Person A, a male Filipino POGO (Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator) worker was slapped twice in the face. Who slapped him was Person B, a director cum spokesperson of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission, during a raid conducted at Central One, a business process outsourcing hub in Bagat, Bataan. Caught on cam, the incident went viral putting the PAOCC official under a precarious situation.
If taxpayers were to judge, such an act ordinarily deserves a dismissal from the service since the proof of wrongdoing was the video footage itself. One might inquire if what the director did was his brand of exacting “swift justice” when officials themselves are the ones being transgressed.
Why can’t they defer to the wisdom of the court provided the victim levels the appropriate charges, except that they conveniently put the matter on the back burner? Even in high-order jurisdictions, it’s a cardinal rule authorities may not lay a hand on a suspect.
When Person A purportedly cursed and raised a “dirty finger” at PAOCC personnel and media staff, Person B deemed it within his discretion to let the unnamed native worker choose between being charged or being slapped twice as though both choices, if laid on a scale, were morally and legally of equal weight.
Is it within the bounds of his authority to unilaterally subject a POGO worker to physical punishment rather than face charges before a court of law, and not to say that displaying unbecoming behavior before subordinates and everyone around reflects badly on his organization?
This scene and scheme as viewed online challenges reflection: First, on whether it might have been “standard operating procedure” for that PAOCC official to exact instant justice, nay a “trade-off,” as if the law was literally in his hands; and second, whether his apology for having “done a wrong to correct another wrong” would be enough to get him reinstated rather than dismissed from the agency.
It might begin to evolve that the realm of law enforcement has become eclectic over time, more perhaps on account of their extreme power to conduct a wide range of anti-crime methodologies or approaches. Still, however, there must be just a single “school of thought” that conforms faithfully and exactly to established doctrines and norms. Putting the matter into a law enforcer’s hands is not one of them.
No one can readily fathom the meaning of a director being relieved of his position or merely “returned to barracks” to do lesser tasks pending the investigation of his case. But reduced to a mere administrative case if the victim did not file a formal complaint could imply that the official did not commit so grave a wrong as to merit being discharged, thereby countenancing his misdeed.
He who used to be the face of the PAOCC, with his reputation badly tarnished, cannot any more radiate positive belief in the organization’s capability to religiously follow “rules of engagement” in serious cases when in trivial ones no less than a director-operative reduced himself to an ominously dysfunctional “street-level bureaucrat.”
It’s best to assume that the world is watching whatever results from this documented slapping in light of a variant incident where a top police official has been accused of extortion during a raid on a suspected scam hub at Century Peak Tower in Ermita, Manila.
This stemmed from the allegation of four Chinese nationals who sought the help of Interior and Local Government Secretary Jonvic Remulla that some policemen tried to extort P1 million from each of them for the services of a lawyer with powerful connections.
Consequently, if things go south, who would enforce the law against law enforcers when they themselves are the first to violate and commit acts likely sequential to a more serious crime when hidden from public view or when victims fear for their lives to initiate complaints?
Will the PAOCC chief still offer his beleaguered director an olive branch despite?