Thursday, January 13, 2005
[Cebu City today is again at a crossroad. The present mayor, a person I used to admire for his no-nonsense approach to governance, has set off a very divisive issue. He wants to create a "Hunter Team" to hunt down criminals and bring down the incidence of crime in Cebu. While at it, a vigilante group has surfaced and already it has claimed 14 snatchers/robbers. Is this approach appropriate?
What follows is a string of e-mail messages written by acquaintances and some of my officemates who reflect the varied sentiments of Cebuanos regarding this issue. Some of the messages are mine. You may add yours by pressing the "comment" link below.
Please scroll down to the bottom to find the first thread so you won't get lost. Cheers!]
This is the latest thread. This is my reply to Alvin's message.
Fact:
(1) The first known law codes appeared in the ancient Middle Eastern land of Babylonia. A Babylonian king named Ur-Nammu assembled the earliest known code about 2100 B.C.
(2) A king named Hammurabi drew up the most complete and best known of these codes during the 1700's B.C.
(3) A politician named Draco drew up Athens's first law code in 621 B.C.
(4) The first known Roman law code, called the Laws of the Twelve Tables, was written about 450 B.C.
(5) The idea of "due process of law" dates from England's Magna Carta of 1215.
Source: David M. O'Brien, Ph.D., Professor of Government, University of Virginia, World Book Encyclopedia 2004 (Deluxe)
---------
Two days ago I said, the history of the civilized world -- a span of 2,000 years -- is against Alvin and those who share his views. Apparently, I'm wrong on one minor detail: the period should be 4,000 years.
At its core, I think this debate is about one issue: Is the "rule of law" still relevant? Is it enough to combat the rising criminality?
My answer is a resounding yes! Consider this, we would not be here if our forefathers remained savage, barbaric people. We wouldn't be here if the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, even the Spaniards (those bastards!) did not establish laws to protect and guarantee our well-being. The "rule of law" has stood the test of time -- 4,000 years is an awful long time. It's been proven to be effective and, yes, still very relevant.
What we have in the Philippines is a "minor glitch" in the continuing experiment to perfect the "rule of law". I will concede this much: our criminal statutes are inadequate. But inadequate is not synonymous to irrelevant. Allow me to cite one legal doctrine that I think is the primary reason why many of you have lost faith in the "rule of law" -- the right to bail.
In the Philippines, the "right to bail" is a constitutional right. Under our legal system, all criminal offenses, save for capital offenses -- that is, punishable by death or life imprisonment -- are bailable. Petty crimes like snatching or robbery (that does not result in death) are not capital offenses; thus offenders can (and, yes, the courts are obligated to grant) bail. Mao ni, Vin, ang reason nganong kanang mga *n*t*y dinha makagawas gihapon bisan kapila na makiha sa husgado!
Pero, simple ra kaayo ang solution, Vin. The defect is not in the system -- it's in the law. We only need to amend our existing laws; raise the penalty for even the pettiest of crimes, if you want; make it difficult for repeat offenders to post bail. Make criminals really pay.
One other solution that I think is just as effective and practicable is the creation of an atmosphere that discourages, if not prevent, criminals from striking hapless civilians. Increase police visibility, for instance. Three or four years ago, the city bought 16 new SUVs for our city councilors at PHP600,000 apiece. If the city can spend this much, then it probably can buy Toyota sedans -- not just multicabs -- for use by policemen to patrol every block in the city.
If I were Tommy, I will also set aside PHP1 million as prize for anybody who can develop an integrated emergency system similar to 911 in the U.S. I know naa nay 117 karon, but it's not effective. We have a glut of engineers, computer programmers who are really talented, but currently idle. It's not true we lack policemen who can respond to emergencies. Just inquire sa U.V., U.C., or USJ-R. Every year the number of criminology graduates are in the hundreds -- enough to fill every corner with an armed cop.
We can also modernize our crime laboratory, send our lab technicians and SOCO (Scene of the Crime) operatives to train with professional CSIs abroad to guarantee evidence collected by investigators will result in conviction.
In short, there are options within the bounds of law that we can take. We don't have to burn down the house to kill the termites, Vin!
What Tommy is promoting with his Hunter Team is lawlessness. Yes, it's swift justice and, as more and more "known" snatchers and robbers fall, a lot of you -- and I sometimes -- think it's just right. But it's not right. What is illegal is illegal. What is wrong is wrong. Period.
We support lawlessness for even one second and we hasten our descent to anarchy. You think the object of the Hunter Team will just allow themselves to be shot at? No, sir! By now, some, if not all of them, have already purchased their own guns, grenades and whatnot. Can you imagine kung manabla sad ni sila? Can you stomach innocent kids strewn about; some dead, some desperately gasping for survival, because one crazy cornered maniac decided to blow himself up in a crowd? Come on. Are we really prepared to deal with the consequences of Tom's adventure?!?
Now, let me rebut one-by-one Alvin's points:
(1) "kung there were like 1 snatcher for every 4 people in cebu, 1 out of 10 na lang run. so statistically, mas safe ka."
Are we really safe? No, we're not. An uneducated, unemployed and hungry robber will strike even if naay police or vigilante group. And if our economy fails to improve, there will be plenty of them. The Hunter Team will not lessen their number. The Hunter Team will just be a minor inconvenience. Pretty soon, they'll figure it out -- the best way to handle the team is to arm themselves. Fight to the death if cornered. Panabla, sa bisaya pa.
(2) "Killing an innocent would be the farthest thing from anyone's mind, especially a politico who would have to suffer through the backlash of public opinion, and would need public approval to advance his career."
The problem ani nga argument is that it is one-sided. You see, dili ra ang Hunter Team ang capable nga mopatay or makapatay og inocente. In reality, the innocent nga pwede mamatay are not just those wrongfully identified by the Hunter team. They can include innocent people caught in the crossfire.
Kung ang Hunter Team masayop og patay og usa or duha ka alleged snatcher, mas kuyaw kung ang usa ka criminal ma-corner unya mo-decide nga mang-angin og daghan.
(3) "Tomas has been very clear about it. He wants the Hunter Team, he organized the hunter team, and he's going to do nothing to stop the hunter team... asa ang leeway or avenue for blackmail? It's like blackmailing a known prostitute by saying she's no longer a virgin."
Wa ko kasabot ani nga argument. May be because lahi ta og perspective. Mas ma-blackmail hinuon si Tomas kay siya karon dili mo-angkon nga siya ang utok sa mga vigilante. A few days ago, siya mismo ni-ingon nga wa siya'y gi-form nga vigilante group. The killings were done by those whom he merely inspired. It makes sense nga dili siya moangkon kay pwede siya makiha. In fact, si Duterte wala gyud na siya mo-admit sa iya participation anang Davao Death Squad. Because, as a former city prosecutor, he knows nga pwede siya ma-priso. So, pwede kaayo nga mo-demand ang vigilante group kay mayor og bisan unsang butang kay kabalo sila nga it will be politically disastrous nga ibisto nila si Tomas nga mao ilang utok.
Mao ni ang nakaparat -- walay accountability. The bullets used by these vigilante groups have no return address. Wala ta'y kapaninglan. Sugot mo ana?
(4) "We've been through the old and tested ways, we've lived by the law. It FAILED. Now it's time to look for other avenues na makasolve sa atong problem."
This is simply not true. Read your history books, Vin. There's virtually no country or government right now nga walay balaod. Siguro, imperfect, pero effective. And the best thing is, what they are doing is fair, legal, and acceptable. We just need to strengthen ours!
Before I go, allow me to leave you another fact:
"No society could exist if all people did just as they pleased... Civilized societies are so complex that they could not exist without a well-developed system of law." -- David M. O'Brien*, Ph.D., Professor of Government, University of Virginia.
*Books by David M. O'Brien:
(1) Government by the People, National Version, 20th Edition
(2) Constitutional Law and Politics, Volume 1: Struggles for Power and Governmental Accountability, Fifth Edition
(3) Storm Center, Sixth Edition
(4) The Lanahan Readings in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
(5) Supreme Court Watch 2004: Highlights of the 2001-2003 Terms, Preview of the 2004 Term (Supreme Court Watch)
(6) Judges on Judging: Views from the Bench (Chatham House Studies in Political Thinking)
(7) Animal Sacrifice and Religious Freedom: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
(8) Judicial Roulette: Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Judicial Selection
(9) Constitutional Law and Politics: Struggles for Power and Governmental Accountability
0 comments:
Post a Comment