Legal culpability

We can only wonder how morally depraved PO1 Eduardo Valencia must be to coerce a minor to have sex with him in exchange for the freedom of her parents arrested for drug charges.

Netizens were quick to point out this horrendous angle in the war against drugs: “habang tinotokhang ang mga magulang, nire-rape ang mga anak.” Anyone with a soul would flinch at the thought of it.

General Guillermo Eleazar of the National Capital Region Police Office clarified that rape or any sexual misconduct during police operations is not normal. That he has no knowledge that rape or other crimes during operations are committed by police officers is not only a PR issue but a legal culpability issue under the doctrine of command responsibility. And General Eleazar and his officers are aware of it.

In 1995, former president Fidel V. Ramos (FVR) issued Executive Order 226 institutionalizing the doctrine of command responsibility in the Philippine National Police (PNP) and other law enforcement agencies.

According to EO 226, any officer of the PNP shall be held liable for neglect of duty if that officer has knowledge that a crime has been committed by his subordinates or others within his area of responsibility and he fails to prevent the crime or he fails to take any corrective measures after the commission. But the question begs --- how may commanders be held liable for acts which they probably did not know? FVR, a West Point graduate, was not to be outwitted.

Thus, EO 226 itself also presumes that a PNP commander knows the commission of crimes by his subordinates in any of the following instances: (a) when the crimes are widespread in his area of jurisdiction (b) when the crimes have been repeatedly committed within his area of responsibility and (c) when members of his immediate staff or personnel are involved.

The buck does not stop at PNP commanders. Our Supreme Court has acknowledged that the doctrine of command responsibility can hold even a former president liable, provided sufficient evidence to indict is presented in court. That was the crux of the controversy in the 2012 Saez v. Arroyo and General Esperon, et. al.

In resolving the conflict between command responsibility and presidential immunity from suit, the High Court was quick to point out that presidential immunity cannot be used when it “impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right.”

In any event, presidential immunity from suit exists only in concurrence with the president’s incumbency. The acts complained of in the Saez case occurred during the incumbency of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo though the Supreme Court promulgated the judgment only in 2012.

Interestingly, the Saez case is a heavy inspiration in one of the questions of the Political Law component of this year’s bar exams. A premonition of the things that our future lawyers will resolve?

The President has to clean his backyard before it’s too late. The 2019 midterm election is fast-approaching, signifying that the President is half-way through and we may finally see an update on Saez.