Chapter II

Police Pillar

The police pillar is the gatekeeper of the criminal justice system process. The police initiate
contact with law violators and decide their journey through the system, settle the issue informally, or
simply take no action at all. The strategic of the law enforcement officers, their visibility and contact
with the public, and their use of weapons and arrest power have kept them in the forefront of public
thought for most of the 20th century.

The police occupy one of the most important positions in society. To them is entrusted the right
to protect the citizenry. More is expected of the police than most other professionals. The police are
expected to make decisions quickly, and they are also expected to solve many problems that society has
created but for which has found no solutions.

Early Origins of the Police Pillar

The police in the Philippines evolved from the practice of different tribes to select able-bodied
young man to protect their people from the assault of rival tribes, and maintain peace and order within
the village. This policing system existed in the local setting until pre-Spanish time.

With the coming of the Spaniards, who ruled the country for more than three centuries, the
country's police system changed. The general function of law enforcement was assumed by the Cuerpo
de Carabineros de Seguridad Republica. Police were called Cuardillo, and native Filipinos were appointed
up to the rank of Sergeant under the command of a Spanish Officer. In 1852, the Guardia Civil took over
peace-keeping duties in the islands under a Royal Decree.

After the Spanish, the Americans came. While American soldiers were busy fighting the tag army
of Gen. Emilio F. Aguinaldo in the hinterlands, Gov. William H. Taft established a police force that
maintained peace and order. On January 9, 1901, the Manila Police was formally organized by virtue of
Act No. 183 of the Philippine Commission. Thereafter, adjoining places followed through.

The Administrative Code of the Philippines, promulgated on September 10, 1955, provided for
the constitution of police forces in every city and municipality, with officers and members thereof being
appointed by the City or Municipal Mayor with the consent of the City or Municipal Council. Under this
setup, the police were primarily a political entity' inclined to serve the wills of those in power. Law
enforcement suffered the ignominy of being subservient to political conditions prevailing at any given
time.

In an effort to improve the quality and morale of all existing police forces, Republic Act No.
4864, known as the Police Act of 1966 was enacted, by virtue of which the National Police Commission
was created. The Napolcom was vested with the power to supervise and control the police forces all
over the country. Under this act, the power to appoint members of the police forces remained with the
Local Executives, but administration, control and disciplinary measures, including training of each
member, were placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Police Commission.

To ensure that beleaguered sectors of society conformed with policies promulgated by the
government, then Pres. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1081 and, subsequently, Presidential Decree
No. 765. This instituted the integration of the nation's police forces into the Philippine Constabulary,
virtually making the Integrated National Police a component of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
under the general supervision of the Department of National Defense.

The provision of Section 6, Article XVI, New Philippine Constitution, expressly provided that “the
state shall establish and maintain one national police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian
in character, to be administered and controlled by a national police commission. The authority of local
executives over the police units in their respective jurisdiction shall be provided by the law”.

This particular provision of the 1987 Constitution gave birth and significance to the consolidated
version of House Bill No. 23613 and Senate Bill No. 463, passed by the House of Representatives and the
Senate on November 19 & 20. 1989. respectively.

In turn, the joint congress passed Republic Act No. 6975 of 1990 entitled, “An Act Establishing the
Philippine National Police Under the Reorganized Department of the Interior and Local Government and
for Other Purposes".

The preceding act was subsequently amended by the consolidated version of House Bill No.
10089 and Senate Bill No. 2215, which was finally passed by the joint congress on February 20, 1998.
This gave birth to Republic Act No. 8551 of 1998 entitled, “An Act Providing for the Reform and
Reorganization of the Philippine National Police, and for Other Purposes”. This is the present
organizational set-up of the police in the local setting.

Historically, the police have had greater responsibility for maintaining the peace than for law
enforcement. It was their function to find homes and shelters for females lured into prostitution; to
handle riots and other civil disturbances; to regulate refuse disposal, street sanitation, and explosives;
and to inspect bars, liquor stores, and other businesses that require licensing. Police have also
historically performed numerous social service functions.

Initially, the police did not investigate criminal activities. That was the responsibility of the
victim. But once the victim had identified the guilty person, the police would help apprehend him or her.
Victims paid police for helping them regain stolen property.

FUNCTIONS OF THE POLICE PILLAR

Police functions may be categorized as law enforcement, order maintenance, and social services.

1. Law Enforcement

Police are empowered to stop, question, detain, and arrest people who violate the law. Their law
enforcement powers range from stopping traffic violators to apprehending persons suspected of
committing serious crimes. Police also investigate crimes and collect and preserve evidence for criminal
trials.

2. Order Maintenance

Order maintenance is defined as the "management of conflict situations to bring about

consensual resolution". Order means the "absence of disorder", and by disorder is meant behavior that
either disturbs or threatens to disturb the public peace or that involves face-to-face conflict among two
or more persons". An example would be a domestic dispute. It is crucial that police rather than other
professionals respond to such problems, since they may result in violence. It is argued that order
maintenance is the most important of police work. Police have wide discretion in all areas, and this
discretion occurs in situations often characterized by intensive conflict and hostile participants.

3. Preventive Patrol

Preventive patrol entails police officers' visible presence on the streets and in public places of
their area of responsibility. The purpose of patrol is to deter crime, maintain order, enforce laws, and aid
in service functions, such as emergency medical care. There are large varieties of patrol techniques. In
early police forces, foot patrol was almost exclusively used. Each officer had a particular area, or beat, to
walk; the police, officer was the symbol of state authority in that area. The beat officer dispensed street
justice".

4. Crime Investigation

The prominent role of the police is investigation and crime detection. The investigators and/or
detectives have been a figure of great romantic appeal since the first independent police bureau was
established by the London Metropolitan Police in 1841. The investigators and/or detectives have been
portrayed as the elite of the police force in films and television shows, such as Dirty Harry, NYPD Blue,
and Lethal Weapon.

POWERS OF THE POLICE PILLAR

As provided for by Section 24, Republic Act No. 6975 entitled, "An Act Establishing the Philippine
National Police (PNP) under a reorganized Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), and for
Other Purposes”, the following are the powers of the police:

1. Enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the protection of lives and properties;

2. Maintain peace and order and take all necessary steps to ensure public safety:

3. Investigate and prevent crime, effect the arrest of criminal offenders, bring offenders to justice and
assist in their prosecution;

[Link] the general powers to make arrest, search and seizure in accordance with the Constitution
and pertinent laws;

5. 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;

6. Issue licenses for the possession of firearms and explosives in accordance with law;

7. Supervise and control the training and operations of security agencies, and issue licenses to security
agencies, security guards, and private detectives for the practice of their professions, and

8. Perform such other duties and exercise all other functions as may be provided by law.

In addition, the police absorbs the office of the National Action Committee on Anti-Hijacking
(NACAH) of the Department of National Defense, all the functions of the present Philippine Air Force
Security Command (PAFSECOM), as well as the police functions of the Coast Guard. In order to perform
its powers and functions efficiently and effectively, the PNP is provided with adequate land, sea, and air
capabilities and all necessary material means or resources.

WORK OF THE POLICE PILLAR

In addition, the police absorbs the office of the National Action Committee on Anti-Hijacking
(NACAH) of the Department of National Defense, all the functions of the present Philippine Air Force
Security Command (PAFSECOM), as well as the police functions of the Coast Guard. In order to perform
its powers and function. Collectively, the police are the largest and most visible of all criminal justice
agencies. Police activities are probably the most complex and, certainly, the most controversial of all in
the criminal process. A dimension often overlooked in studying law enforcement is that the police, more
than most other agencies, are involved only part-time in crime control and prevention.

Much police activity has little to do with crime investigation, arrest, or interrogation of suspects.
Most police work involves such things as directing traffic flow, providing emergency services for citizens
who are injured or ill, maintaining an around-the-clock fire watch, locating missing persons, settling
family and neighborhood disputes, and handling drunkards and mentally ill persons.

So much is expected and demanded of the police that the proper scope of policing has never
really been defined. What a police organization does, should do, or should not do is literally
unanswerable. Should the police provide ambulance service and school crossing guards? Lead parades?
Escort funerals? Dry out drunks? Settle family arguments? Check parking areas? Guard dignitaries?

The answer to all of these questions, and more, is that many police organizations do these
things, not always by desire, but often by default. The hard fact is that there are no other agencies or
organizations that have, or are willing or able to accept, responsibility for many of these tasks. Police
duties, in good part, fill a social void; the police are not only the first summoned in emergencies and
unusual situations, but are often the only resource available.

Moreover, police intervention in providing services, settling disputes, or giving emergency aid
may be more closely related to crime prevention function than first appears. A domestic disturbance or
a barroom argument, left to boil, might erupt into serious incidents or violence. Public drunks are prime
targets for muggers; down-and-out drunks may freeze to death or be run over in the street. Street-
walking prostitutes have been known to arrange robberies of their clients; assorted homeless, lost, and
mentally disturbed persons are all potential crime victims.

The actual percentage of police-citizen contacts in non-criminal situations is not known with
accuracy and, of course, varies by community, by time of day, and by the specific assignment of each
police officer. Police assigned to routine traffic control may have very few occasions to invoke the
criminal process; on the other hand, officers in specialized crime units may do little except participate in
criminal investigation.

An ordinary patrol officer in highly urbanized places probably devotes no more than 10 to 15
percent of available time to activities directly related to criminal law enforcement. And even “crime
fighting” most often entails intervention in minor crime situations involving misdemeanors and public
order offenses. A patrol officer may experience long intervals of on-duty assignment between felony
arrests, and many officers have served years without using side arms.
 The varied activities of police involving actions other than crime investigation and arrest have
received comparatively little attention in the form of authorization, guidance, or control. In contrast,
their law enforcement functions are heavily restricted by statutes, criminal law, internal policy
guidelines, and extensive legal and sociological commentary.

While police are expected to assist citizens, settle disputes, and perform many duties other than
arresting suspects, formal recognition of this broader role has only recently emerged. Total police job is
a complex one, literally without boundaries, but in many ways thankless, unpleasant, and dangerous.

Unless the police are given appropriate resources and authority to deal with these unusual
problems, they will tend to conclude that those who provide them with authority are simply unaware of
the exceptional situations that they must handle every day. And since they must handle them with or
without authority, almost any means to solve problems becomes common practice.

To people immersed in police work, the never-ending demands for service, response to crises,
handling and solving the unusual and bizarre become routine. On a day-to-day basis, direct involvement
with the criminal process is much less frequent. Yet crime investigation and arrest are critical police
activities, even if they are less common than service functions.

In fact, involvement in serious crime situations is often viewed as “real” police work by both the public
and the police. The police are the frontline agency in crime control, with a primary legal duty to function
in this capacity. Entire police agencies, as well as individual officers within them, are often evaluated
primarily in terms of crime control activity.

It has been said many times that a constable's lot is not a happy one, and indeed the police are
continuously criticized for what they do and what they fail to do in all aspects of their work.

The fact that society has become highly urbanized is no reason why police cannot prevent or
effectively control crime, although their duties are much more difficult in modern society. Primarily,
criminal behavior is a product of extremely complex societal and personality factors that can neither be
corrected nor deterred by law enforcement alone.

POLICE PILLAR CRIME CONTROL DECISIONS

Enforcing criminal law is the primary duty of the police. Acting to investigate and solve crimes
involves a series of police decisions, each of which is closely monitored by courts and legislative bodies.
Every police enforcement decision is as complex and controversial as any criminal justice issue, yet
effective policing is clearly necessary to preserve the social frontline decisions of the police, both society
and democratic principles are all stake.

1. Investigating Crimes

The criminal justice process usually begins when the police suspect that a crime has been
committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, and when the situation is investigated to
verify or dispel this suspicion. There are three major ways, with almost infinite variations, in which police
suspicion is aroused. The first occurs when the police receive a complaint that a crime has taken place.
Normally all complaints trigger an investigation that will vary in intensity depending upon the type of
crime reported, the apparent credibility of the complainant, and other specifics of the situation.

The second way in which police suspicion is aroused is by observation of street behavior on
routine patrol. An officer working a beat in a patrol car or, occasionally at a fixed post, may observe
some occurrence a person running from a warehouse in the early hours of the morning, a clean motor
vehicle with dirty license plates, or similar unusual situations—that in the officer's experience may
indicate the commission of an actual crime or what appears to be a crime being committed.

Persons acting in a suspicious manner may be stopped and questioned following a complaint,
but most often this action is taken as a result of observation by police officers on patrol. Normally, at
this point, the police do not have sufficient evidence to make an arrest. Nonetheless, officers commonly
approach persons who are found near the scene of a crime, or who may otherwise arouse suspicion, and
ask for identification. Field inquiries may confirm police suspicion such that an arrest results. Or the
person stopped may satisfactorily explain his or her actions and be allowed to move on.

The authority of the police to stop and question persons against whom they do not have
sufficient evidence to arrest is cloudy. In general, there has been little legislation or court authorization
on this field inquiry" practice, and such authority as exists is unclear. Statutes permit police to stop
motor vehicles to check registration, but often the law is silent concerning their authority to stop
pedestrians in the absence of sufficient evidence to place them under arrest.

The right of police officers to frisk persons who are stopped for questioning is authorized by
statutes in other countries, and in practice here in the local setting. Frisk involves pat-down search of
the suspect only to discover weapons, not to recover contraband. The scope of a frisk is much more
limited than a full-scale search, and can occur only under specified conditions where the officer has
reason to believe he or she is "in danger of life or limb”.

A police officer's decision to conduct field inquiries, and perhaps frisk a suspect, is often the
result of street sense", the perception of a suspicious and possibly dangerous situation based on years of
experience on patrol. Like a trained hunter, an experienced officer may have suspicions aroused by
circumstances that do not give pause to the ordinary citizen. Yet police, in contrast to such other
participants as prosecutors and judges, are generally not recognized as "experts" in the sense that their
actions are justified on the basis of formal education, training or experience.

The major purpose of stop-and-frisk is to provide protection to the officer from assault by a
weapon possibly carried by a suspect. A problem arises when evidence of crime other than a concealed
weapon is discovered during the pat-down.

Search of stopped motor vehicles presents special problems when evidence of an offense,
usually possession of dangerous drugs, is discovered. Having no probable cause to believe that the
suspect possessed dangerous drugs before the search is basis for invoking the exclusionary rule. For
prosecution to proceed, justifying the use of the evidence must rest on either “plain view doctrine" or
observed suspicious behavior. In most instances, such cases have resulted in a great deal of litigation,
often with mixed results, depending upon variations in the actual situation.

A variation on the frisk of individual suspects is the police roadblock. In roadblock situations, the
police do not have enough evidence to arrest each driver. Searches cannot be justified on the basis of
arrest nor can the motor vehicle occupants be said to have freely consented to search, since the stops
are forcible and required. Some roadblocks searches have been upheld, but only when very serious
crimes were involved.

A third major way of police investigation is to go out and look for specific criminal activity. This
form of investigation stems from the belief that certain types of crimes, generally unreported, are
occurring or will occur in the community.

These investigations are usually directed toward the so-called victimless crimes, such as illegal
gambling, prostitution, dangerous drug trafficking, and other vice offenses, including criminal
conspiracies ranging from robbery plots by professional criminals to meeting of "subversive elements".
Large police organizations often have specialized detective units, such as vice-squads and organized
crime intelligence units, for investigating these types of offenses.

The techniques used by police to seek out possible criminal activities are varied, depending on
the quality of their information, the extent of community pressure, to enforcement, and the kinds of
offenses towards which investigation is directed. Investigations may involve searches, electronic
eavesdropping, and other kinds of surveillance, in addition to undercover infiltration of ongoing criminal
activities.

Search is an investigatory technique that can be used at any time, before or after arrest of a
suspect. Following a lawful arrest, a suspect may be searched without a warrant; but search prior to
arrests normally requires a search warrant or the consent of the persons to be searched. Freedom from
unreasonable searches is guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court hold that evidence
improperly seized cannot be admitted at trial.

Search of persons, premises, and vehicles is an extremely complex and controversial

investigatory technique, yet one that is considered essential by most police organizations. In recent
years, searches, with and without warrants, have been heavily litigated, resulting generally in new rules
and prohibitions limiting police authorities.

Surveillance includes a number of techniques, including police stakeout and observation of

suspicious premises, tailing of suspects, and various eavesdropping procedures such as wiretapping
telephones and recording conversations with hidden microphones "bugs".

Like search, surveillance techniques are also controversial, and as electronic eavesdropping
techniques become more sophisticated, they become more heavily litigated. Covert, unobtrusive
observation of suspects premises is difficult to control, but creates few problems if officers remain
hidden. Eavesdropping and wire tapping present somewhat more complex problems, and have been
increasingly limited by statute. Another police investigatory technique involves the infiltration of
criminal conspiracies by police officers who conceal their identity with appropriate disguise. The extent
to which a police officer must become personally involved in illegal activity to maintain credibility while
gathering sufficient evidence is a major problem in undercover operations Related to this is the extent to
which the undercover officer may "induce others to commit offenses in order to make arrests.

Inducement is a word used to describe the activity of the police agent who intends, by his
actions, to induce a suspect to commit a crime; who actually communicates this inducement to the
suspect; and who has thereby some influence upon the commission of the crime. Inducement does not
usually consist of a single act but a series of acts. Although inducement is an important practice used by
the police and other law enforcement agencies in the country, it is not a generally accepted
terminology. At times, it is loosely or mistakenly referred to as "entrapment," a label properly reserved
for illegal forms of inducement. The term “inducement”, although imperfect and perhaps connoting
impropriety to some, is intended only to be a descriptive, neutral word, neither critical nor
complimentary of the practice.

Controversies over various police investigatory techniques center on the conflicting ways
policing is viewed in society. Legislatures and courts have devoted a good deal of time and effort to
setting limitations on police investigation methods, while trying to avoid crippling vital procedures for
the detection of crimes and the identification of suspects. In some instances, where a suspect has been
named by a complainant, police may obtain an arrest warrant to apprehend the suspect. Commonly,
however, felony arrests are made without warrants. Such arrests are proper if, at the time, the officer
was present when the offense was committed had personal knowledge of the fact that the crime had
been committed. Warrantless arrests likewise apply to fugitives from justice.

As mentioned, statutory laws, with some exceptions, require the office to actually witness a
misdemeanor. “Probable" or "reasonable" cause to believe that a person committed the crime is
insufficient ground for arrest. In making a felony arrest, a police officer may use such force as is
necessary to take and maintain custody of the suspect.

2. In-Custody Investigation

A suspect taken into custody for a crime and for certain violations is fingerprinted and
photographed during the booking procedure.

The prisoner is searched and, after appropriate notification of the right to remain silent and the
right to have a counsel present, interrogated regarding the offense for which he or she was arrested.
The prisoner may also be questioned with regard to other offenses. The suspect has the right not to
answer questions. If legal assistance is requested, interrogation cannot proceed until he or she has
conferred with counsel.

A suspect held in custody may be placed in a lineup, which requires the suspect's appearance
with other persons for possible identification by the victim or witnesses. The Supreme Court has held
this procedure to be a "critical stage” of the process, requiring assistance of counsel if the lineup takes
place after the suspect is formally charged with a crime. However, comparable protection is not required
if the line-up occurs before charges are filed.

3. Release from Custody

A short time after arrest, suspects must be taken before the court for consideration of bail. The
time interval between arrest and this initial appearance depends upon the law and the offense. Most
courts require a bail hearing within a reasonable time" after arrest, "promptly", or on the first occasion
the court is open for business. But in some cases, initial appearance must be "immediate”.
 As with most criminal procedures, this time interval is a controversial matter. The sooner bail is
fixed, the shorter the opportunity for in-custody interrogation by the police. At the same time, prompt
opportunity for bail acts as a restraint on arrests for "investigation” and on extended police
interrogation, including such excesses as “third degree” treatment or the improper use of coercion to a
get a confession.

Persons accused of crimes in society have a constitutional right to pre-trial release on

reasonable bail. However, capital crimes are usually non-bailable. Fixing a high bail for serious crimes
could be found unconstitutional, but allowing no bail at all is proper and outside the scope of the
"excessive bail” remedy. The determination of whether bail is "reasonable" is generally left to court
interpretation.

In addition to bail, “release on recognizance" programs are allowed by the court, in which
indigent suspects are released without bail after somebody has signed an agreement to produce the
suspect at later proceedings. Release on recognizance diminishes the economic inequities of the bail
system, while offering as much assurance of later return as monetary bail.

The majority of defendants are released on bail bond or on recognizance return to attend later
proceedings. Yet it is clear that some offenders continue their criminal activity when released. Concern
for problems of this nature has generated a number of proposals for preventive detention program that
would maintain custody of suspects who might commit crimes while on pre-trial release.

Bail decision making has raised serious questions about whether the only purpose for bail is the
classic one of "preventing light". These zero in on the negative effects of denying bail or release on
recognizance, including conviction and sentencing of suspects held in detention while awaiting formal
charges and trial.

Criticism of the Police Pillar

Though it may be unfair, police organizations, especially police executives, are often blamed
when crime increases in a particular community. They are also blamed when crime does not decrease
following an increase in the police budget. In addition to criticism for failing to correct the total crime
problem, police are often criticized for failing to solve particular crimes. The latter is clearly within the
range of reasonable expectations about law enforcement.

While the police may not be able to do much about the environment that has produced crime,
they should be able to solve specific crimes by identifying and arresting suspects and recovering stolen
property.

Yet, this is not as simple as it sounds. Most crime investigations particularly those involving
forms of theft or fraud are "cold"; that is, the officer was summoned some time after the crime was
committed. The perpetrator had left the scene, and often there are no witnesses and telltale evidence.

Police officers are also sometimes criticized for standing at a fixed post, walking a beat, or
driving around in a patrol car apparently “doing nothing". What the police officer is actually doing, of
course, is waiting to be called to cope with someone else's emergency.
 Policing is a dangerous business, and police officers know only too well that they face the
potential of violence in all situations, even when called upon to provide emergency services or perform
apparently complicated peacekeeping functions. A speeding car is usually nothing more than a traffic
violation, but it may hold armed criminals fleeing the scene of a crime or wanted elsewhere.
Experienced police know of stories of officers hurt or killed in what appeared to be routine, non-
threatening calls, stops, or other investigations.

Constant awareness of potential violence leads police to act with what often appears to citizens
as undue suspicion and unnecessary caution in situations where there seems to be no reason for such
protective action. Furthermore, over time, the police officer becomes accustomed to crime and other
emergency situations, handling these as routine matters, often to the dismay of victims and witnesses.

There is a good deal of solidarity among police officers, with corresponding social isolation from
others in the community. Policing is often a thankless task; many officers are disliked for doing their job
effectively.

Few people like to be questioned or given traffic citations even when these are reasonable and
warranted. Although most citizens have a high regard for the work of the police, members of cultural
and economic minorities who have the most contact with the police tend to view them with a high
degree of hostility and a lack of confidence.

Over the past few decades, particularly in the years following World War II, police have sought
recognition as members of a “profession” rather than as simple jobholders. Success in this effort has
been limited but noticeable. The police organization has stiffened recruitment requirements and
provided better training and education for police officers, especially directorial staff. While recognition
of policing as a profession is developing slowly, the nature of the work supports the police claim for such
recognition.

Group 1 Reporters

► Jasper Caporal

► Bernadeth Gonzales

► Christy Aller

► Helaina Kae Benedicto

► Jeby Moran

► Joshua Baldonado

► Judie Florero

► Kimberly Labrosa

► Stella Daniel