Special courts

The Supreme Court is being asked to create special courts to handle cases involving “unintended deaths” in the ongoing bloody war against illegal drugs. This is a commendable proposal, but it presumes that the so-called collateral deaths of innocents are actually being investigated and police are pursuing and arresting suspects.

By most indications, however, these are done only when a case is highlighted in mass media. In many other cases, especially involving police officers, or when the “vigilante” killer is believed to be a law enforcer, the process appears designed to ensure that the perpetrator would escape justice.

There have been reports that police file complaints before prosecutors, all right – but against those killed, ostensibly for drug violations or shooting at arresting officers. The complaints are quickly junked and the case is closed. Or else, with no authentic investigation conducted, complaints can be filed against fictitious individuals described to be at large. Naturally, no defendants will ever appear in court and the cases will eventually be relegated to the archives. In police statistics, such cases will be included in the list of solved crimes.

A government that seriously wants to look into such killings and stop impunity must organize a special body to handle such cases. After a thorough investigation of every aspect of the killing including police involvement and possible abuse of power, a case with sturdy legal legs to stand on can then be filed in court.

Special courts will be fine for such cases. But a better move is for the Supreme Court to work for a speedier dispensation of justice in all courts. Snail-paced justice and the weakness of other pillars of the criminal justice system are undoubtedly among the reasons for the muted public protest against the mass killings. The Supreme Court, which supervises the judiciary, must show the nation that there is no need to resort to mass executions to get swift justice.