While people tend to view the threat to democracy in the face of press freedom and poverty in the Philippines
Thus, in light of democratic politics, this paper will present arguments that will push the need for the said law to be re-examined and revised in order to strongly affirm the Philippine Democracy.
Andrew Heywood, in his work Politics (Chapter IV), defined democracy in a number of ways. But one good thing that is part of his definitions is democracy as “a society based on equal opportunity and individual merit rather than hierarchy and privilege” (p.72). Moreover, in one of the models of democracy that Heywood’s Politics also defines, democracy is “more as a device through which citizens could protect themselves from the encroachments of government, hence a protective democracy” (p. 77). The Thinkquest.org further defines this so called Protective Democracy as where “the primary function of the government is to protect the liberty of the citizens”(http://library.thinkquest.org/26466/protective_model.html). From these, it is implied that democracy is also regarded as a face of equality and protection regardless of hierarchy like being positioned in a public office.
At this note, the Philippine Bill of Rights, Article III Section 12 (2) of the 1987 Constitution, states the Freedom of the Filipino Citizens from Torture, Threat, and Secret Detention. As it says, “No torture, force, violence, threat or intimidation can be used against a citizen by government, military or police officials; Secret detention is prohibited” (Philippine History and Government by Sonia and Gregorio, p.201). As support, in Section 1, there is this a Right of Due Process of Law and Equal Protection of Law that says, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws” (Philippine History and Government, p.200).
From these, we could say that the liberty from torture, threat or secret detention cannot just be deprived without the permission of the law. However, it cannot be refused that there are still some, in the said to be “Democratic State of the Philippines”, who use their power to deprive anyone’s liberty without proper investigation, legitimate order, or, as the constitution says, without due process of law. And, as these relate the state security forces, the question is widely focused on the role of the Philippine National Police as the enforcer of the law and the capability of the government to remain as the neutral protector of the people’s liberty.
The TV Patrol World, in September 2010, interviewed an unknown policeman during the time when police tortures were exposed. He asserted that torturing was actually vital in forcing suspects to tell the truth. Thereby, they are not considering this as a torture or hindering one’s liberty, but merely their own process (in a sense that it’s not ordered by the law) to find justice.
Moreover, few months ago, ABS-CBN showed a naked man being tortured by a chief police, identified as Senior Insp. Joselito Binayug, on the floor of the precinct station in Tondo. It was later determined that the man in the video died because of that abusive act (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net). It was also found out that Binayug had already been accused of several brutal tortures but was still able to freely repeat this since he was not seriously persecuted. This apparent crime was not the only police torture case that was filed on the court but only one of the few which were taken into account. There are many more undone cases that are being set aside especially when it is only an ordinary citizen who is seeking for justice.
These evidences show the leaks in the Philippine Constitution. The statement, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws” is very questionable as this is prevalently taken for granted. Additionally, the Philippine government that implements these laws has also leaks that spoil the democracy of the state. This means that the government doesn’t have the total capability to handle the words of “due process of law” as the government officials, themselves, can illegitimately use their power and authority to take away the liberty of the people and can easily turn back to cases involving poor citizens. Consequently, the people lose their confidence to fight for their rights to file cases against them on the courts since they know how the criminal justice in the state runs. In this case, the reputation of democracy in the Philippines
With regard to this long-time but unheard issue in Philippine democracy, it is already the time to check the proper implementation of the Bill of Rights of the citizens. If the government really claims to espouse the liberty of its citizens, then there should be an effective implementation of the laws in which the people could be vastly protected.
Truly, the Filipinos have the right to duly claim the democracy that the state is named after. The authority should not just be an authority; they should be checked and balanced too. The long-time tradition of some police officials, in which they just maltreat anyone who is cuffed and brought to their precincts, should be probed and abolished. Plus, the people, whether rich or poor, should be given an equal access to the courts and be heard regardless of whoever they are going against.
As a conclusion from the arguments presented, the Bill of Rights Section 12 (2) needs a re-examination and revision with regards to its implementation and/or practice of democracy in protecting the liberty of the people from the encroachments of the government. And, above all of these, it is about time to destroy the unlawful acts of the public officials that stain the justice system and consequently, the reputation of the Philippine democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment