Cops could’ve said ‘no’ to Tomas

Under police manual, they couldn’t release the three detainees arrested for refilled-LPG selling. Under the law, court order was needed. The police could’ve refused. Ergo, it was not just the mayor’s fault

Cebu City Vice Mayor Edgar Labella publicly asked Mayor Tomas Osmeña to follow the law. The city police chief, Sr. Supt. Royina Garma, said that what the mayor did violate the law.

The mayor removed from police custody in the Parian Station three persons arrested Friday (Aug. 24) for selling at the T. Padilla public market LPG in butane canisters. The legal rule is (Criminal Procedure of 1985, Rule 114, Sec. 3) specific and mandatory: “No person under legal detention by legal process shall be released or transferred except upon lawful order by the court or when he is admitted to bail.”

Why did they agree?

But here’s a door opened by one naughty lawyer: “Blame the police, not the mayor.” Why did they agree to release the detainees when the Manual on Law Enforcement sets prior conditions, including (a) a court order, (b) approval of the station chief, and (c) physical examination?

The medical checkup may be done away with it as it is already part of the booking process. But the court order, which would’ve been required by the station chief, couldn’t be waived, even for a mayor.

Apparently, the desk officer and the cops who were in the station at the time couldn’t say no to the mayor. That line of defense would pin the blame on the cops, not Tomas. But that’s patently lame, which would make anyone using it look like a jerk.

EV guv’s case

In a case (Ambil Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R.#176457, 2011), the Eastern Visayas governor, Ruperto Ambil Jr., ordered the transfer of a town mayor accused of murder from the provincial jail to the governor’s house. The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan ruling that convicted Ambil of graft and corrupt practice, citing non-compliance with requisites for the release of a detainee.

About the governor being the administrator of the jail, the SC said that even as jailer he would’ve no authority over the release or transfer of the people jailed. Mayor Tomas, as a deputy of Napolcom with power of control and supervision over the police in his city, cannot legally change custody of, much more free, persons the police arrested and detained.

Charges vs. mayor

The Sandiganbayan convicted Ambil of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law of 1960 (Republic Act #3019) and the SC upheld it. Police said they’d charge the mayor with a host of offenses: obstruction of justice, abuse of authority, and corruption. A wide net to throw at Tomas when a smaller one might do.

But what’s the mayor’s defense?

Tomas said he wanted to help poor people who were trying to earn a living. Maybe so. But the law was adopted for “public safety and national security.” The risk from refilled canisters is not disputed: fires and deaths have resulted from their handling. The device could also be used for acts of terrorism. The refilling may be lawful if the conditions are followed.

Even such a noble motive as helping the poor must be carried out within the law.

Inducer, induced

Tomas’s desire to help the poor could be genuine although his rivals say he’s actually helping more the capitalists who just use the poor in marketing the illegal product.

You bet it made good political theater: barging into a police station and freeing three persons from the claws of oppression. But he didn’t see the ugly image the scene also produced: a public official flouting the law by using the power of elective office.

As to the police who released the detainees, police chief Garma may look into the law (Section 3-a of R.A. 3019), the cops who were persuaded by Tomas to violate the rules may be held liable too.

Liable, though not in equal parts, are the mayor, the inducer, and the police, the induced.