(Republic Act No. 129)

OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE JUDICIARY

REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980

This law primarily deals with the creation of new courts, replaces those

which are declared abolished and allocates to each of the Inferior Courts their respective defined jurisdiction. The subject therefore of jurisdiction of courts being substantive, it cannot be avoided that the question of jurisdiction of various courts taking cognizance of a particular case will be involved in judicial processes. Under the rule of law, lack of jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant or of the case, would be a ground for dismissal of the same. It is here in the law where great changes in Remedial Law have been brought about.

Jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction may be defined as the power possessed by a person or a body of men to dispose of a cause or question judicially. A jurisdiction is exclusive when the court is the only entity in which the matter in question can be disposed, to the exclusion of the other courts. A court has a concurrent jurisdiction when it is one of several courts, any of which indifferently may entertain the cause. Original jurisdiction is obtained when a court is authorized to entertain cause of action in the first instance. Appellate jurisdiction obtains when the court receives and entertains a cause or case on appeal from another court. For purposes of the Batas Pambansa 131g. 129 (Rep. Act No. 129) we should therefore discuss the jurisdiction of the courts.

Trial Judge: A Sort of Chief Administrative Officer of the Criminal Justice System.

A trial judge is a sort of chief administrative officer of the criminal justice system, using his power to dismiss cases as a method of controlling the use of criminal process. Some judges at times, when asked if they would explain their decision to the police indicate that the responsibility for explaining decisions to the police is not theirs, any more than it is with regard to private litigants. When asked whether they would suggest to the police proper ways of acquiring evidence in the future, some judges assert that it would be unethical for them to do so unless they also coached the defense.

Occasionally a judge will grant a motion to suppress evidence in order to dismiss a case he feels should not be prosecuted because the violation is too minor or for some other reason, The use of the motion to suppress evidence in this manner serves to negate the standards that are supposed to guide the police and this has a demoralizing effect upon police morale.

Most often the process of judicial review is seen. as a decision about the propriety of the actions of the individual officer rather than a review of departmental administrative policy. Some judges seldom ask for and, as a consequence, are not informed as to whether there is a current administrative policy. And if there is one, they seldom ask whether the officers conduct in the particular case conforms to or deviates from the policy. The decision of the trial judge is not even communicated to the police station and the prevailing police practice often continues unaffected by the decision of the trial judge.

IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES

Penalty Defined.

In its general sense, penalty signifies pain; in its juridical sphere, penalty means the suffering undergone, because of the action of society, by one who commits a crime. Hence, penalty is imposed only after conviction in a criminal action.

Why is the Death Penalty Justified?

Since the offender who commits a crime punishable by death has proven himself

a dangerous enemy to society, it may be pointed out that the death penalty is some sort of self-defense mechanism intended to dissuade criminal elements from committing capital crimes. The imposition of the death penalty is held valid in the Philippines because we do not consider the nature of the substance of the penalty but the form or mode of the punishment.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution, however, has abolished the imposition of the death penalty. To my mind, this would be detrimental to the peace and order campaign. Criminologists and penologists should have been consulted about the consequential damages, of the propose abolition.

Constitutional Limitations on Penalties.

Article III Sec 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution provides that excessive penalties shall not be imposed nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted.

When is Penalty Considered Cruel or Unusual?

Punishment is cruel and unusual if the form or character of the punishment rather than its severity in respect to duration or amount has been regarded as cruel and unusual by public sentiments such as those inflicted at the whipping post, or in the pillory, burning at stake, breaking on the wheel, etc.... Fine and imprisonment are not within the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Preventive and Corrective Measures Distinguished from Penalty.

Preventive measures take place before conviction measures are imposed except for criminal cases. Penalty on the other hand, is always imposed upon conviction in a criminal case only. So, a fine imposed by a superior officer upon a subordinate in the exercise of an administrative power is a corrective measure, whereas if the fine is imposed upon an offender upon conviction in a criminal action, such will constitute penalty.

What is a Capital Offense?

It is an offense which under the law existing at the time of commission and at the time of the application for bail may be punished by death although a lower penalty than death may be imposed after conviction.

Correctional Institutions

BASIC APPROACH INSTITUTIONS

The primary concern of penology is what to do with the prisoner. An old approach to this fundamental calls for his elimination, or at least his banishment and isolation from society. But the era of purely vindictive societal reaction has given way to the humane treatment of criminal offenders resulting in the present-day policy or rehabilitation and reformation.

In this connection, there are three main schools of thought or approaches with regard to the treatment of criminals. These schools are better known as the 1) classical, 2) neo-classical, and 3) positive or Italian.

Classical School.

This school lays stress on the crime and not on the person or criminal offender. In this approach, punishment which is retributive and punitive, is standardized and proportioned to the gravity and nature of the offense. It assumes that every individual has free will and knows the penal law. Moreover, it postulates that man is a rational and calculating being who acts with reference to feelings of pleasure and pain; thus he will refrain from criminal acts if the punishment imposed is sufficient to cancel hope of possible gain or advantage.hedonism wherein an individual calculates pleasure and pain in advance of action and regulates his conduct by the results of his calculation. The general proposition therefore of this school is: It is necessary to make undesirable acts painful by attaching punishment to them and to make the amount of pain thus entirely different so that a prospective criminal could make his calculation on it and make it just sufficient so that the pain would exceed the pleasure. Hence, imposition of punishment must be the same for all individuals, regardless of age, mentality, social status and other personal conditions of criminal offenders.

Neo-Classical School

This approach to penology arose at the time of the French Revolution and the period immediately thereafter. It maintains that while the classical school doctrine in general is correct it should be modified in certain details. It argues that since children and lunatic persons cannot calculate pleasure and pain, they should not be regarded as criminals and as such they should not be punished. The reaction to crime, therefore under this school is no longer punitive; punishment is imposed on some lawbreakers but not on others. By implication, individual responsibility was taken into account. Subsequently, it would be necessary for the administrators of justice to consider the psychology and sociology of crime.

Positive School.

This school views crime as a social phenomenon and attaches importance to the criminal offenders. To this effect, a criminal is like a sick man who needs not to be punished but treated in a hospital so that his illness which has something to do with the commission of crime may be cured. The concept of guilt must be substituted with that of Social Behavior, the incurable criminal is to be treated and the correctional institution is to constitute a criminology hospital.Hence, criminal offender should be considered as part of and not apart from society. It is through the prisoners themselves as individuals and through their own efforts with the humanistic understanding of society that the ultimate objective of the correctional institution to rehabilitate them will be achieved.

What are Jails?

Jails are primarily adult penal institutions used for the detention of law violators. Its original function was to house pre-trial detainees or to serve as a place for the detention of accused persons charged with having committed crimes. The detention was either for the accused persons safety and security, or to secure him for expeditious legal proceedings by the court. Later it came into use for the service of short- term sentences. Today it continues its dual role as a place of detention for those awaiting final disposition of criminal action and for the service of short sentences of not more than six months, for those categorized as city or municipal prisoners, and not more than three years or with a fine of not more than one thousand pesos, for those categorized as provincial prisoners.13

Jails differ from prisons. Provincial and city or municipal jails are administered by the provincial and city or municipal government, respectively, while prisons are administered by the state or national government. Provincial jails are under the administrative control and supervision of the Bureau of Prisons. On the other hand, the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) exercises administrative control and supervision over city or municipal jails although these are under the operational control and supervision of their respective mayors. This new set-up is one of the changes brought about by Executive Order No. 1040 dated July 10, 1985. Furthermore prisons, such as the National Bilibid

Prisons, house prisoners who by reason of their sentence may deprived of liberty for more than three years, that is, not categorized as provincial jail inmates.

Importance of Jails

No one layman would or may be able to appreciate the importance of jails, unless and until he has once stayed there for violation of any law or local ordinance. Jails are intended not for the purpose of letting one pay for the crime he committed, or to serve as form of punishment of sorts, but to enable a wrongdoer to be reformed and rehabilitated so that after his release he will become a law-abiding and useful citizen of the community. Jails will serve as a deterrent as well to a would-be non-conformist to the rules of society The first experience of an offender is impressive and lasting. The treatment that he receives from the jail guards or maybe from his co-inmates may spell his early rehabilitation or may make him a hardened criminal.Categories of Prisoners under Presidential Decree _ No. 29Presidential Decree No. 29 categorized prisoners into the following:a. City or municipal prisoners Persons who by reason of their sentence may be deprived of liberty for not more than six months. The imposition of not be taken into consideration in fixing the status of a prisoner hereunder except when the sentence imposes a fine only.

b. Provincial prisoners Persons who by reason of their sentence may be deprived of liberty for not more than three years or are subjected to a fine of not more than one thousand and pesos, or both. But if a prisoner receives two or more sentences in the aggregate exceeding the period of three years, he shall not be considered a provincial prisoner. The imposition of subsidiary imprisonment shall not be taken into consideration in fixing the status of a prisoner hereunder except when the sentence imposes a fine only.

c) All other prisoners are considered national prisoners.

The Three Aims of Correctional Reforms.

For the first time in the concept of Philippine Criminal Justice System, the following are the three aims of correctional reforms, to wit:

1. To provide judges with more options to deal with offenders through the use of probation, day fines, commitment to community treatment centers, pre-trial release, and other measures short of imprisonment.

2. Improving condition in prisons and jails, including decongestion, improved housing, more effective medical, educational, vocational training, and rehabilitation program services.

3.Establishing an integrated correctional system that will insure the development of a unified philosophy of treatment, implementation of uniform standards and policies, effective programs planning and development, and efficient delivery of services to offenders while at the same time protecting the interest and welfare of society.

Philippine Prisons System.

Of the components of the Criminal Justice System, correction is considered the weakest, mainly because of its failure to reform offenders and prevent them from returning to a criminal life.In the Philippines, correctional institutions are generally thought of as limited to jails and prisons. This is so because in our system of criminal justice, imprisonment is the most commonly-used method of dealing with criminals. In fact, it is oftentimes the only option given the judges in meting out penalties to convicted offenders, except in certain minor cases where a fine may be imposed.

Correctional services in the Philippines are primarily the responsibility of the Bureau of Prisons under the Department of Justice. In the strategy of social defense in the Philippines, the Bureau of Prisons is entrusted with two broad goals:

1. To segregate from society persons who by their acts have proven

themselves dangerous to society; and

3. To strive at the correction of these prisoners with the hope that when they

return to society, they shall be able to lead normal, well-adjusted, self-supporting and useful lives as useful and law-abiding citizens.

In line with this, there are more than 1,500 correctional institutions in the Philippines. Of this number, eight are national prisons under the supervision and control of the Director of Prisons; 72 are provincial jails, administered by the provincial governors and assisted by jail wardens; and 61 are city and 1,445 municipal jails which are administered by the local police agencies under the Philippine National Police.

HISTORY OF EARLY PHILIPPINE PRISONS

The Organizational Set-Up of the National Bureau of Prisons.

The basic law on the Philippine Prison System is found in the Revised Administrative Code, otherwise known as the Prison Law. The law specifically referred to is in Sections 1705 to 1751 of the said Code.

The Prison Law states that the head of the Bureau of Prisons is the Director of Prisons who is appointed by the President of the Philippines with the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. The Bureau of Prisons has general supervision and control of national and provincial prisons and all penal settlements and is charged with the safekeeping of all prisons confined therein or committed to the custody of the said Bureau.

Bilibid Prison.

It was in the year 1847 that the first Bilibid Prison was constructed and became the central place of confinement for Filipino prisoners, by virtue of the Royal Decree of the Spanish Crown.

The plan of the old Bilibid Prison was such that the brigades were constructed in a radical spokes-of-a-wheel form. For easy command and control, a central tower was placed at the center of the spokes. This was made of strong adobe stones so sturdy that even to this day after its transfer to the City Government of Manila, it still stands and has been used by the City of Manila as the City Jail. The place is still famous for its name as the May Haligue Estate, at the nearby Central Market of Manila.

In 1936, the City of Manila exchanged its Muntinlupa property of 552 hectares with that of the Bureau of Prisons lot in Manila. This Muntinlupa State was originally intended as a site for the Boys Training School. Because it is too far from Manila, the City of Manila preferred the site of the old Bilibid Prison.