essay about criminal justice system in philippines

Essay on Justice System In The Philippines

Students are often asked to write an essay on Justice System In The Philippines in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Justice System In The Philippines

Introduction to the philippine justice system.

The justice system in the Philippines is the way the country keeps peace and order. It’s like a set of rules and people who make sure everyone is treated fairly. This system has courts, police, and laws that help solve problems when people disagree or someone does something wrong.

Courts and Judges

In the Philippines, courts are where judges decide on cases. They listen to both sides and look at the evidence. There are different levels of courts, from local ones to the Supreme Court, which is the highest.

Law Enforcement

Police officers are important in the justice system. They make sure people follow laws. If someone breaks a law, the police take them to court where a judge can decide what happens next.

Laws and Rights

The country has many laws that protect people’s rights. These laws say what is okay and what is not. Everyone must follow them, and they help the courts decide on cases.

The justice system in the Philippines faces challenges like taking a long time to finish cases and not always being fair to everyone. People are working to make the system better for all Filipinos.

250 Words Essay on Justice System In The Philippines

What is the justice system in the philippines.

The justice system in the Philippines is made up of courts that handle different kinds of problems. It is like a ladder with many steps. The first step is the local courts, where small cases are heard. Bigger cases go to higher courts. The highest court is the Supreme Court, which makes the final decisions.

Types of Courts

There are several types of courts. The lowest is the Barangay court, which deals with small community issues. Above them are the Municipal and Regional Trial Courts, which look at more serious cases. The Court of Appeals reviews decisions from lower courts. The Supreme Court is at the top and has the last say.

How Courts Work

When someone breaks the law, they go to court. The judge listens to both sides before making a decision. If the person is found guilty, they might need to pay a fine or go to jail. People can ask higher courts to check the decision if they think it’s wrong.

Problems and Improvements

The justice system in the Philippines faces challenges like long delays and corruption. The government and some groups are trying to fix these problems by training better judges and using computers to speed up work.

The justice system in the Philippines is a set of steps designed to solve disputes and keep peace. It has issues, but efforts are being made to make it better for everyone.

500 Words Essay on Justice System In The Philippines

Introduction to the justice system in the philippines.

The justice system in the Philippines is a set of rules and institutions that the country uses to solve legal problems, punish people who break the law, and make sure that everyone is treated fairly. It’s like a big machine with many parts working together to make sure that people live in peace and that those who do wrong are held responsible.

Types of Courts in the Philippines

In the Philippines, there are different kinds of courts, each with its own job. The lowest courts are called the Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts. They handle small cases. Above them are the Regional Trial Courts, which deal with more serious matters. Then there’s the Court of Appeals, where you can ask for a decision to be looked at again if you think it’s wrong. At the top is the Supreme Court, which is the most powerful and makes the final decisions on the biggest issues.

Police and Law Enforcement

The police are the ones who make sure the laws are followed. They catch people who break the law and help gather evidence. However, in the Philippines, some people worry that the police are not always fair or that they sometimes do not respect the rights of the people they are supposed to protect.

The Legal Process

When someone is accused of a crime, they go through a legal process. First, they are charged, which means they are told what they are accused of. Then, they go to court where a judge or a group of people called a jury listen to both sides – the side of the person who is accused and the side of the government. After hearing everything, the judge or jury decides if the person is guilty or not.

Challenges and Issues

The justice system in the Philippines faces many challenges. Sometimes, it takes a very long time for cases to be finished, which can be unfair to the people waiting for a decision. There are also times when the rich and powerful seem to get special treatment, which is not fair to everyone else. Fighting corruption within the system is also a big problem that the country is working on.

Improvements and Reforms

To make the justice system better, the Philippines is trying to introduce changes. These include training for judges and police, making the process faster, and using new technology to manage cases. By doing this, the hope is to make the justice system more fair and efficient for everyone.

The justice system in the Philippines is an important part of how the country runs. It has many parts, from the police who enforce the laws to the courts that make decisions. While there are difficulties, such as slow processes and corruption, efforts are being made to improve the system. It’s essential for a fair society that everyone, no matter who they are, is treated equally under the law.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Justice Is Only For The Rich And Powerful
• Essay on Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
• Essay on Justice And Human Rights

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Invisible no more: Shedding light on police violence and corruption in the Philippines

The Philippines was romanticized and dubbed the “ Pearl of the Orient Seas ” by national hero and writer José Rizal due to the country’s elegant organic beauty. However, the pearl’s beauty has been tainted by increasing police brutality, accelerated in recent years.

After becoming the 16th President of the Philippines in 2016, Rodrigo Duterte was quick and adamant about carrying out a “ war on drugs ” campaign. Duterte implemented extreme measures targeting criminals and non-compliant citizens from impoverished communities to restore peace and order in the country.

In his first press conference after being elected as president, Duterte pledged to end crime, corruption, and the illegal drug trade within three to six months of being elected. However, Duterte implemented this pledge through the promotion of a new measure: “shoot-to-kill” orders.

“What I will do is urge Congress to restore [the] death penalty by hanging,” Duterte said in his first press conference. “If you resist, show violent resistance, my order to police [will be] to shoot to kill. Shoot to kill for organized crime. You heard that? Shoot to kill for every organized crime.”

Unfortunately, Duterte’s strategies to combat the issues faced by Filipinos have conditioned and emboldened the police, creating a sense of invincibility. The implications of Duterte’s extreme strategies include the manslaughter of innocent citizens and the manifestation of police corruption in the country. However, as a new president leads the country, the future of the Philippines’ criminal justice system seems committed to less violent means.

‘Shoot-To-Kill’

Duterte’s shoot-to-kill orders evolved dangerously, putting more innocent Filipino lives at risk and perpetuating the human rights crisis in the country. The global COVID-19 pandemic was not a barrier to Duterte’s anti-crime operations.

Amidst the pandemic, the government implemented an “ Enhanced Community Quarantine ” (ECQ) for the country’s capital, Manila, as well as the entire island of Luzon in an effort to mitigate the spread of the virus. During the lockdown, Filipinos were confined in their homes, transportation was suspended, food and health services were regulated, and uniformed personnel patrolled the streets to enforce strict quarantine measures.

During the ECQ, the government did not fulfill its promises as residents did not receive relief support. On April 1, 2020, frustration from community members erupted into political demonstrations in the streets of San Roque, Quezon City. Advocates and protestors asked for answers from the government in regard to their promised supplies and food aid.

Duterte’s response? “ Shoot them dead .”

In a televised address on the same day as the protests, Duterte ordered the police and military to shoot troublemakers if they felt their lives were in danger. “My orders are to the police and military, also village officials, that if there is trouble or the situation arises that people fight and your lives are on the line, shoot them dead,” Duterte said.

According to the World Population Review’s most recent annual data, the Philippines is the country with the world’s highest number of police killings, with over 6,000 between 2016 and 2021.

As of February 2022, based on the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency’s (PDEA) Real Numbers PH data , since Duterte took office in 2016, the government implemented 229,868 operations against illegal drugs, which resulted in the arrest of a total of 331,694 suspects. Beyond this, according to the PDEA, the total number of killings during anti-drug operations reached 6,235.

In November 2021, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project published a comprehensive database of the Philippines revealing that since 2016, at least 7,742 civilians have been killed in anti-drug raids, which is approximately 25 percent higher than the figure issued by the government.

As described by Eliza Romero, a coordinator for the Malaya Movement , a US-based alliance that advocates for human rights, freedom, and democracy in the Philippines, Duterte’s fierce rhetoric has given an invitation to vigilante and extrajudicial violence among the community.

“The shoot-to-kill order will just encourage more extrajudicial killings and vigilantism,” Romero said in an interview with Foreign Policy. “It will give private citizens and barangay [village] captains impunity to commit more human rights violations with the protection of the law while normalizing carnage.”

Behind every number is a real person—whose story has been invisible and whose life has been reduced by police officers who one day decided to target an innocent victim; a brother or sister; a son or daughter; a husband or wife; a father or mother.

Karla A., daughter of Renato A. who was killed in December 2016, recounts her experiences after losing her father at the age of 10, stating in an interview with the Human Rights Watch (HRW), “I was there when it happened when my papa was shot. I saw everything, how my papa was shot. … Our happy family is gone. We don’t have anyone to call father now. We want to be with him, but we can’t anymore.”

Emboldening the Police

Duterte’s enforcement measures to achieve public order put innocent citizens in a battle they have already lost. What is worse is that Duterte not only normalized but justified the killing of innocent citizens. Duterte assured the police impunity , stating that he would not only protect them from human rights abuses but ultimately pardon them if ever they are convicted for carrying out his anti-drug campaigns. This leads to the intensification of corruption within police departments in the country.

Duterte’s shoot-to-kill orders have not shown mercy to victims as he has always been in favor of the police. He never failed to show support for the police in carrying out his campaigns in his public and televised addresses. For instance, Duterte gave orders to Bureau of Customs Commissioner Rey Leonardo Guerrero stating that “Drugs are still flowing in. I'd like you to kill there [in communities]… anyway, I'll back you up and you won't get jailed. If it's drugs, you shoot and kill. That’s the arrangement,” Duterte said .

Duterte’s vow to protect the police results in police officers feeling emboldened and invincible. Police officers who have followed Duterte’s orders are promoted through the ranks. Police officers are not held accountable for the deaths of innocent civilians; the country’s own President pardons them. On top of this, police officers are falsifying evidence to justify unlawful killings and avoid legal repercussions.

The HRW published a report titled “‘License to Kill’: Philippine Police Killings in Duterte’s ‘War on Drugs,” which analyzed a total of 24 incidents that led to 32 deaths, involving Philippine National Police (PNP) personnel between October 2016 and January 2017. The report concluded that police officers would falsely claim self-defense to justify these killings.

To further strengthen their claims, police officers would plant guns, spent ammunition, and drug packets next to the bodies of victims. In turn, the victims would seem more guilty of being part of drug-related activities. Other times, police officers would work closely with masked gunmen to carry out these extrajudicial killings. In other words, police officers have succeeded in rooting their endeavors in deceit.

Fortunately, there have been instances where some police officers were legally prosecuted in police killings. Three police officers were found guilty of murdering a 17-year-old teenager in 2017, the first conviction of officers ever since Duterte launched his war on drugs.

A Look Into the Future

The Philippines as the “Pearl of the Orient Seas” has lost its luster due to the many problems that the nation continues to face—one of the most prominent ones is Duterte’s explicit abuse of police power. Similar to how pearls lose their glow when not provided with the care it needs, the integrity of police officers has dried out and become yellowed over time due to the government’s complicity.

Time and time again, Duterte has remained an instigator in instances relating to police brutality in the country. Luckily, the Philippines can combat pearl discoloration through the implementation of robust policies that would ensure increased transparency within police departments.

Freshly elected Philippine President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. makes the restoration of the yellowed pearl an achievable goal. At the 121st Police Service anniversary celebration held at Camp General Rafael T. Crame in Quezon City—the national headquarters of the PNP—Marcos Jr. brings an opportunity for redemption. Aside from calling the PNP officers “vanguards of peace,” Marcos Jr. urged them to continue serving the community with integrity in order to restore public confidence.

“The use of force must always be reasonable, justifiable, and only undertaken when necessary. Execution of authority must be fair, it must be impartial,” Marcos Jr. said . “It must be devoid of favoritism and discrimination, regardless of race, gender, social economic status, political affiliation, [and] religious belief. It is only then that you can effectively sustain with great respect and wide support the authority that you possess as uniformed servicemen of the Republic.”

Beyond this, Marcos Jr. highlighted his hope for reforming the police system under the leadership of newly installed PNP Chief Police General Rodolfo Azurin Jr. Moreover, Marcos Jr.’s aspirations to increase accountability within police departments will be complemented by Azurin Jr.’s launching of a peace and security framework titled “MKK=K” or “Malasakit + Kaayusan + Kapayapaan = Kaunlaran” which translates to policies founded on “the combination of care, order and peace shall equate to progress.”

On the other hand, it is understandable if Filipino citizens and human rights activists have lost hope for the possibility of achieving meaningful progress in reforming the broken police system. Marcos Jr. is the son of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. , an ousted dictator who infamously declared martial law in the country, and Filipinos are still navigating the trauma of the Marcos era 50 years later.

Currently, Marcos Jr. pledges to continue the campaign against illegal drugs but with an emphasis on drug prevention and rehabilitation . Under this new framework, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) implemented a program dubbed “Buhay Ingatan, Droga’y Ayawan (Value Life, Shun Drugs)” which aims to address the root of the problem by suppressing the demand for illegal drugs. According to DILG Secretary Benjamin ‘Benhur’ Abalos Jr., the initiative needs support and solidarity from all sectors of the community in order to ensure its effectiveness.

Simultaneously, Marcos Jr. has no intention to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) on their investigation of the country’s drug war killings. Based on the ICC ’s official website, their purpose “is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.” However, Marcos Jr. stated in an interview that “The ICC, very simply, is supposed to take action when a country no longer has a functioning judiciary… That condition does not exist in the Philippines. So I do not see what role the ICC will play in the Philippines.”

Nearly five months into Marcos Jr.’s administration, the University of the Philippines’ Dahas Project revealed that 152 people have died in anti-drug police raids as of Nov. 30. The report further disclosed that the drug casualties under Marcos Jr. “[are] exceeding the 149 killings recorded during the final six months of the Duterte government. During the first half of the year under Duterte, the average daily rate was 0.8. So far under Marcos, the rate stands at one per day.”

In the Philippines, police officers have repeatedly assumed the roles of prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. HRW Deputy Director for Asia Phil Robertson points out shortcomings in Marcos Jr.’s campaigns describing that “Using a drug rehabilitation approach means little when police and mystery gunmen are still executing suspected drug users and dealers. Law enforcers should receive clear orders to stop the ‘drug war’ enforcement once and for all.” The only way to effectively mitigate police killings in the Philippines is by abandoning violent and punitive measures against illegal drugs.

Ultimately, despite these obstacles, the yellowed pearl can still brighten. Under new leadership for both the national government and police department, the Philippines may embark on a journey of reconstruction and rehabilitation. In this process, the hope is to finally shed light on the issue of police violence in the country, implement fruitful solutions to combat the problem and advocate for innocent victims who might have felt invisible in their battle against police brutality. Once the light has been restored, the Philippines can finally live up to its billing as the beautiful and pure “Pearl of the Orient Seas”.

Laurinne Jamie Eugenio

Recent posts, the united states of europe and liberalism in the 21st century: interview with beate meinl-reisinger, chairwoman of austria’s neos party, a new vision for thailand: interview with pita limjaroenrat, member of the thai house of representatives and former leader of the move forward party.

Israel, Gaza, and Operation Swords of Iron: Interview with Sharren Haskel, Member of the Israeli Knesset

Medical Servitude: The Other Side of Cuban Medical Diplomacy

Remember Us: A Peek Into Childhood Autism in Ghana

You Might Be Interested In

Is beijing creating a new sino-russian world order the russian invasion of ukraine might change beijing’s calculus for taiwan and the united states, defying dictatorships: an interview with garry kasparov, cambodia’s triumph and tragedy: the un’s greatest experiment 30 years on.

• Southeast Asia
• Philippines - Government and Crime

JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES

The justice system in the Philippines is mixed legal system of civil, common, Islamic, and customary law. The formal system of trials, appeals, and prisons is similar to that of the United States. Civil code procedures on family and property and the absence of jury trial were attributable to Spanish influences, but most important statutes governing trade and commerce, labor relations, taxation, banking and currency, and governmental operations were of United States derivation, introduced at the beginning of the twentieth century. Most of the laws, official notices and court decisions, including those by the Supreme Court, are in English. Even the Constitution is published more often in English than Tagalog. The bar exams are in English.

The basis of the legal code is primarily Spanish and Anglo-American law. Islamic law applies among Muslims in portions of the southern Philippines. According to the constitution, those accused of crimes have the right to be informed of the charges against them, to be represented by counsel, and to have a speedy and fair public trial. Defendants also enjoy the presumption of innocence and have the right to confront witnesses, present evidence, and appeal convictions. However, the judiciary is said to suffer from corruption and inefficiency, which at times undermine the provision of due process and equal justice. As a result, the Supreme Court has undertaken a five-year program to speed up the judicial process and crack down on corruption. [Source: Library of Congress, 2006]

Judicial institutions in the Philippines are regarded as weak and corrupt and notoriously slow. Skilled lawyers can get their clients off of most charges by bogging down the system with a flood of documents, motions and counter motions and then files for dismissal because their client has been denied the right to a speedy trial. Philippine law calls for compassion for people over 70.

For poor people the justice system operates quite differently than it does for the wealthy and elite. They are most often represented by overworked public defenders who advise their clients to plead guilty to hasten the process and hopefully get off with a light sentence. In many places a system of patronage exists in which justice is defined as having enough money to buy yourself out of any fix.

Judicial Branch in the Philippines

Judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. The highest court:Supreme Court (consists of a chief justice and 14 associate justices). Judge selection and term of office: justices are appointed by the president on the recommendation of the Judicial and Bar Council, a constitutionally-created, 6-member body that recommends Supreme Court nominees; justices serve until age 70. Subordinate courts: Court of Appeals; Sandiganbayan (special court for corruption cases of government officials); Court of Tax Appeals; regional, metropolitan, and municipal trial courts; sharia courts. [Source: CIA World Factbook]

The Philippines has an independent judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the highest court of appeal. The Supreme Court also is empowered to review the constitutionality of presidential decrees. The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and 14 associate justices. It is not necessary for the entire court to convene in all cases. Justices are appointed by the president on the recommendation of the Judicial and Bar Council and serve until 70 years of age. Lower-level courts include a national Court of Appeals divided into 17 divisions, local and regional trial courts, and an informal local system to settle certain disputes outside the formal court system. In 1985 a separate court system founded on Islamic law (sharia) was established in the southern Philippines with jurisdiction over family and contractual relations among Muslims. Three district magistrates and six circuit judges oversee the Islamic law system. A special court—the Sandiganbayan or anti-graft court—focuses exclusively on investigating charges of judicial corruption. [Source: Library of Congress, 2006]

The 1981 Judicial Reorganization Act provides for four main levels of courts and several special courts. At the local level are metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, and municipal circuit trial courts. The next level consists of regional trial courts, one for each of the nation's thirteen political regions, including Manila. Courts at the local level have original jurisdiction over less serious criminal cases while more serious offenses are heard by the regional level courts, which also have appellate jurisdiction. At the national level is the Intermediate Appellate Court, also called the court of appeals. Special courts include Muslim circuit and district courts in Moro (Muslim Filipino) areas, the court of tax appeals, and the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan tries government officers and employees charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. [Source: Library of Congress, 1991 *]

The armed forces maintain an autonomous military justice system. Military courts are under the authority of the judge advocate general of the armed forces, who is also responsible for the prosecutorial function in the military courts. Military courts operate under their own procedures but are required to accord the accused the same constitutional safeguards received by civilians. Military tribunals have jurisdiction over all activeduty members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. *

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Supreme Court has been set up along the American model. It consists of a chief justice and 14 associate justices. Judge selection and term of office: justices are appointed by the president on the recommendation of the Judicial and Bar Council, a constitutionally-created, 6-member body that recommends Supreme Court nominees. Justices serve until age 70.

The Supreme Court, at the apex of the judicial system, consists of a chief justice and fourteen associate justices. It has original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and over petitions for injunctions and writs of habeas corpus; it has appellate jurisdiction over all cases in which the constitutionality of any treaty, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, or regulation is questioned. The Supreme Court also may hear appeals in criminal cases involving a sentence of life in prison. Article 3 of the Constitution forbids the death penalty "unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it." [Source: Library of Congress, 1991 *]

The Supreme Court also regulates the practice of law in the Philippines, promulgates rules on admission to the bar, and disciplines lawyers. To be admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, candidates must pass an examination that is administered once annually. Professional standards are similar to those of the United States; the Integrated Bar Association's code borrows heavily from the American Bar Association's rules. Some 30,000 attorneys practiced law in the Philippines in the mid1980s , more than one-third of them in Manila. Counsel for the indigent, while not always available, is provided by government legal aid offices and various private organizations. Many of the private groups are active in representing "social justice" causes and are staffed by volunteers. *

Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts are appointed by the president from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. The Judicial and Bar Council consists of a representative of the Integrated Bar, a law professor, a retired member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector. Presidential appointments do not require confirmation. Supreme Court justices must be at least forty years of age when appointed and must retire at age seventy. According to Article 11 of the constitution, members of the Supreme Court "may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust." The House has exclusive power to initiate cases of impeachment. The Senate tries such cases, and two-thirds of the Senate must concur to convict someone. The judiciary is guaranteed fiscal autonomy. *

Problems with the Philippine Justice System

The traditional independence of the courts had been heavily compromised in the Marcos era. Because the 1973 constitution allowed Marcos to fire members of the judiciary, including members of the Supreme Court, at any time, anyone inclined to oppose him was intimidated into either complying or resigning. None of his acts or decrees was declared unconstitutional. The thirteen Marcos-appointed Supreme Court justices resigned after he fled, and Aquino immediately appointed ten new justices. [Source: Library of Congress, 1991 *]

The Philippines has always been a highly litigious society, and the courts often were used to carry on personal vendettas and family feuds. There was widespread public perception that at least some judges could be bought. Public confidence in the judicial system was dealt a particular blow in 1988 when a special prosecutor alleged that six Supreme Court justices had pressured him to "go easy" on their friends. The offended justices threatened to cite the prosecutor for contempt. Aquino did not take sides in this dispute. The net effect was to confirm many Filipinos' cynicism about the impartiality of justice. *

Justice was endlessly delayed in the late 1980s. Court calendars were jammed. Most lower courts lacked stenographers. A former judge reported in 1988 that judges routinely scheduled as many as twenty hearings at the same time in the knowledge that lawyers would show up only to ask for a postponement. One tax case heard in 1988 had been filed 50 years before, and a study of the tax court showed that even if the judges were to work 50 percent faster, it would take them 476 years to catch up. Even in the spectacular case of the 1983 murder of Senator Benigno Aquino, the judicial system did not function speedily or reliably. It took five years to convict some middle-ranking officers, and although the verdict obliquely hinted at then-Chief of Staff General Fabian Ver's ultimate responsibility, the court never directly addressed that question. *

The indictment of former Minister of Defense Enrile on the charge of "rebellion with murder" shows that the courts can be independent of the president, but also that powerful people are handled gently. Enrile was arrested on February 27, 1990, for his alleged role in the December 1989 coup attempt in which more than 100 people died. Because Enrile was powerful, he was given an air-conditioned suite in jail, a telephone, and a computer, and a week later he was released on 100,000 pesos bail. In June 1990, the Supreme Court invalidated the charges against him. A further test of the court system was expected in the 1990s when criminal and civil charges were to be brought against Imelda Marcos. In 1991 Aquino agreed to allow the former first lady, who could not leave New York City without the permission of the United States Department of Justice, to return to the Philippines to face charges of graft and corruption. Swiss banking authorities agreed to return approximately US$350 million to the Philippine government only if Marcos were tried and convicted. Marcos did not seem to be reluctant to face the Philippine courts. *

Corruption and Philippine Judges

There was a drive to impeach Chief Justice Hilario Davide, the Supreme Court justice who swore in President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and played a role in the ouster of President Joseph Estrada in 2001. The impeachment was based on allegations that the judge misused public funds to refurbish court offices. The move was largely seen as pay back for the move against Estrada. Congress voted to impeach him but the Supreme Court voted the impeachment was unconstitutional.

In May 2012, an Arroyo-appointed Supreme Court chief justice was fired by the Philippines Senate in an impeachment trial for failing to declare $2.4 million in bank accounts. Hrvoje Hranjski of Associated Press wrote: “Chief Justice Renato Corona has called the effort to oust him a threat to democracy. He said his omission was not an impeachable offense and that a 1974 bank privacy law protects foreign deposits from disclosure, while prosecutors argued the constitution mandates a full declaration of assets for someone in his position. [Source: Hrvoje Hranjski, Associated Press, May 29, 2012 /*]

“Corona is considered fired and barred from public office after senators voted 20 to 3 to convict him on charges of betraying public trust and violating the constitution. Corona testified that it wasn't only him who is on trial and challenged all 188 lawmakers who impeached him to disclose their dollar accounts — but there were few takers. Reacting to his conviction, Corona said that he was innocent and that "bad politics' prevailed in his trial. But he suggested he was ready to accept his fate. "I have not committed any wrong," he said, but added that "if this will be for the country's good, I am accepting the difficulties we're going through." /*\

“The nationally televised, five-month-long proceedings gripped the nation like a soap opera, with emotional testimony, political grandstanding and a sideshow family drama. Prosecutors, most of whom are Aquino's allies from the lower House of Representatives, argued that Corona concealed his wealth and offered "lame excuses" to avoid public accountability. Corona said he had accumulated his wealth from foreign exchange when he was still a student. Rep. Rodolfo Farinas, one of the prosecutors, ridiculed the 63-year-old justice, saying he "wants us to believe that when he was in the fourth grade in 1959 he was such a visionary that he already started buying dollars." "It is clear that these were excuses and lies made before the Senate and the entire world," Farinas said in Monday's closing arguments, adding that Corona had declared in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth less than 2 percent of what he actually owned. /*\

“The prosecution asked if Corona was so rich, why did he need a loan for a car, and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile quizzed that if Corona had nothing to hide, why the failure to declare all his assets, as mandated by the constitution. Corona's lawyer Serafin Cuevas cited a threat of kidnapping and extortion. Farinas said the big lesson in Corona's conviction was that even the high and mighty in government could fall if they commit any wrongdoing. "This is a victory for justice," he said. /*\

“Aquino’s immediate target in his promise to fight corruption after being elected president in 2010 was former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her inner circle that includes Corona, who was appointed by Arroyo shortly before she stepped down. "This is not about vendetta," said Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, a close adviser to Aquino. "This is about strengthening the institutions of democracy, the institutions of check and balance." He said the conviction "shows that this country can dispense justice. This encourages people to avail of a judicial process that works even if the accused is a big fish." /*\

Corona has already questioned the legality of the charges against him, but the Supreme Court did not rule on it. This is the first impeachment process to be completed in Philippine history. The trial of former President Joseph Estrada on corruption charges in 2001 was cut short when prosecutors walked out and triggered the country's second "people power" revolt, toppling him. /*\

Supreme Court Justice’s Effort to Reform the Philippine Legal System

In 2007, Emily Green wrote in the Washington Post, “The Philippines, scarred by political assassinations and corruption, is looking to its new chief justice for salvation. And in his first nine months in office, Reynato Puno has moved with lightning speed to set up a more independent judiciary charged with enforcing a new code of legal responsibility. Hoping to use the courts to remake Philippine society, Puno has embarked on a campaign to end the widespread assassinations of journalists and political activists. [Source: Emily Green, Washington Post, October 1, 2007 ~ ]

“Puno is an improbable revolutionary. He was appointed to the bench by the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos and, at 67, has only three years before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70. Yet this time limit has only stirred Puno to accelerate the pace of his agenda — to clean up the notoriously corrupt judiciary and create legal accountability for the recent string of political assassinations. In an interview, Puno said the killings are "like a replay of the last years of the Marcos government." ~

“Puno, a man so reserved he barely moves in a lengthy interview, has been agile in pushing all segments of the Philippine government to act. Under his leadership, the Supreme Court has called for the creation of a separate court system to handle assassination cases so that powerful local interests cannot influence judicial outcomes. ~

“In July, the Supreme Court hosted a national summit on the killings. Nearly every high-ranking government bureaucrat and official — including the house speaker and the military chief of staff — attended the two-day event. The Supreme Court justices personally led breakout sessions. The summit made national headlines for its bold recommendations. Summit participants proposed that the government and courts adopt the doctrine of "command responsibility" as described in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The doctrine holds that a military officer is responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates and for failing to prevent or punish those crimes. A second major summit recommendation was to create a law allowing civilian-led searches of military camps, a notion that the military chief also said he considers preposterous. ~

“Puno has also been aggressive in holding colleagues in the judiciary accountable. He has already fired one appeals court judge for gross incompetence and corruption. Other investigations are underway and Puno expects more dismissals soon. Surprisingly, though, finding critics of Puno is not easy. His fellow judges revere him. Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago called Puno the best chief justice she has ever seen. Human rights lawyers for the first time have something good to say about the legal system. Even the military chief called Puno a friend. "Any criticism of Puno is not the usual Philippine style — that this guy is corrupt," said Raul Pangalangan, former dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law and a Puno admirer. Instead, most critics focus on Puno's decisions and left-leaning ideology. His decision validating the rights of indigenous people to ancestral claims, for example, was called "quaint" and "idyllic" in one critical blog. ~

Life of Reformist Philippines Supreme Court Justice

In 2007, Emily Green wrote in the Washington Post, “Puno's choice of a role model — Earl Warren, chief justice of the United States from 1953 to 1969 — is not entirely surprising, given Puno's ties to the United States. After attending law school in the Philippines, Puno won a scholarship for post-graduate studies at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, and later attended the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois. [Source: Emily Green, Washington Post, October 1, 2007 ~ ]

“Upon his return to the Philippines, Puno joined his older brother Isaac in private practice as a labor lawyer. But in 1971, Puno struck out on a career of government service from which he has never veered. As a lawyer in the office of the solicitor general, he helped open the way in 1973 for the extension of the Marcos presidency and later the Marcos dictatorship. In 1980, Marcos appointed Puno, then 40, to the Court of Appeals. Puno was — and still is — the youngest person ever appointed to that court. He served for 14 years as an associate justice on the Supreme Court before being elevated to chief justice. In the interview, Puno said his connection with the Marcos administration never affected his independence as a judge. "If you belong to the executive department, you do your job as an executive official. You get transferred to the judiciary, you forget about your past connection to the executive." ~

“Despite his dispassionate demeanor, there is no doubt that Puno's background now drives his actions regarding political assassinations. In 1977, Puno's brother was killed by communist insurgents. When the perpetrators were let free during the mid-1990s under a national amnesty program, his mother was "particularly disappointed," Puno said. ~

Puno's most famous decision, and his most controversial, involved the "resignation" of President Joseph Estrada in 2001, when public outrage over corruption forced him to flee the presidential palace. During the turmoil, then-Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo assumed the presidency and Estrada went to the Supreme Court, claiming he had never resigned and was still president. Puno wrote a unanimous decision for the court majority, concluding that based on Estrada's "state of mind" and other factors, he had "constructively resigned," even if he never officially did so. The decision legitimized Arroyo's presidency, thereby avoiding a national crisis and the slippery slope of a judicial rationale authorizing the overthrow of presidents based on popular discontent. "He is a very shrewd man, very intelligent," former dean Pangalangan said. "For me, that decision encapsulates it." ~

Death Penalty in the Philippines

The death penalty in the Philippines was abolished under Aquino in 1987 and reinstated by Ramos in 1994 after a rise in crime, banned by Estrada in 2000 after strong lobbying by the church, the European Union and human rights groups and brought back by Arroyo and then abolished by again by her in 2006. According to informal surveys in the late 1990s, about 70 percent of all Filipinos said they supported the death penalty, partly because they felt something had to be done about the appalling crime rate. The Catholic Church is opposed to the death penalty. Nuns and priests have held vigils outside of prisons of condemned prisoners.

Executions in the Philippines were carried out by a lethal injection. Among the crimes that carried the death penalty were economic plunder, murder, incest and kidnapping. In some cases minors were put on death row because no one bothered to check their age and it was assumed they were over 18.

In the late 1990s seven executions were carried out by lethal injection. In June 1999, Leo Echegaray, a 38-year-old house painter was executed with a lethel injection for raping his step daughter five times when she was ten. It was their the first execution in the Philippines in 23 years. In July, three Filipinos convicted of killing a policeman, were put to death. More were executed in 2000. In 2004, two kidnappers were supposed to be executed but the action was stopped by Supreme Court order that said their cases should be reviewed.

Philippines Stops Death Penalty in 2006

In June 2006, Philippines President Gloria Arroyo signed a law abolishing the death penalty just two weeks after Congress passed the legislation. Sarah Toms of the BBC wrote: “As a result the sentences of the 1,200 inmates on death row will be now be commuted to life imprisonment. Mrs Arroyo said she welcomed the change but insists she is not softening her stance on fighting crime or terrorism. Mrs Arroyo has been under pressure from the influential Roman Catholic church to scrap capital punishment. The signing comes as she prepares to head to Rome for an audience with Pope Benedict XVI. [Source: Sarah Toms, BBC, June 24, 2006]

Earlier this month legislators in the Philippines, a mainly Catholic country, voted overwhelmingly to abolish capital punishment. By Philippine standards the bill was pushed through in record time. In a speech Mrs Arroyo said "we yield to the high moral imperative dictated by God to walk away from capital punishment".

The Philippines is plagued by violent crime with guns readily available and used in even minor disputes. Supporters of capital punishment say they fear the repeal will result in more crime. The repeal comes just days before Mrs Arroyo visits the Vatican for an audience with Pope Benedict XVI. Some analysts see the repeal of the death penalty as an attempt to win support from bishops for the president's plan to move to a parliamentary system of government. Others say Mrs Arroyo is trying to diffuse opposition from the church to the government's efforts to revive mining.

History of the Death Penalty in the Philippines

According to the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism: The imposition of the death penalty in the country has had a repressive history. For the most part (from 1848 to 1987), it was used to curtail the liberties, freedoms and rights of the Filipino people. In recent history, however, the death penalty was reimposed as a knee-jerk response to what has largely been seen as rising criminality in the country. The following, with help from the Mamamayang Tutol sa Bitay-Movement for Restorative Justice, traces the death penalty’s historical roots and context in Philippine society: [Source: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, pcij.org]

Spanish Period (1521-1898): 1) Spanish colonizers brought with them medieval Europe’s penal system, including executions. 2) Capital punishment during the early Spanish Period took various forms including burning, decapitation, drowning, flaying, garrote, hanging, shooting, stabbing and others. 3) Capital punishment was enshrined in the 1848 Spanish Codigo Penal and was only imposed on locals who challenged the established authority of the colonizers. 4) Between 1840-1857, recorded death sentences totaled 1,703 with 46 actual executions. 5) Filipinos who were meted the death penalty include Magat Salamat (1587); the native clergies Gomez, Burgos and Zamora who were garroted in 1872; and Dr. Jose Rizal, executed on December 30, 1896. All of them are now enshrined as heroes.

American Period (1898-1934): 1) The American colonizers, adopting most of the provisions under the Codigo Penal of 1848, retain the death penalty. 2) The Codigo Penal was revised in 1932. Treason, parricide, piracy, kidnapping, murder, rape, and robbery with homicide were considered capital offenses and warranted the death penalty. 3) The Sedition Law (1901); Brigandage Act (1902); Reconcentration Act (1903); and Flag Law (1907) were enacted to sanction the use of force, including death, against all nationalist Filipinos. 4) Macario Sakay was one of those sentenced to die for leading a resistance group. He was sentenced to die by public hanging. 5) The capital punishment continued to be an integral part of the pacification process of the country, to suppress any resistance to American authority. Japanese Occupation (1941-1945): There are no recorded or documented cases of executions through the death penalty during this period simply because extrajudicial executions were widely practised as part of the pacification of the country.

Post-World War II: 1) Espionage is added to the list of capital offenses. 2) The Anti-Subversion Law called for the death penalty for all Communist leaders. However, no executions were recorded for any captured communist leader. 3) For the period of 1946-1965, 35 people were executed for offenses that the Supreme Court labeled as “crimes of senseless depravity or extreme criminal perversity.”

The Marcos Years (1965-1986): 1) “Deterrence” became the official justification for the imposition of the death penalty. This is the same justification used for the declaration of Martial Law in 1972. 2) The number of capital crimes increased to a total of 24. Some crimes which were made punishable by death through laws and decrees during the Marcos period were subversion, possession of firearms, arson, hijacking, embezzlement, drug-related offenses, unlawful possession of firearms, illegal fishing and cattle rustling. 3) Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda, and Edgardo Aquino were executed for the gang rape of movie star Maggie dela Riva in 1972. Despite prohibitions against public executions, the execution of the three was done in full view of the public. 4) Nineteen executions took place during the Pre-Martial Law period. Twelve were executed during Martial Law. 5) Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. was sentenced to die by firing squad for charges of murder, subversion and illegal possession of firearm in 1977. 6) The last judicial execution under the Marcos years was in October 1976 when Marcelo San Jose was executed by electrocution. 7) Similar to the reasons for the imposition of capital punishment during the Colonial Periods, the death penalty during the Marcos Regime was imposed to quell rebellion and social unrest.

President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino (1986-1992): 1) The Death Penalty was “abolished” under the 1987 Constitution. 2) The Philippines became the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. 3) All death sentences were reduced to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. 4) In 1988, the military started lobbying for the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by the CPP-NPA.

President Fidel Valdez Ramos (1993-1998): 1) A series of high profile crimes during this period, including the murder of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez, created public impression that heinous crimes were on the rise. 2) The Ramos administration reimposed the death penalty by virtue of Republic Act No. 7659 in December 1993 to address the rising criminality and incidence of heinous crimes. 3) The Death Penalty Law lists a total of 46 crimes punishable by death; 25 of these are death mandatory while 21 are death eligible. 4) Republic Act No. 8177 mandates that a death sentence shall be carried out through lethal injection.

President Joseph Ejercito Estrada (1998-2001): 1) Leo Echegaray was executed in February 1999 and was followed by six other executions for various heinous crimes. 2) In 1999, the bumper year for executions, the national crime volume, instead of abating, ironically increased by 15.3 percent or a total of 82,538 (from 71,527 crimes in the previous year). 3) Estrada issued a de facto moratorium on executions in the face of church-led campaigns to abolish the death penalty and in observance of the Jubilee Year.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001-present): 1) Arroyo publicly stated that she is not in favor of executions. 2) Due to the rise in crimes related to drugs and kidnappings that targeted the Filipino-Chinese community, she announced that she would resume executions “to sow fear into the hearts of criminals.” 3) Arroyo lifted the de facto moratorium issued by Estrada on December 5, 2003. 4) Even as executions were set to resume on January 2004, this did not push through by virtue of a Supreme Court decision to reopen the Lara-Licayan case. 5) Since then, the administration has been issuing reprieves on scheduled executions without actually issuing a moratorium. 6) With the amendment of Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) and Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs act of 2002), there are now 52 capital offenses, 30 of which are death mandatory and 22 are death eligible.

Aquino Rejects Bid to Revive Death Penalty

In January 2014, Delon Porcalla wrote in the Philippine Star, “For the nth time, President Aquino yesterday thumbed down proposals to revive the death penalty following the spate of crimes in the country. Aquino said the country’s justice system is far from perfect, citing cases of innocent people found guilty of crimes they did not commit only because they were unable to hire good lawyers.The President reiterated that he would not allow capital punishment to be reimposed unless there is certainty that only those proven guilty will be punished and the innocent set free. [Source: Delon Porcalla, Philippine Star, January 30, 2014 ]

“Remember that if one is sentenced to death, there is no taking it back,” he said. “As to deterrence, that will not be fully realized, and this is not the only solution to deter crimes. Perhaps there will be more deterrence if we can assure that criminals will be caught and jailed,” he added. Sen. Vicente Sotto has filed Senate Bill 2080 seeking the revival of the death penalty. Sotto expressed alarm that the penalty of life imprisonment has failed to deter criminals from committing heinous crimes such as rape and drug trafficking.

“He cited the case of Chinese drug trafficker Lim Seng, who was executed by firing squad in the early 1970s. This had effectively eliminated the illegal drug trade in the country for at least 10 years, the senator said. Sotto noted that the Constitution allows Congress to reinstate the death penalty as long as there are compelling reasons to support this. He called for the use of lethal injection as the means to carry out the death penalty.

Rape and Rape Laws in the Philippines

Dr. Jose Florante J. Leyson wrote in the Encyclopedia of Sexuality: “The seriousness of rape against an individual female was brought to the public eye by the media when a famous actress was “gang raped” in the mid-1960s. The public demanded the severest punishment, the death penalty, and they got it. Execution by hanging, electrocution, or lethal injection as a penalty for rape has been on the books since 1924. The death penalty was abolished in 1987 but reinstated in 1994. In 2000, there were about 900 persons on death row, including a former member of Congress convicted in 1998 and awaiting execution for rape. Even though no actual executions for rape have taken place, the law has been instrumental in helping reduce such incidents [Source: Jose Florante J. Leyson, M.D., Encyclopedia of Sexuality, 2001 |~|]

In one particularly egregious rape case, a congressman was accused of raping a girl that he bought from her stepfather. When he was arrested he joked, “When you do it, do you ask for a birth certificate?” He claimed she was at the legal age of consent of 12 (an effort to raise the age of statutory rape to 14 has been unsuccessful).

After nine years of debate, the House of Representatives finally, in 1997, approved the bicameral conference report on a new law that heavily penalizes rape and makes it easier for government prosecutors to prosecute rape cases. This anti-rape law reclassifies rape from “a crime against chastity” to “a crime against a person.” Thus, if the victim is a minor and refuses to accuse the perpetrator, only the minor’s legal guardian or the court can file a suit. This new law also penalizes marital rape, but opens the door for the spouse to forgive her husband, in which case the charge is voided. The new law also redefines the nature of rape, expanding the traditional definition of forced penile insertion in the vagina to include unwanted insertion of the penis, or any object or instrument, in any bodily orifice of another person. These “other acts” are now part of “sexual assault.” The law in the Revised Penal Code also eliminates the gender bias, so that a woman can now be charged with raping a man. Finally, the law makes it possible to present evidence in court, in which presumption is created in favor of a rape victim, so that any overt physical act manifesting resistance in any degree can now be accepted as evidence of rape. Similarly, evidence that the victim was in a situation where she/he was incapable of giving valid consent can now be accepted as evidence of rape. |~|

For many years, the law against rape in the Philippines was described as a law against chastity. This meant that sexually experienced woman often difficulty proving they were raped because they were not virgins. Defense lawyers routinely had rape cases thrown out by arguing the victims was promiscuous because she wasn't a virgin and therefore her chastity was not harmed.

In the mid 1990s, rape-reform became hot topic as reformers attempted to get the law changed so that rape victims were rape victims regardless of whether they were virgins, chaste or no chaste or married. Reformers also wanted to expand the definition of rape from penile penetration to oral and anal penetration with hand and other objects.

The Philippines used to have the death penalty for rape. No rapist however was executed. One lawmaker suggested in 1995 that convicted rapists should have their penises amputated. "Considering the chauvinistic attitude of most Filipino males, having one's sexual organ cut off is worse than death itself," the lawmaker said.

Incest: A Death Penalty Crime in the Philippines

Dr. Jose Florante J. Leyson wrote in the Encyclopedia of Sexuality: Incest is punished severely if the victim is younger than fifteen years old. Capital punishment by lethal injection was restored during the Ramos administration. Six executions of men convicted of incest have taken place since 1998. [Source: Jose Florante J. Leyson, M.D., Encyclopedia of Sexuality, 2001 |~|]

There are no statistics on the incidence of incest in the Philippines. However, it is quietly known that adolescent girls are often raped by older male family members, and fathers often use them as sexual objects after the death of the mother, or when the wife’s work takes her outside the home for long periods. Abusive males are usually unemployed people with a past history of family violence, high consumption of alcohol, social inadequacy, and impulsive behavior. Although less frequent, cases of incest are also known in which the male is the head of an upper-class household and respected by his community. Cases of incest in middle- and upper-class families seldom surface while the victim is a minor. The trauma may emerge during private sexual therapy with an older woman, but there is a strong reluctance on the part of most victims to make formal charges. Generally, indictment for incest by judicial authorities does not take effect unless a formal complaint has been filed or in cases of public scandal. |~|

Image Sources:

Text Sources: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Times of London, Lonely Planet Guides, Library of Congress, Philippines Department of Tourism, Compton’s Encyclopedia, The Guardian, National Geographic, Smithsonian magazine, The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, Reuters, AP, AFP, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, Foreign Policy, Wikipedia, BBC, CNN, and various books, websites and other publications.

Last updated June 2015

•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  Google+
•  e-mail

 Page Top

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of country or topic discussed in the article. This constitutes 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. If you are the copyright owner and would like this content removed from factsanddetails.com, please contact me.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Injustice System

By Miguel Syjuco

• April 26, 2017

MANILA — In one jail here, 91 men share a cell so small they take turns sitting down. It’s dizzyingly hot, and there are only two buckets for personal hygiene. And not one of the detainees has been convicted of a crime.

The 93 men packed into the cell next door are also not guilty — at least not yet. Nobody in this city jail has been tried. Each awaits his time in court. One inmate tells me his case has already stretched nearly five years. Many others have been here several months, since President Rodrigo Duterte began his war on drugs a little less than a year ago. The jails continue to overflow. “For every one person processed out,” an inmate told me, “five new ones arrive.”

All Filipinos know that there’s little justice to be had from our criminal justice system. It is toothless and glacial. And its longtime failure is at the root of broad acceptance of Mr. Duterte’s draconian drug war, which has led to more than 4,000 confirmed deaths , with nearly 3,800 more awaiting investigation. Like most institutions in this country, the systems of law and order are thoroughly dysfunctional. The abuses can only ever be rectified by addressing each in turn. But what if the mechanisms to do that are so broken they’re nearly useless?

According to Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto , the judiciary has a backlog of 600,000 cases, with at least a fifth of all trial courts lacking judges. Each year, overworked prosecutors individually handle some 500 cases, while every public defender is responsible for roughly 5,000 clients. The police are also understaffed by 50,000, and officers are assessed not by the number of successful convictions but on the number of suspects charged by prosecutors, whose cozy relationships with cops make them hesitant to reject cases as lacking merit.

Many accused, after being pressed for bribes and languishing in jail for years, end up simply released after the police do not attend trials to testify, or the prosecution is absent or the evidence proves flimsy. Under Mr. Duterte’s predecessor, roughly one in four cases led to conviction — a pittance, but an improvement from the administration before that. Our criminal justice system has never been able to properly exonerate the innocent and punish the guilty.

No wonder so many voters put their faith in Mr. Duterte’s vow to root out crime in his first six months as president. That promise, however, proved fanciful, and his urgency to deliver led him to him cast human rights and due process as hindrances rather than as safeguards against an exploitative system. Punitive action, now operating extrajudicially, has become subjective and reliant not on the judgment of institutions, with all their checks and balances.

Citizens these days are targeted from drug watchlists compiled by local community officials, whom the president now denounces as largely corrupt and in need of replacement. Those lists, because they are confidential and unverified, have cultivated a sense of impunity that has led to police abuses, vigilante operations and thousands of killings. They’ve also left so many Filipinos vulnerable to less lethal, but more pervasive, victimization.

In slums that I visited across Metro Manila, wives, mothers, sisters and grandparents were eager to tell stories of their relatives, mostly men, who were arrested without warrants or detained without evidence. One woman told me that ever since police operations began in her community, her small children sleep fitfully, easily startled by noises in the street, and the sight of a police car sends them running in fear.

Residents recounted how police will conduct a “sona ,” slang for mass interrogation in communities that often leads to harassment by the authorities. I was told in one slum by the Pasig River that more than 80 men were called out of their homes, lined up and arrested last September. One woman said that a few of those detained ended up dead. Another woman, whose brother was similarly killed, spoke on behalf of her sheepish husband standing behind her. A model citizen in the community, he serves as a volunteer firefighter, heads the local group that organizes an annual religious procession and had just before his arrest passed a police clearance that was required for new employment. To raise his $500 bail, his family sold their shanty, gave up their small business and moved in with his mother.

Such stories are now commonplace. The poor, who’ve always known justice least, now bear injustice most. While Mr. Duterte remains overwhelmingly popular, a recent poll showed that trust in him has risen among the upper classes but has dropped by 11 percentage points among the poorest, resulting in a seven-point drop overall.

In a slum in the north of Manila, residents told me about a dozen men from the same street who were arrested this year after a police raid failed to snag a targeted drug suspect. Women showed me documents issued by the courts or Public Attorney’s Office, bearing labyrinthine legal phrases in English, a language they barely speak. To these citizens, the rotten justice system is the only place to which they can turn.

Human rights lawyers say such systemic injustice can be addressed only by reforming the judiciary, the penal system and the police together. But that network must first be challenged, to prove that its dysfunction results in grave consequences, and the only ones who can legally file cases are the abused parties, most of whom are too poor and too scared to do so.

That is steadily changing. Whistleblowers from among police and vigilantes are speaking out, while lawyers’ groups have been working on cases for victims of abuse or families of those killed. This year, a group of claimants won an injunction from the Supreme Court, which issued a restraining order against police officers alleged to have shot four men execution style. Yet the trial is a long way off, and these plaintiffs, and all others like them, receive no other protection from the government. They live in fear.

If not for concerned lawyers who advocate for them, the journalists who tell their stories and religious groups who offer sanctuary, these citizens, who mostly do not know their rights, would be facing the system entirely on their own. There’s an inspiring irony that the strength and courage most needed to challenge it all comes from the country’s most vulnerable.

These cases, often dismissed by Duterte supporters as isolated incidents or necessary growing pains, are actually vital to the reform this administration seeks. Without them, a public advocate told me, we can neither prove that abuse indeed stems from the system nor pinpoint what needs to be fixed. And given the current government’s efforts to reinstate capital punishment and lower the age of criminal liability to 9 years old, fixing the Philippine justice system is more than ever a matter of life and death.

Despite his violent rhetoric and his coddling of police, the blame is not all Mr. Duterte’s. No one person is culpable, just as no one person can fix it. What is supposed to be a precision instrument for ensuring law and order has become a weapon so blunt that most people can’t trust it. The current embrace of violence, and all the justifications people make for it, are predicated on this. The system is so broken that many Filipinos think it’s just better to purge the dregs of society. It’s a perverse hope — one that if we’re honest we can all understand, but one that if we’re responsible, we must ultimately reject.

Miguel Syjuco ( @MiguelSyjuco ), a contributing opinion writer, is the author of the novel “Ilustrado” and a professor at N.Y.U. Abu Dhabi.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter , and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter .

• November 13, 2023 | Pioneering AI and Global Financial Transformation at Singapore Fintech Festival 2023
• May 31, 2021 | Israeli-Palestine violence impacts Southeast Asian Muslim nations’ ties with Israel
• May 30, 2021 | Arrest of US journalist in Myanmar is latest in junta’s war on media
• May 29, 2021 | Latest virus surge compounds Southeast Asia’s economic uncertainty
• May 28, 2021 | COVID-19 surge in Thai prisons is a warning to other countries in Asia
• May 26, 2021 | Worker deaths show toxic chemical use continues on Lao banana farms
• May 25, 2021 | The Myanmar military’s planned “intranet” is likely to fail
• May 24, 2021 | Indonesia offers SpaceX small Papuan island despite risks
• May 22, 2021 | Southeast Asia in the spotlight ahead of international talks on biodiversity
• May 20, 2021 | Myanmar military resumes its repression of academia, educators

Philippine judiciary and criminal justice system under pressure: An inside look

February 6, 2017

From insufficient courts to overcrowded prisons, the Philippines’ judiciary and criminal justice system is under enormous pressure. As a result, significant reforms are needed to spur further economic development.

By Argee Abadines, edited by John Pennington

One court per 50,000 people. This is a staggering statistic highlighting one of the most critical problems in the Philippines. There are simply not enough courts to meet society’s demand. According to Maria Lourdes Sereno , Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, “In the Philippines, there are only 2,000 courts nationwide that serve a population of a hundred million. If you compare this ratio with developed nations, it’s clear we have an undermanned justice sector.”

Courts are therefore overburdened with cases and do not have the staff levels required to process them all. According to statistics released in 2013 analysing data compiled between 2005 and 2010, lower courts had an annual average case load of more than 1 million which would mean an average of 4,000 cases daily. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, this means a judge would have an insane average annual workload of 644 cases.

Court cases take years to be resolved

Another massive issue is the length it takes for cases to be decided. For example, the Sandiganbayan, which is a constitutional court for public officials, takes an average of 15 years to judge a case. These delays have led to acquittals of corrupt public officials. The Sandiganbayan court has a low conviction rate. This in turn hampers anti-corruption measures in the country. Notable such cases such as one involving former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and former Makati mayor, Elenita Binay , wife of former vice-president Jejomar Binay,  have been dismissed by the Sandiganbayan.

Harry Roque, a prominent lawyer, commented , “The low conviction rates in the Sandiganbayan and in the prosecution of drug cases, coupled with the one percent conviction rate for murders, are proof that the country’s legal system is a failure.”

Many Filipinos are too poor to access justice

Poverty is also a big stumbling block because the majority of the population is still poor and they cannot afford legal services. Even if they did have access to the public attorney, which is meant for the poorest of the poor, public attorneys are undermanned and have a huge backlog of cases. As a result, the poor do not file cases knowing they are unable to afford a lawyer and it will take years for their case to get resolved.

Because of a clogged judicial and court system, overcrowded prisons are the most visible problem plaguing the correctional facilities. According to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology which runs 415 prisons in 17 regions, on average the prisons are at 380% overcapacity. The most congested prisons can reach overcapacity level beyond 2,000%. With Duterte’s war on drugs in full swing, a lot of drug users and pushers are joining the already-packed prisons daily.

Prisoners’ rights continue to be disrespected and ignored

This has prompted human rights groups to call for reforms to improve conditions for prisoners. According to Carlos Conde, a human rights watch researcher , “Corrupt and incompetent investigators and prosecutors, a judicial and court system clogged with too many cases, and too few judges to try them. These institutional pathologies result in unjust and prolonged detention.” According to Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, prolonged detention without trial is a violation of international human rights.

Human rights groups are already agitated about Duterte’s war on drugs because they claim extrajudicial murders are occurring on a daily basis. It will likely be a matter of time before the gross injustices befalling detainees and prisoners will be another issue that dogs the Duterte administration.

Inability to post bail adds thousands of pre-trial detainees to the prison system

The struggling judicial system contributes heavily to the overcrowding. Many do not have the money to post bail. Some of the most common crimes like drug possession do not allow for bail. As such, pre-trial detainees constitute at least 64% of the prison population (over 100,000) according to data from the Institute for Criminal Policy Research. This statistic makes the Philippines the country with the highest number of pre-trial detainees in Southeast Asia and the second highest in all of Asia. Prisoners can spend years in this situation, and some of those are innocent.

Recent jailbreaks have also highlighted the undermanned prisons and poor security systems. With so-called Islamic State activities increasing in the Philippines and in nearby Indonesia and Malaysia , the government needs to be wary of more jailbreaks designed to release the most hardened criminals and captured terrorists.

Increasing funds for the justice and criminal system is the key to accelerating reforms

According to Sereno, one of the easiest ways to accelerate reforms in the Justice system is to increase the national budget for it. With increased budget, the government can increase manpower, construct more courts and enhance legal systems for productivity. The current administration does not have judiciary reforms as a priority. The previous administration was only able to deliver 0.78% of the national budget in 2015. Duterte set out plans for 0.97% of the national budget to go to the judiciary in his first budget.

Given the acute lack of funds, prisons have become a haven for illegal activities, especially the proliferation of drugs. Republic Act 10575 or the Bureau of Corrections Act of 2013 was enacted to deal with the issues of congestion, inadequate facilities, lack of resources and low staff morale which led to illegal activities in the prison system thriving. The law also authorises construction of more detention facilities to decongest the prisons. However, the law remains unimplemented.

Automation of the courts has started to improve the system

One positive development is the eCourts programme , which automates trial courts and allows judges to electronically monitor their cases. They also get reminders for deadlines. Integrating technology into the judiciary department will allow judges to be more efficient and reduce the time a case takes to get resolved because they will be able to prepare in advance for court hearings. There are also some initiatives in major cities like Quezon City to digitise court filings and proceedings. Technology can definitely speed up cases and trials but this means internet speed also needs to catch up in the Philippines before it can be fully harnessed.

A major reform that Sereno is very pleased with is the expansion of coverage of small claims cases . These cases involve money claims of up to PHP 200,000 (US$4,000). It is very cheap to file a claim and turnaround time is less than a day or a week at most. This lessens the workload of the main courts and allows more cases to be resolved. In a recent speech , she said, “I don’t see why we cannot move our system from a system characterised by delay into one that is modern because it is marked by the feature of continuous conduct of trials.”

A functioning justice system is necessary for the Philippines to sustain its strong economic growth

The maxim “justice delayed is justice denied”, often attributed to British Prime Minister William Gladstone, has been around for centuries but it accurately summarises the current state of the judiciary system. There are ongoing initiatives but for the Philippines to achieve sustainable economic growth, the government needs more resources channelled towards the justice and correctional system.

• Volunteering
• Translating
• Take Action
• Urgent Appeals
• Press Releases
• Hunger Alerts
• Forwarded News
• Compression
• Orthotics and Insoles
• Foot Health blog
• Email Us At [email protected]
• Call Us At +(852) 2698 6339

[email protected]

• Ethics in Action
• Human Rights Correspondence School
• TORTURE: Asian and Global Perspectives

Six suggestions to improve the criminal justice system of the Philippines

Asian Legal Resource Centre, Hong Kong

The Asian Legal Resource Centre and Asian Human Rights Commission call for the following steps to be taken as top priorities in order to address the grave problems afflicting the criminal justice system of the Philippines, which deeply undermine the possibility of all persons in the country obtaining their fundamental human rights and cause a loss of respect and expectations in the role of institutions for the rule of law in the Philippines and the functioning of the state itself.

1. An independent commission be established with the guidance and technical support of key United Nations agencies and other international bodies, comprising of senior judges, competent jurists, reputed academics and representatives from civil society, including human rights organizations, to undertake a comprehensive review of the country’s criminal justice system, and specifically the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of cases, by way of public consultations and other relevant methods, in order to identify defects and hindrances and make full recommendations to the government and notify the public of the same, in full, within six months.

2. In the interim, both the Department of Justice and Philippine National Police clarify and widely publicise a rational, accessible and comprehensive system of witness and victim protection in accordance with the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act (RA 6981), together with an explicit set of operational guidelines for police that clearly stipulate officers’ duties to provide protection and spell out the sanctions that will be taken against officers failing to comply. A full review of the implementation and limitations of the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act must be included as part of the work of the abovementioned independent commission.

3. The strengthening of agencies for the receipt, investigation and prosecution of complaints against police and military officials to ensure that grievances by the victims are properly addressed and acted upon and that complainants obtain adequate protection, and interim measures immediately introduced by which to hold police accountable, through an explicit set of sanctions, for cases that have been filed in court that are found to have been deliberately fabricated.

4. The use of labelling by the armed forces and other agencies be brought to an immediate end by an explicit directive from the government that the practice is prohibited and that officials found responsible for such practices will be removed from their positions and investigated for criminal liability in subsequent killings, attempted killings or other incidents that may have occurred in consequence.

5. The findings of the Melo Commission be followed by immediate investigations and prosecutions of persons identified as responsibile for extrajudicial killings and other abuses, whether directly or by virtue of command responsibility.

6. The enactment of domestic laws and establishing of implementing agencies in accordance with the requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, signing of the new International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, implementation of the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee of December 2003 and issuance of a standing invitation to all United Nations human rights experts to visit the country.

News Filter

Get involved, take action here.

Make a difference. You are just a few clicks away from making a contribution to Human Rights work

Subscribe for mail

Follow ahrc, get involved, journals & magazines.

• Torture: Asian and Global
• Perspectives

Contact Information

Asian Human Rights Commission G/F, 52 Princess Margaret Road Ho Man Tin, Kowloon Hong Kong Tel: +(852) 2698 6339 Fax: +(852) 2698 6367

• Accessibility
• Subscriptions
• Subscription

• Commercial Law
• Constitutional Law
• Criminal Law
• Law Related Discussion
• Legal Ethics
• Procedural Law
• Special Penal Laws
• Reforming Criminal Justice: The Reality of Philippine Criminal Justice System

by  RALB Law

Justice is for everyone. Justice for everyone! Reforming Criminal Justice…..

The presumption “justice is for everyone” turns to be a calling, “justice for everyone,” because of a criminal justice system characterized by racial profiling, police brutality, overcriminalization, mass incarceration, and recidivism .

In the United States, incarceration and racial injustices are rampant, at the same time, the most injurious measure of their justice system. According to the statistics of the Equal Justice Initiative, the U.S. incarcerates its citizens more than any other country. Mass incarceration disproportionately impacts the poor and people of color.(( Equal Justice Initiative, Statistics, 2023 )) Thus, there is a vocal desire of criminal justice reform.

In the Philippines, there is a different reality. The legal and justice system is branded with notoriously slow and under-resourced judicial system, chronic delays and systemic inefficiency in litigating crimes,(( Senate of the Philippines, 2019 )) clogged court system, and overcrowded jails. Now, is there really a need for a criminal justice reform in the Philippines to serve justice for everyone?

What is criminal justice?

Criminal justice is an umbrella term that refers to the laws,(( Law, Cornell Law School )) procedures,(( Procedural Law, Cornell Law School )) institutions, and policies at play before, during, and after the commission of a crime.(( Crime, Cornell Law School )) It ultimately covers all the aspects of criminal justice system. It is also known as the administration of justice , described as a process by which the legal framework and structure of a government is executed.

Criminal justice seeks to dissuade future crimes by imposing penalties for criminal acts, as well as to rehabilitate criminals. It is a system that delivers “justice” by punishment commensurate with the crime.  Indeed, the Philippine penal system stands in middle between classicists and positivists, thereby, following the imprint of eclectic theory, where the imposition of penalty is for retribution and reformation.

Overtime, criminal justice evolves. The modern society is now built on a social contract that governments are responsible for maintaining order in their jurisdictions. Similarly, the Philippines, as a sovereign state, shall maintain order and administration of justice.

The Philippines embody the spirit of criminal justice by focusing on two basic ideas: the accused, convicted offenders, and victims all have rights, and crimes should be tried and punished in line with the law.

The Philippine Government has organized and established institutions which serve to maintain peace and order. These institutions are responsible for preventing crimes, enforcement of laws, and apprehension and prosecution of those who violate the same. If the courts of law find them guilty of committing a crime, they shall be confined in order for those people to be rehabilitated and to be reintegrated into the community as law abiding citizens.((Bravo, Philippine Criminal Justice System, pp. 160-162))

Why is Criminal Justice important?

Criminal Justice is important in a sense that it provides justice for all, as it punishes and rehabilitates criminals. Because of criminal justice, we feel a sense of security with, and in, our community.

We can go to work safely, we can go to the mall without fear of getting robbed, and we can walk in the streets without fear of getting assaulted. In short, we feel safe because of criminal justice. We are aware that those who transgressed the laws are, and can be, incarcerated between the thick and humongous walls of justice.

Such incarceration, however, is used to reform the individuals who breached the law. They are held in prison not to be completely banished from society but to rehabilitate them and correct their transgressions.

After serving the sentence or such rehabilitation, they will now be released and will be given a second chance to live like normal people, who will respect the laws and the institutions.  If they remain unpunished, society is just tolerating such behaviors, and it will be like more or less an encouragement for them to continue violating the laws.

What is criminal justice reform?

Racial profiling, police brutality, overcriminalization, mass imprisonment, and recidivism are all systemic flaws in criminal justice system that must be addressed by criminal justice reform. It tries to enhance our existing and defective ( perceived ) criminal justice system, in which high-profile offenders can easily avoid punishment or receive preferential treatment, an abusive police force that treats prisoners like slaves, and a corrupt institution that tolerates such behavior.

As crime rates continue to escalate, criminal justice reform seeks to provide a competent and reliable system in which the society will rely on its stability. It deals not only with improving the penal institution but also entails a responsible police force, and a fair and inclusive treatment for all persons deprived of liberty.

Why is criminal justice reform important?

Criminal Justice reform is important because laws are made by men given the existing conditions when laws were enacted. It might be that the law by itself may have conflicts with other laws or lapses within itself.

Also, said statutes may not cover certain situations which have recently developed considering the changes in times like technology, how people think, behave and act, the new modes of committing crimes, and additional enacted laws.

The world is ever evolving. Hence, criminal justice must adopt to it, through criminal justice reforms, to ensure that the following are achieved:

• Justice is still delivered to those who have been accused of committing crimes;
• Meaningful sentences are being issued out;
• Improved rehabilitation programs for offenders;
• Other crimes are prevented;
• Repeat offenders and runaway incarceration costs are reduced;
• Address structural issues in criminal justice systems such as police brutality and overcriminalization;
• Moral support for victims are provided – overall improving public safety;
• Measures are in place to ensure that the system is cost-effective, fairer, and smarter, while enhancing the ability of law enforcement to keep our communities safe.

Overall, criminal justice reform is important in order to keep maintaining public order and safety throughout changing times.

Is criminal justice system important in our country?

Criminal justice system is geared towards delivering justice for everyone. This means protecting everyone, convicting criminals, and providing a fair judicial process in accomplishing these goals. Ultimately, the system keeps our citizens safe.

In the Judiciary Annual Report for CY 2021, there are 8,391 pending cases as of December 31, 2020. 3,975 cases were disposed during the year, showing that there were 4,416 from prior years which remain pending as of December 31, 2021.((Judiciary Annual Report for CY 2021))

From the Crime Statistics at a Glance report published by the Senate of the Philippines in its website,(( Crime Statistics at a Glance )) the monthly crime rate in 2012 was 18.9. This means that for every 100,000 people, there were around 18 incidents of crime every month. Considering the total population of the Philippines in 2012 is 98,032,317, we can conclude that there was approximately a total of 222,337 reported crimes in the Philippines in 2012.

These statistics compel the importance of criminal justice system in our country to ensure that justice is delivered for everyone. Hence, criminal justice system is important in the Philippines.

What is the importance of criminal justice system in the Philippines?

If significant focus is devoted to the current state of the criminal justice system, the guarantees provided by the Constitution such as: the right to life, liberty, and property; free access to courts and adequate legal assistance; the right to be informed; the right to counsel; the presumption of innocence ; and the right to a speedy trial, will remain but melodious words.

Nonetheless, the assurances under the basic law are predicated on the idea that the State provides every person with the resources to assert and exercise these rights and make them effective.

How do you perceive the criminal justice in the Philippines?

The Philippines is currently facing a grave threat to its weak democracy and rule of law institutions. So far, the government response has been marked by inaction and a lack of adequate direction over the police, justice department, and army, which have invariably exacerbated the situation by acting in interests other than that of the public.

The administration must now counteract these steps in the right direction by demonstrating that it has the will and willingness to implement the required changes to clean up the rot in its criminal justice system and wipe the name of impunity from its face.

Do we need to reform the Criminal Justice and how?

The criminal justice system in the Philippines is perceived not only as flawed, but also rotten. Obviously, it is imperfect, like any other criminal justice system in the world. However, what makes our justice system different?

It is because of impunity. Ever wonder why only the drug-pushers and users, and not the drug lords, are the victims of extrajudicial killings? And when they get lucky, they are not dead, and they are the only ones in jail? Perpetrators of killings, abusers, and rapists, especially if they have enough influence and power, do get away easily with the law. That is unfortunately the sad reality and the realization that our criminal justice system may have been perceived as rotten.

So the question is, do we need to reform it and how?

Clearly, the answer is yes . As to how, it is not easy.

First, we need to get rid of this impunity . Impunity has been instilled in the minds of everyone since time immemorial that it is not that all surprising if someone powerful commits a crime then gets away with it. If we want a reform in our criminal justice system, we need to be fair to everyone. We need to uphold the speedy, impartial, and public trial that is given to us by our Constitution.

Second, will be a reform in litigating crimes . The pandemic has not only slowed down even more the already notoriously slow deliverance of justice. It also resulted in overcrowded prison cells because of the delays and reschedules of hearings in courts.

But even before the pandemic happened, plenty of cases are already pending before the courts. Some of the detention prisoners even go so far as already serving their supposed penalty but have not gotten their day in court. Our judiciary, in this regard, is responsible for upholding the right to speedy trial of the accused, they should not delay the trial arbitrarily and indefinitely.

Third, will be a reform in criminal investigation . It is also stated in our Constitution that we have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. For the past few years, with the War on Drugs being one of the priorities of the previous administration, some police officers were involved in the extra-judicial killings, torture, and abuse of ‘suspects’ to confess their crime. Our Police, in this regard, need to handle criminal investigations in an unbiased manner.

Fourth, will be a reform in victim and witness protection . It is undeniable that victims and even their witnesses have had threats on their lives after coming forward and speaking up. Those who seek protection are afraid for their lives, some of them even end up dead. Thus, it makes people wonder if the police protection is only available to the rich and powerful and has connections.

Take the SUV driver who ran over a security guard as an example. If we want a fair criminal justice system, it starts with a protection for everyone. We need a guarantee that these victims and witnesses are protected. Inasmuch as we uphold the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” of the accused, victims and witnesses also need protection in seeking their truth and justice.

There is no such thing as a perfect criminal justice system.(( Are Innocent People Pleading Guilty? A New Report Says Yes )) After all, the quantum of evidence essentially needed to convict or acquit an accused is proof beyond reasonable doubt . This means proof that requires moral certainty. But while it is true, every accused should have his day in court. The opportunity to be heard and to produce evidence on his own behalf are rights given to him for his own protection.

Having all of this said, while the Philippines is compliant in this, it is also perceived that our justice system may have operated and leaned in favor of the rich, influential, and powerful. It does not matter if innocent or guilty, the speedy and ‘impartial’ trial is afforded mostly in their favor. That is why there is a need for reform in order for ordinary Filipinos to also obtain their truth and justice.

Does imprisonment reform criminals?

Sentence of imprisonment is a penalty given to the criminals essentially depriving them of their liberty for the purposes of protecting the society against them, against other heinous crimes, and to counter and reduce recidivism.

The question now is does imprisonment reform criminals?

While it is true that imprisonment is not the be-all and end-all of all criminal justice system, the time that criminals spend in prison can deter them of future crimes and rehabilitate or reintegrate them by providing different wellness programs.

In the Philippines, for example, the government is the sole responsible in implementing programs that can help the prisoners to reintegration and rehabilitation – some of them are intervention programs, group counseling, vocational, livelihood, and skills training, and the like.

However, while imprisonment can reform criminals and give them the chance to reintegrate their lives, and a chance for a law-abiding and self-supporting life, the stigma surrounding ex-convicts and prisoners in general is still prevalent in the present society.

Ex-convicts have a hard time starting over again due to societal and workplace stigma. So inasmuch as imprisonment can reform criminals, it is still our duty as a society to give them the opportunity to make their life better during and after serving their sentence and while atoning for the sins they have committed.

The Philippines currently has a weak criminal justice system and is perceived not only as flawed, but also rotten, thus, the calls for a criminal justice reform to address structural issues embodied upon it.

The criminal justice reform is carried out by administering the following actions that affect our justice system:

• To get rid of impunity;
• To administer reform in the litigation of crimes;
• To administer reform in the investigation of crimes;
• To administer reform in the victim and witness protection programs; and
• To administer reform in the rehabilitation and reintegration programs for the criminals.

Unless these reforms are not in place, structural issues in criminal justice systems such as racial profiling, police brutality, overcriminalization, mass incarceration, and recidivism may never be immediately addressed. Overall, criminal justice reform is important in order to keep maintaining public order and safety throughout changing times.

RALB Law | RABR & Associates Law Firm

Leave a reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

Name * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Email * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You cannot copy content of this page

Carabao Justice

Life and crime in the philippines, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. -  george orwell  , the evolution of the philippine criminal justice system.

by Napoleon C. Reyes

The collective experiences of people shape their response to crime and disorder. To understand the nature of crime in the Philippines and its criminal justice system, one must be familiar with its history and its consequences. This essay discusses the development of the Philippine criminal justice system through different stages in its history.

Pre-Colonial Justice

Human settlements had existed in the archipelago well before the arrival of the first Spanish conquistador . Early settlers came from the south via Borneo and Indonesia and from the north from southern China and Taiwan. Most of them lived by or close to water and traded with the Chinese, the Cambodians, and the Champans (Francia, 2010). These pre-colonial societies were based on kinship and were stratified into three groups: the ruling elite, their peers and followers, and the slaves (Francia, 2010). A datu , whose authority rested primarily on his physical prowess, wisdom, inheritance, or wealth, ruled the smallest political-social unit known as barangay . Each barangay existed autonomously and a centralized government did not exist (Francia, 2010).

Assisted by the elders of the barangay , the datu legislated laws and acted as judge. All trials were held in public and litigants pleaded their own case. At times, the datu would hold trial by ordeal to resolve doubts. People believed that the gods would protect the innocent and punish the guilty and that the result of the ordeals was a revelation of the divine truth (Agoncillo, 1994). Murder, adultery, theft, and insulting a woman were considered great offenses and were punished by enslaving the offender (Blair & Robertson, 1904). If the value stolen was great, the offender and his relatives were all fined. Failure to pay the fine resulted in the enslavement of all member of the family (Blair & Robertson, 1904).

Toward the end of the 14th century, Muslim missionaries reached the southern islands of Mindanao and converted the natives. This resulted in the creation of alliances that helped in thwarting the subsequent efforts to colonize southern Philippines (Abuza, 2003). Islam would have spread northward were it not for the arrival of European conquistadores beginning in the 16th century (Francia, 2010).

Justice under God

On March 16, 1521, Ferdinand Magellan reached the central Visayan region of the archipelago. His discovery of the islands led to a series of Spanish expeditions that culminated in Miguel Lopez de Legazpi’s conquest of Manila in 1565. Thus began the 333 years of Spanish colonial rule that drastically changed in the islanders’ way of life. Under the guise of spreading Christianity and saving the natives from eternal damnation, the colonial government dissolved the barangays and forced everyone to live in pueblos. Newly Christianized Indios – the derogatory term used by the Spanish to refer to the natives – were placed under the watchful eyes of the clerics and were required to pay tributes to the new sovereign.

As in all Spanish colonies, the new order extended Spanish laws to Philippines. These included the Codigo Penal (Penal Code), Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal (Code of Criminal Procedure), Codigo Civil (Civil Code), Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Code of Civil Procedure), and Codigo de Comercio (Code of Commerce). A court system that consisted of superior and inferior courts was likewise established. The Guardia Civil (Civil Guards) performed law enforcement functions. Individuals who were convicted of serious offenses such as murder and treason are executed either by firing squad or garrotte.

The oppression and injustices suffered by Filipinos at the hands of the friars and civil administrators caused massive unrest and sparked the quest for independence. Sporadic uprisings broke out and crescendoed to the 1896 Philippine Revolution. By mid-1898, the revolutionary forces had gained control of most of the provinces. On June 12 of that year, the leader of the revolutionary forces, General Emilio Aguinaldo, declared independence from Spain. Their jubilation would be cut short, however, by the eruption of the Spanish-American War.

Truth, Justice, and the American Way

The explosion of the USS Maine in Havana, Cuba, precipitated the hostilities between Spain and the United States. Spain would lose the short-lived war and, under the Treaty of Paris, cede control of the Philippines to the United States. The newly established Philippine republic under General Aguinaldo, who had been led to believe that the United States would not claim the colony for itself, refused to recognize the treaty. A fierce and bloody war soon broke out between the Philippines and the United States.

The war officially ended on July 4, 1902 with the United States as the victor. This ushered in the American colonial rule that was trumpeted as a noble endeavor to educate, uplift, and civilize the Filipinos (Rusling, 1987). Like the Spanish, the Americans indoctrinated Filipinos on the superiority of their values and practices. Unlike the Spanish, they encouraged Filipinos to learn their language through a system of mass education. This approach changed the cultural landscape of the Philippines and impacted every aspect of life on the islands.

The American colonial government enacted several laws to eradicate the vestiges of Spanish rule, including new codes of criminal and civil procedure. It established a new judicial system modeled after the judicial system of the United States. The United States president was given the power to appoint the justices of the Philippine Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court was also given the power to review the decision of the Philippine Supreme Court in certain cases.In 1901, the colonial government formed a national police force. A year later, it extended the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution to the archipelago. The use of firing squad or garrotte as method of execution for capital offenses was replaced by the use of electric chair in 1926.

In 1934, the Tydings-McDuffie Act of the United States authorized the creation of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, a transitional administration that would prepare the islands for eventual independence. Pursuant to this law, the 1935 Philippine Constitution was drafted and ratified. The Japanese occupation of the Philippine during World War II would force the Commonwealth government to go into exile.

On July 4, 1946, about 10 months after Japan’s formal surrender, the Commonwealth government was dissolved and the Philippines became an independent republic. This officially ended the American colonial period.

Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice

Despite its dalliance with martial rule from 1972 to 1986, the Philippines remains a democratic and republican state with a unitary and presidential form of government. The current Philippine Constitution, which took effect on February 2, 1987, distributes government powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The president, who is elected by a direct popular vote and serves for six years, heads the executive branch. He acts as the head of state and the head of government and exercises control over all executive departments, bureaus, and offices. The legislative branch consists of the Senate, which has 24 senators elected at large, and the House of Representatives, which has 289 representatives elected from legislative districts and through a party-list system. The two chambers exercise legislative power except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum. Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, which is made up of a chief justice and 14 associate justices, and in such lower courts as may be established by law. This power includes the duty to settle actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

The country consists of 17 administrative regions. Each region is subdivided into provinces, cities and municipalities, and barangays. These political subdivisions exercise local autonomy within their respective territorial jurisdictions.

Philippine criminal law is largely based on the Spanish Penal Code. The classification of crimes and imposable penalties in the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (Act No. 3815) mirrors the strong influence of civil law tradition. The code combines classical and positivist criminological philosophy, which results in the mixed goals of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and reintegration.

Under Philippine law, there are three classifications of crimes: felony, offense, and misdemeanor. Felony refers to a violation of the Revised Penal Code. Offense is a crime punishable under a special law. Misdemeanor pertains to minor infraction, such as violation of an ordinance.

At present, steps have been taken to update the criminal law of the Philippines. A new criminal code has been drafted and proposed in Congress. Among others, the proposed code simplifies the classification of crimes and imposable penalties, and eliminates Spanish terms that are still used in the Revised Penal Code. It also incorporates contemporary criminological thinking and addresses issues brought about by advances in technology.

Law Enforcement

From the Guardia Civil and the Insular Constabulary of the Spanish and American colonial governments, the Philippine police system has gone through several transformations. The Insular Constabulary became the Philippine Constabulary in 1901. It 1950, it joined the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) but maintained its function as a national police force. It dealt primarily with insurrections, mass disturbances, and large-scale banditries. While its constables were not trained in crime detection, traffic control, and other aspects of police work, it exercised supervision of local police forces throughout the country. The local government units (provinces, cities, and municipalities) maintained their respective local police departments.

In 1936, the Commonwealth government created the Division of Investigation (DI) under the Department of Justice (DOJ). Commonwealth President Manuel Quezon and Justice Secretary Jose Yulo wanted a law enforcement agency modeled after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States so American consultants were hired to organize the unit. The DI focused on investigation of national crimes and serious local crimes that local police could not solve. After the Japanese occupation, it was reorganized and renamed the Bureau of Investigation (BI). In 1947, Executive Order No. 94 changed its name to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

When President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law on September 21, 1972, he placed the entire country under an authoritarian military rule. He reorganized the national police by merging the PC and the local police forces into one Philippine Constabulary/Integrated National Police (PC/INP). The organization gained notoriety for its widespread corruption and human rights violations.

When a popular revolution toppled the Marcos regime in 1986, a new Philippine Constitution was promulgated providing for a police force that is national in scope and civilian in character. Thus, Congress abolished the PC/INP in 1991 and formed the Philippine National Police (PNP) under the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Members of the PC/INP were retained by the PNP and select members of the major service units of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) were likewise absorbed. Because of this, the leadership of what was intended to be a civilian police organization has retained its militaristic orientation. The last graduates of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) who are currently serving in the PNP are expected to retire in 2026.

In 2002, Republic Act No. 9165 created the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) to serve as the lead anti-drugs law enforcement agency. The agency was patterned after the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

Upon conclusion of police investigation, public prosecutors from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) conduct additional investigation of criminal complaints. When probable cause is found, formal charges are filed before the appropriate court. The NPS is under the Department of Justice (DOJ). It consists of the Prosecution Staff in the Office of the Secretary of Justice, the Regional State Prosecution Offices, the Provincial Prosecution Offices, and the City Prosecution Offices.

All criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of public prosecutors. However, it is not unusual to see lawyers for the victims participating in the proceeding as private prosecutors.

Judicial Processes

Many of the rights included in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution have been incorporated in the Philippine Constitution. The Philippine criminal justice system is required to observe such rights, including the right to due process and equal protection of laws, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against self-incrimination, the right to counsel, right against double jeopardy, and the right against cruel or inhuman punishment. Accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. However, trials of criminal cases are conducted and heard by a judge; there is no trial by jury in the Philippines.

The regular court system of the Philippines has four levels. The first-level courts consist of the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTCs), the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs). These are all trial courts that exercise exclusive original jurisdiction of minor crimes, such as violations of city or municipal ordinances, offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years irrespective of the amount of fine and other accessory penalties, and offenses punishable by a fine not exceeding P4,000.00. Regional Trial Courts serve as second-level courts and exercise exclusive original jurisdiction of offenses punishable with imprisonment exceeding six years irrespective of the amount of fine and other accessory penalties. They also exercise appellate jurisdiction of decision by first-level courts in criminal cases. The Court of Appeals, the third-level court, serves as an intermediate appellate court and reviews decisions of Regional Trial Courts. The Supreme Court sits at the apex of the court system and serves as the court of last resort.

The Sandiganbayan is a special court that tries and decides criminal cases involving graft and corruption and other offenses committed by public officials and employees. Its decisions are appealable to the Supreme Court.

Punishment and Corrections

At present, there is no capital punishment in the Philippines. The death penalty was abolished in 2006 in response to the strong lobbying by the local Roman Catholic Church leaders. This is the second time that capital punishment was abolished in the country. It was first abolished in 1986 by the Aquino administration. The succeeding Ramos administration reinstated it in 1993. With the re-abolition, individuals who are convicted of the most serious offenses, such as treason, murder, and rape with homicide, are sentenced to life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua (i.e. imprisonment for 20 years and one day to 40 years).

Three departments of the national government under the executive branch manage the Philippine corrections system. The Department of Justice (DOJ), through its Bureau of Corrections (BuCor), supervises seven national prison facilities. Its Parole and Probation Administration (PPA) administers the parole and probation system, while its Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) assists the president in the grant of executive clemency. The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) supervises provincial, city, and municipal jails through its Bureau of Jail and Management Penology (BJMP). The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) supervises the regional rehabilitation centers for juvenile offenders through its Bureau of Child and Youth Welfare (BCYW).

Offenders who receive sentences exceeding three years of imprisonment are committed to national prisons. Those who received shorter sentences are committed to provincial, city, and municipal jails.

Abuza, Z. (2003). Militant Islam in Southeast Asia. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publisher,

Agoncillo, T.A. (1994). History of the Filipino people. Quezon City: Garcia Publishing.

Blair, E. H., & Robertson, J. A. (1904). The Philippine Islands, Volume 5. Retrieved from

http://philhist.pbworks.com/w/page/16367055/ThePhilippineIslands#VolumeV15821583

Francia, L. H. (2010). A history of the Philippines: From Indios bravos to Filipinos. New

York: The Overlook Press.

Rusling, J. (1987). Interview with President William McKinley. In D. Schirmer & S.

Rosskamm (Eds.), The Philippines Reader (22-23). Boston: South End Press.

Subscribe and get notified when new articles are posted.

Thoughts of

An expat pinoy.

PHOTO BY KYUNG YON JHI

Napoleon C. Reyes is an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice studies at Sonoma State University. He hails from Manila, Philippines, where he practiced criminal and civil litigation law as an associate of a private law firm.

Philippines in Figures 2016

This annual report by the Philippine Statistics Authority 

s ummarizes various statistics on the Philippines, including official crime data.

Above the Law?

A comparative study of national prosecutions of heads of state.

Napoleon C. Reyes &

Jurg Gerber

Business Plan

Writing a-z, free course, (valued at $250).

Learn all you need in order to create a

stellar business plan for your endeavor!

Search By Tags

Sign up to subscribe.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Age of Criminal Liability: An Essay on the Philippine Juvenile Justice System

The Philippines recognized the rights of the children and imposes upon itself the constitutional duty defend their rights to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development. 1 To perform this duty, the government enacted several laws which emphasize and provide specific measure to protect and safe guard the rights of the children. One of these enactments is the Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 which was passed on May 20, 2006. This law effectively repealed Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code which prescribes the penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen (18) years of age. Under the law, children fifteen years old and under is exempted from criminal responsibility, and a child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age is exempt from criminal liability unless he/she has acted with discernment. 2 This legislative enactment submits that the Philippine Justice System recognizes the restorative approach towards children in conflict with the law. This is in parallel with the Supreme Court pronouncement in the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Robert Sierra, that R.A. No. 9344 "also drew its

Related Papers

Save the children's future

Cid Pabalan

International Journal of Advanced Research

nurini aprilianda

In the Act No. 11 of 2012 about the Juvenile Criminal Justice System, it explains the age limit for juvenile criminal responsibility for those who commit criminal acts, as regulated in Article 1 point 3. The children between 12 (twelve) years old and 18 (eighteen) years old are suspected of committing a crime. The purpose of this study was to analyze the construction of the regulation of children under the age of 12 in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 of 2021 on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System. This type of normative legal research uses a statute approach and a case approach through a literature study. The results of the research on the Construction of Regulations for Children under the Age of 12 in Act Number 11 of 2021 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System as Children in Conflict with the Law. There is a need for additional rules or amendments to the provisions of criminal sanctions for children, where criminal sanctions will be given to child...

Perfecto “Boyet” Caparas

Kamran Adil

HARMONIZING LEGAL PRINCIPLES TOWARD ASEAN COMMUNITY

Shohreh Mousavi

Elsie Mishra

In the Act No. 11 of 2012 about the Juvenile Criminal Justice System, it explains the age limit for juvenile criminal responsibility for those who commit criminal acts, as regulated in Article 1 point 3. The children between 12 (twelve) years old and 18 (eighteen) years old are suspected of committing a crime.. The purpose of this study was to determine and analyze the urgency of regulating teenager under the age of 12 in the constitution of Republic of Indonesia Number 11 of 2021 on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System as well as children in conflict with the law.This type of normative legal research uses a statute approach and a case approach through a literature study. The results of the research on the urgency of regulating children under the age of 12 in Act Number 11 of 2021 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System as well as children in conflict with the law. Many cases of crime that occur under the age of 12 years. So that special attention is needed regarding the min...

Darren Philip Halili

The youths are an integral part of our society. Often referred to as the " Pag-asa ng Bayan " , they are supposedly the ones who will work and strive for a better society in the future. At their young age, they should be at school studying to become the professionals and the future leaders of this country. While there are many youths that are finishing their schooling, some are not so lucky being in the state of poverty. Poverty makes a man do desperate things and one of them is resorting to criminal activities like stealing, drug pushing etc. A youth is no exemption to this desperation this poverty brings but we can't let them hold no responsibility for the crimes that they committed either. The RA 9344 or The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, as this paper argues, encouraged criminal activities instead of swaying the youth from doing these said criminal activities. Giving the youth less restraints makes them more prone to criminal organizations that capitalize on this exemption being given to the youth and it gives the youth more courage to commit crimes. Hence, this paper proposes an amendment to the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 by lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) and institutionalizing a youth court and a Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility. By making such amendments, problems such as youth having no fear in committing crimes and criminal organizations will be discouraged to use the youth for their crimes. More importantly, these amendments will promote the rights and safety of the youth.

Mohd Badrol Awang

Minimum age of criminal responsibility refers to the age at which children can be reasonably and fairly imposed liability for their criminal actions. The issue on determination of minimum age of child criminal responsibility still remains as a controversial issue among juvenile justice systems around the world. Current practice discloses that there is no uniformity among various juvenile justice systems in selecting and setting the minimum age of child criminal responsibility. This paper attempts to specifically focuses on current Malaysian law relating to the age at which children can be reasonably and fairly held criminally responsible for their actions. The paper will analyze legal issues pertaining to current minimum age of criminal responsibility under Malaysian law, with reference to the international standards, recent findings of scientists and psychologists and practices adopted by various legal systems. It will also lays down grounds and justifications for possible legal re...

RELATED PAPERS

Eric Eldering

Atmospheric Environment (1967)

The American journal of psychiatry

Poramed Wongjom

Sarhad Journal of Agriculture

qamruz zaman

Cadernos de Psicologia Social do Trabalho

Lia Schucman

Virginia De Sa

Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas)

claudia Rinhel Silva

2010 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition: Latin America (T&D-LA)

Mauricio Sperandio

The Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Japanese Psychological Association

Kiyotaka Naoe

Debra Parkes

Journal of Personalized Medicine

Drx Indrapal Singh

Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies

Maryline Filippi

Research, Society and Development

Anderson Maikon de Souza Santos

Statistics, Optimization & Information Computing

José Marcano

Fernando Garrido

Jean-Marc BONNEFOND

Heru Praptana

Organic Letters

Phytotherapy Research

Zdeňka Ďuračková

Necdet Sensoy

Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences

Aneeta Datey

Kulturpessimismus als politische Gefahr

Magdalena Marsovszky

Biology Letters

Marc Naguib

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Eyal Sheiner

See More Documents Like This

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Criminal Justice System of the Philippines

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53 THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE PROSECUTION IN THE PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Menrado Valle-Corpuz* INTRODUCTION The criminal justice system, essentially, is the system or process in the community by which crimes are investigated, and the persons suspected thereof are taken into custody, prosecuted in court and punished, if found guilty, provisions being made for their correction and rehabilitation. Prior to the advent of American sovereignty in the country, we had the Spanish law on criminal procedure. The Royal Decree of September 4, 1884, by virtue of which the Penal Code in force in the archipelago, as amended in accordance with the recommendations of the Code Committee, and its accompanying law— …show more content…

Any person who—while in custody or otherwise deprived of liberty—is under investigation for the commission of an offense, has the following constitutional rights, among others: 1) He must be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel; 2) No torture, force, violence, threat, indimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him; secret detention places, solitary, in communicado or other similar forms of detention are prohibited; and 3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of the foregoing shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. c. Refer the case and the suspects to the Office of the Public Prosecutor or Municipal Trial Court for preliminary investigation or directly to the Municipal Trial Court for trial and judgment. II. PROSECUTION PROCESS The investigation and prosecution of all cases involving violations of penal laws are lodged with the Department of Justice (DOJ) through its National Prosecution Service (NAPROSS). The DOJ is headed by the Secretary of Justice with three Undersecretaries assisting him. Aside from being the prosecution arm of the government, the DOJ shall have the following powers and functions: a. Act as principal law agency

Criminal Justice System In America

The speaker argues that the criminal justice system in America treats you better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Criminal Justice System Chapter Summary

In the beginning of chapter one, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Florida v. J.L, a police officer may not search individuals based merely on an anonymous tip. The anonymous tip received was that a black man standing at a bus stop was carrying a concealed firearm. Out of the three black men at the bus stop, they searched the man wearing the plaid shirt, as described in the tip. Although public safety issues were recognized, the conviction was overturned. This unlawful search violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which states, in simpler terms, that the police cannot search an individual or take their property without probable cause.

Essay On The Farmer High School Of Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania State University then known as the Farmers High School of Pennsylvania was founded in February 22, 1855 . Centre County became the site of the new college when farmer James Irvin donated 200 acres of land and sold trustees 200 more. On May 1, 1862, the school changed its name to the Agricultural College Of Pennsylvania and on 1863 when the Morrill Land-Grant Act was passed Pennsylvania selected the school to be the states land grant college. After 1863 the school tried balancing agricultural studies with a more classic education causing enrollment up to 64 undergraduates in 1875.A year after, the Agricultural College of Pennsylvania changed its name back to Pennsylvania state university.

The Criminal Justice System

In the criminal justice system, there is a controversy in the system regarding fairness or disagreement and changes need to be done. Many people believe it needs to change to improve and others believe it is unfair or dishonest in punishing people. The criminal justice system is in charge of punishing criminals and the correctional system helps inmates from committing crimes again. The goal of rehabilitation is to reduce crime in society. The criminal justice system affects all of society because it determines the punishment people will receive after being convicted of crimes.

Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is a gratifying, yet often unfair ruling process. Having said that, a first-rate example of a disapproving situation is when a person(s) of African American decent receives severe punishment for a particular offense, as opposed to what a person of Caucasian decent might acquire for the same offense. My topic of choice is from the ACLU's web page via an article entitled "Race and Criminal Justice", certainly peaked my curiosity. Being a young man with a group of friends consisting predominantly of minorities, this article stuck to my brain by bringing back tons of déjà vu. An acquaintance of mine left for court, accused stealing headphones at a local Walmart with a friend. One of the court hearings was for stolen

Criminal Justice System And The United States

Across the United States, city and county governments seek to gain revenue through the illegitimate jailing of indigent defendants who cannot afford to pay the large and cumbersome fines that accompany committing (seemingly petty) crimes— such as missing court dates, a requirement for classes such as anger management, the list goes on. Indeed, the practice of debtor’s prison has long been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court within the United States, yet a contemporary form of debtor’s prison has begun to take form which targets vulnerable populations. When an individual commits a crime, they are to be justly punished. If this punishment consists of a fine, that fine is expected to be paid accordingly; if the fined individual simply does not have the time or money to pay these steep fines, however, they are sent to jail indefinitely. This rise of financial burden imposed upon the liberty of low income citizens through the fining, issuing of fees, and jail time sanctioned by the criminal justice system has resulted in new, illegitimate, and ostensibly unconstitutional forms of debtor’s prisons that permeate contemporary U.S. society. Jeopardizing the liberty of vulnerable populations, based upon material inequality and extraction of necessary resources, only does one thing within a society: continue the cycle of poverty and increase the poor’s dependence upon the rich for their liberty, equality and most importantly, survival.

In the criminal justice system there is very rarely a single linchpin that can be pointed to and held responsible for the failure to convict a seemingly guilty person. This reigns true for the very public prosecutions of both Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman. In the eyes of a vast majority of the public, fueled by media spectacle and opinion, Anthony and Zimmerman were guilty even before they ever saw the inside of a courtroom. There simply could be no other answer. The public was subsequently outraged when, after what seemed to be trials of certainty, juries acquitted each. The public sought to find someone, or something to blame. The verdict could not be accepted and many turned their focus to condemn the workings of the criminal

The population of offenders in correctional institutions in the United States is at an alarming amount, and it doesn’t have to be. Each year 7 million offenders are absorbed and expelled from correctional institutions and jails, placing a heavy burden on the criminal justice system (Morgan, 2011). Many of these offenders will recidivate, and with rates that are estimated at 70%, means 4.9 million will eventually return to the criminal justice system, creating a vicious cycle of arrest, re-arrest, and imprisonment (Morgan, 2011). Among this population are offenders with mental illnesses that need to be addressed, or specialized care that needs to be administered. Without the support of mental health programs such as mental health court,

The Criminal Justice System Of The United States Of America

The judicial processes that have been adopted by the current criminal justice system of the United States of America include mandatory minimums that diminish the importance of certain factors in a case such as the context of the situation and the power of judges to decide on an appropriate sentence; furthermore, they result in more serious, yet overlooked, implications of racial bias and unfair plea bargaining. Mandatory minimums are strict sentences that a judge must abide by when determining how much prison time the accused is to receive as punishment. Although the majority of offenses to which mandatory minimums apply to are drug offenses, there are a variety of offenses including immigration, firearms, and fraud that are linked to a minimum sentence. The concept of enacting mandatory minimum sentences to particular offenses has such a great influence on court verdicts that in the fiscal year of 2010 alone, “27.2% of cases involved a conviction of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum [and] 53.4%...remained subject to the mandatory minimum penalty at sentencing” (USSC, 121). When the government first instituted mandatory minimums for drug offenses with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, it was meant to resolve the problems of drug distribution and abuse, but these sentences bring about more problems than resolutions. As the time approaches to impose a sentence for a case involving a mandatory minimum, the judge has no choice but to assign the accused at least that amount

The United States Criminal Justice System

The United States Criminal Justice System is an extremely complex, but yet extremely important part of the United States. The criminal justice system is defined as “the set of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate laws). Although there are many different groups of people that make up the criminal justice system, the two main and most discussed the state division or the federal division. The state division of the criminal justice system deals with crimes that are committed within any given states boundaries. The federal division of the criminal justice system deals with crimes that are committed on property owned by the government, or if a crime is committed in multiple states.

United States Criminal Justice System

There are victims who never receive justice because of the expenses of it or they are wrongfully accused of a crime. Some people who commit non-violent crimes and are thrown into jail or prison endure abuse or rape. Non-violent and violent offenders need to be separated for their own safety. There must be a change in the United States Criminal Justice

Across the world there are many different types of criminal justice systems to keep and maintain order and peace or the social code of conduct, otherwise known as the law of the land. The criminal justice system tries to deter individuals from disrupting the peace and order of society by educating their citizens on the consequences and punishments for failing to abide by the law. The criminal justice system can be categorized in three main parts; policing where the investigation is held, the courts where judgment is made, and corrections where the type of punishment is served.

The United States criminal justice system has failed to rehabilitate criminals. Even after being penalized for their crimes, prisoners continue to commit crimes without learning that what they did was wrong from being incarcerated and are sent back to prison. Jails are set up to aid those imprisoned by helping them obtain skills that will hopefully reduce future incidences and allow them to act like the citizens they should be. However, punishing criminals is not as productive as many think it is. This is shown by the increased imprisonment rate from 250,000 in 1976 to almost 2 million by 2003 (Lynch 26, 49). Instead of learning how to work towards handling their problems, inmates are expected to learn from their mistakes by being isolated from society and even sometimes from human contact. Since the prisoners are unable to learn from their delinquencies after doing time in prison, many recommit offenses and find themselves back in jail. Prisons should become more education based, to achieve this goal the overall costs of prisons has to decrees. According to Shadd Maruna, director of the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice for Queen’s Law, “of the more than 100,000 released from prison each year, 70 percent will return to prison.” The re-incarceration is mainly due to the incapability of these convicts to re-adapt into society. After being detached from the real world, it is problematic to adjust to changes, depending on how long the prisoners were

The American Criminal Justice System is one of the best in the world, as it works relentlessly to find a balance between Herbert Packer’s suggested crime control model and due process model. Throughout the course, we have analyzed the different levels of the criminal justice system and have broken down where the criminal justice excels, such as the different courts for juveniles that work to meet the needs of children, and other areas that need improvement. Though the Criminal Justice System is a fundamental part of our nation and was created to protect society, while ensuring that certain rights are given to prisoners, defendants, and other actors, there are flaws within the system that need to be fixed. If appointed Czar of the Criminal Justice

There are many aspects of the criminal justice system that must be considered when determining the most important. Each area of the criminal justice system has its place and plays an important role in the process. For example, an arrest cannot be made without the police, the case cannot be reviewed or adjudicated without the courts, and the convicted individual cannot be placed into supervised confinement without corrections. However, the courts are the most important aspect of the criminal justice system because the decisions made in and outside the court system can serve as a guide for the other areas of the criminal justice system to follow. More specifically, judges and prosecutors hold tremendous power and can shape how laws are enforced,

Related Topics

• Federal Bureau of Investigation