`With these cameras in use, we probably can expect a decrease in the number of complaints from human rights activists, and even fewer deaths resulting from violence during the service of arrest and search warrants.’
THANKS to the Supreme Court, policemen and other law enforcers are now required to use cameras attached to their bodies when implementing search and arrest warrants. The law enforcers are required to wear at least one body camera and one alternative recording device.
The High Court released an administrative order last June 29 mandating that the failure of the law enforcers to comply with the new rule on body cameras will render evidence seized inadmissible for the prosecution of the offense for which the search warrant was applied. The court also said law enforcers who failed to wear, interferes with, or manipulates the camera shall be liable for contempt of court.
It is for the guidance of the public and the law enforcement institutions themselves that the Supreme Court has spelled out in its directive the procedures to be observed in the use of body cameras and audio recorders.
The directive is stricter in cases of implementing search warrants, and this is understandable. The police’s searches are usually done when the authorities are yet starting a case buildup, and proper steps must be taken to ensure that the pieces of evidence collected will stand in court. In comparison, provided things are in order, a judge decides that there is probable cause for the issuance of an arrest warrant against a suspect.
The wearing of body cameras protects both the police (from harassment suits) and the suspects (from human rights violations that may be committed by the law enforcers). The second reason has been cited by so-called human rights advocates who had been blaming the government for the deaths of activists and labor leaders in Laguna and Cavite who were served these warrants by the authorities recently.
The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers was particularly grateful to the court, airing their appreciation of the “responsive action of the Supreme Court on the matter.” The group, always hard to satisfy, pointed out some loopholes in the SC directive but at least, the order was already given and the Philippine National Police gave the assurance that it will obey.
PNP chief Gen. Guillermo Eleazar said, “Our next step is to study and incorporate the rules issued by the High Court into our own protocols para magamit na ang ating mga body-worn cameras na siya namang hinihintay ng ating mga kababayan.”
With these cameras in use, we probably can expect a decrease in the number of complaints from human rights activists, and even fewer deaths resulting from violence during the service of arrest and search warrants.
