ABRAKADABRA!
From: butuyan joel
Date: 30-May-2007 17:43
ABRAKADABRA!
The abductors of Jonas Burgos declared "Pulis kami!" to the mall crowd who were startled by the abduction. With the two-word mantra, the criminals whisked Jonas away to be added to the statistics of desaparecidos. The criminals might as well have recited "abrakadabra!" and "poof!" Jonas Burgos disappeared in full public view in a Metro Manila mall.
The human rights group Karapatan has documented over 196 forced disappearances on top of the 864 activists summarily executed since Gloria Macapagal Arroyo took office in 2001.
In all the abductions done in full public view, there is little doubt the dastardly criminals flaunted their "abrakadabra!" powers by reciting their mantra "Pulis kami!" to give their crime a veil of legitimacy and to shoo away would-be rescuers. In all these cases, the public stood silently aside because of the mistaken notion that if the accosting operatives are policemen, they have an indisputable authority to arrest anyone.
Contrary to this grave misconception, the rule is that policemen do not have an inherent authority to arrest by reason alone of their uniforms and guns. Their authority to arrest arises only when either of two exceptional circumstances are present: ONE, when the policemen have a warrant of arrest, and; TWO, when the policemen are personally in the presence of a person in the act of committing a crime.
Any policeman who takes any person into custody without either of the two exceptional circumstances is not making an arrest. He is in the act of committing a dastardly crime. He is the criminal.
It is true that the controversial new Anti-Terror law gives the police the power to detain a suspected terrorist for three days without an arrest warrant. But this type of a warrantless arrest requires a prior court-approved surveillance and a suspect who is committing the crime of terrorism that "creates widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace." The victims of forced disappearances and the would-be victims addressed by this article do not rightfully belong under this category.
When the "Pulis kami!" abductors of Jonas Burgos accosted him, they had no warrant of arrest. Jonas was also not in the act of committing a crime. He was only enjoying a meal in a restaurant, for heaven's sake. If taking a meal is a crime, then policemen should rush to Congress and make a mass arrest of all those pork-bellied Congressmen.
What are the rights of the would-be victim and would-be rescuers when they find themselves in the midst of "Pulis kami!" operatives --- impostors or genuine --- who have possibly commenced the commission of the multiple crimes of kidnapping/arbitrary detention, serious physical injuries and even murder?
First, the law gives the would-be victim the right to invoke self-defense in resisting the abduction. He can use whatever force he can muster and whatever weapon he can lay his hands on to defend himself even if in the process he inflicts fatal injuries to his would-be abductors.
Second, the law gives members of the public the right to come to the rescue of the would-be victim under the principle of "defense of stranger." If in the process of defending the would-be victim the rescuers inflict injuries --- or even death if justified by the circumstances --- upon the criminals, any lawyer worth his gabardine pants can have the rescuers acquitted in whatever criminal case that is filed. Hence, if the Ever Gotesco mall guards came to Jonas' defense – and in the process a shooting incident broke out between the mall guards and the abductors --- the mall guards would be acquitted of homicide if the abductors were killed, even if they turn out to be police or military personnel. In such an incident, the abductors are the criminals.
Third, since the "Pulis kami!" operatives are in the act of committing a crime, any member of the public can effect a citizen's arrest on these rascals. In other words, it is a case of private citizens arresting police or military personnel (if they really turn out to be so) who are caught in the act of committing a crime.
It is true that these rights of "self-defense," "defense of stranger," and "citizen's arrest" are easier said than done. However, the world may be a little safer if would-be victims and members of the public are armed with the knowledge that they have options other than freezing like a deer caught in the headlights when an unfolding abduction stares them in the eye. Given the right circumstances, a would-be victim or a lion-hearted spectator may have the opportunity of saving one precious life whose mother is spared of the heart-wrenching tragedy of weeping and sobbing for the rest of her life; deprived of the chance to even bury the cold and bruised cadaver of her disappeared son or daughter.
Given these rights, a would-be victim should scream and shout in protestation in order to alert the public of the on-going detention. Companions of the would-be victim, concerned spectators, and mall and establishment guards should get the names and the unit address of the accosting operatives. A scrupulous peace officer enforcing a legitimate arrest should know that he has nothing to fear when asked about his identity as, in fact, he is under a legal obligation to identify himself. On the other hand, an accosting operative who refuses to divulge even his identity justifies the would-be victim and would-be rescuers to have a well-grounded belief and to take a consequent course of action on the premise that the operative is a criminal. The companions of the would-be victim, concerned spectators, and guards can call the police hotline, television and radio stations, and obtain mobile phone camera shots of the accosting operatives and the car plates of their get away vehicles.
There is now an atmosphere of fear resulting from the unabated forced disappearances and extra-judicial killings. Our police and military establishments officially deny that their ranks have anything to do with these despicable crimes. Given these facts, would-be victims and would-be rescuers are rightfully justified into suspecting that operatives unarmed with a warrant --- and who attempt to accost any person doing an ordinary daily routine --- are either civilian criminals or rogue cops who are out to perpetrate a crime. Victims and rescuers have the law on their side when they exercise the full force of their rights.
Now, if only the Filipino people exercise their "abrakadabra" powers to make the criminals in this government disappear. But that's another story.
Joel Ruiz Butuyan studies, teaches, and practices law. He is the managing partner of Roque & Butuyan Law Offices.
ABRAKADABRA!
The abductors of Jonas Burgos declared "Pulis kami!" to the mall crowd who were startled by the abduction. With the two-word mantra, the criminals whisked Jonas away to be added to the statistics of desaparecidos. The criminals might as well have recited "abrakadabra!" and "poof!" Jonas Burgos disappeared in full public view in a Metro Manila mall.
The human rights group Karapatan has documented over 196 forced disappearances on top of the 864 activists summarily executed since Gloria Macapagal Arroyo took office in 2001.
In all the abductions done in full public view, there is little doubt the dastardly criminals flaunted their "abrakadabra!" powers by reciting their mantra "Pulis kami!" to give their crime a veil of legitimacy and to shoo away would-be rescuers. In all these cases, the public stood silently aside because of the mistaken notion that if the accosting operatives are policemen, they have an indisputable authority to arrest anyone.
Contrary to this grave misconception, the rule is that policemen do not have an inherent authority to arrest by reason alone of their uniforms and guns. Their authority to arrest arises only when either of two exceptional circumstances are present: ONE, when the policemen have a warrant of arrest, and; TWO, when the policemen are personally in the presence of a person in the act of committing a crime.
Any policeman who takes any person into custody without either of the two exceptional circumstances is not making an arrest. He is in the act of committing a dastardly crime. He is the criminal.
It is true that the controversial new Anti-Terror law gives the police the power to detain a suspected terrorist for three days without an arrest warrant. But this type of a warrantless arrest requires a prior court-approved surveillance and a suspect who is committing the crime of terrorism that "creates widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace." The victims of forced disappearances and the would-be victims addressed by this article do not rightfully belong under this category.
When the "Pulis kami!" abductors of Jonas Burgos accosted him, they had no warrant of arrest. Jonas was also not in the act of committing a crime. He was only enjoying a meal in a restaurant, for heaven's sake. If taking a meal is a crime, then policemen should rush to Congress and make a mass arrest of all those pork-bellied Congressmen.
What are the rights of the would-be victim and would-be rescuers when they find themselves in the midst of "Pulis kami!" operatives --- impostors or genuine --- who have possibly commenced the commission of the multiple crimes of kidnapping/arbitrary detention, serious physical injuries and even murder?
First, the law gives the would-be victim the right to invoke self-defense in resisting the abduction. He can use whatever force he can muster and whatever weapon he can lay his hands on to defend himself even if in the process he inflicts fatal injuries to his would-be abductors.
Second, the law gives members of the public the right to come to the rescue of the would-be victim under the principle of "defense of stranger." If in the process of defending the would-be victim the rescuers inflict injuries --- or even death if justified by the circumstances --- upon the criminals, any lawyer worth his gabardine pants can have the rescuers acquitted in whatever criminal case that is filed. Hence, if the Ever Gotesco mall guards came to Jonas' defense – and in the process a shooting incident broke out between the mall guards and the abductors --- the mall guards would be acquitted of homicide if the abductors were killed, even if they turn out to be police or military personnel. In such an incident, the abductors are the criminals.
Third, since the "Pulis kami!" operatives are in the act of committing a crime, any member of the public can effect a citizen's arrest on these rascals. In other words, it is a case of private citizens arresting police or military personnel (if they really turn out to be so) who are caught in the act of committing a crime.
It is true that these rights of "self-defense," "defense of stranger," and "citizen's arrest" are easier said than done. However, the world may be a little safer if would-be victims and members of the public are armed with the knowledge that they have options other than freezing like a deer caught in the headlights when an unfolding abduction stares them in the eye. Given the right circumstances, a would-be victim or a lion-hearted spectator may have the opportunity of saving one precious life whose mother is spared of the heart-wrenching tragedy of weeping and sobbing for the rest of her life; deprived of the chance to even bury the cold and bruised cadaver of her disappeared son or daughter.
Given these rights, a would-be victim should scream and shout in protestation in order to alert the public of the on-going detention. Companions of the would-be victim, concerned spectators, and mall and establishment guards should get the names and the unit address of the accosting operatives. A scrupulous peace officer enforcing a legitimate arrest should know that he has nothing to fear when asked about his identity as, in fact, he is under a legal obligation to identify himself. On the other hand, an accosting operative who refuses to divulge even his identity justifies the would-be victim and would-be rescuers to have a well-grounded belief and to take a consequent course of action on the premise that the operative is a criminal. The companions of the would-be victim, concerned spectators, and guards can call the police hotline, television and radio stations, and obtain mobile phone camera shots of the accosting operatives and the car plates of their get away vehicles.
There is now an atmosphere of fear resulting from the unabated forced disappearances and extra-judicial killings. Our police and military establishments officially deny that their ranks have anything to do with these despicable crimes. Given these facts, would-be victims and would-be rescuers are rightfully justified into suspecting that operatives unarmed with a warrant --- and who attempt to accost any person doing an ordinary daily routine --- are either civilian criminals or rogue cops who are out to perpetrate a crime. Victims and rescuers have the law on their side when they exercise the full force of their rights.
Now, if only the Filipino people exercise their "abrakadabra" powers to make the criminals in this government disappear. But that's another story.
Joel Ruiz Butuyan studies, teaches, and practices law. He is the managing partner of Roque & Butuyan Law Offices.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home