|
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Interior chief blames local execs for violent dispersals of rallyists
FOLLOWING the violent breakups of anti-Arroyo protesters by police operatives, Local Government Secretary Angelo Reyes Wednesday said the mayors, not the police, should be held liable for the incidents.
At the hearing of the House committee on human rights, Reyes made it clear that the policemen should not be blamed entirely for the violent dispersals since they were just implementing the decision made by local government officials, which is to prevent rallyists from holding demonstrations.
Reyes was asked to appear Wednesday in the human rights committee's inquiry in connection with the government's calibrated preemptive response (CPR) that deals with anti-Arroyo protesters. Since the new policy was imposed by the Arroyo administration, the police used excessive force against anti-Arroyo demonstrators that led to arrests and injuries.
But Reyes said the untoward incidents and questions regarding the matter should not be asked of the police but to local government officials.
"Don't ask the police, ask the mayors," a visibly irritated Reyes told the committee when asked why the police carry out dispersal operations when city mayors failed to act on application for assemblies.
Bayan Muna party-list Representative Teodoro Casiño said rallyists are allowed to hold assemblies or rallies even without a permit, given the fact that they have filed an application and yet the mayor failed to act on it. This, he said, automatically gives the rallyists the permit and yet the police refused to honor such arrangement.
The committee, chaired by Akbayan party-list Representative Loretta Ann Rosales is deliberating on two House bills - one amending and the other completely repealing Batas Pambansa (BP) 880 or "no permit, no rally" policy imposed during the time of then President Ferdinand Marcos.
House Bill 4802 sponsored by Rosales proposes that mayors, upon determining that a certain assembly will create "clear and present" danger, will have to ask the local court, which would enjoin its holding within two working days from the date the application for a permit was filed and subsequently informing the organizers in writing.
But Reyes said the bill may not work well as it would violate the separation of powers of the local executive and the courts. He said the matter should still be up to the mayors to decide whether to allow the holding of assemblies as provided for in BP 880.
"If the mayor will go to the courts for it to enjoin the holding of rallies, then the court is substituting its (local chief executive's) judgment and appraisal of the situation, the court is substituting and supplanting his judgment," Reyes said.
Gabriela party-list Representative Liza Maza asked the secretary his idea of "clear substantive evidence of a clear and present danger", to which Reyes could not answer. He said though that he was reading it from the bill of Rosales.
Bayan Muna party-list Representative Satur Ocampo, one of the authors of House Bill 1555 which calls for the complete repeal of BP 880 for being what he describes as a "relic" of the Marcos-imposed Martial Law, told Reyes that the police could always have an input on the mayors' judgments.
Reyes said however that the police's input does not matter at all since it is always the local government officials' call.
"Let's allow the mayors to exercise this (power). Now, whether they get inputs from the police, it doesn't matter because what matters is how they decided (on it)," Reyes told Ocampo.
National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) director Vidal Querol, for his part, failed to provide the committee a clear definition of what constitutes "clear and present danger".
Thus, Casiño asked Western Police District (WPD) director Pedro Bulaong if he had seen any clear and present danger during the series of protests held in
Manila.
Bulaong, for his part, said they dispersed the protesters simply because they failed to secure permits from Manila Mayor Lito Atienza, a staunch supporter of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Because of this, Casiño expressed belief that "clear and present danger does not actually matter at all since the main concern of the police is whether there is a permit or not issued by the mayor's office".
"The first thing we're looking for, that's what's embodied in BP 880 (permit)," Bulaong added.
Casiño also asked Bulaong why the police used excessive force in dispersing the rallyists when they could disperse them peacefully.
Bulaong replied that it would be better that the police's legal counsel answer the questions, especially the definition of "clear and present danger" but Casiño said, "Walang nakalagay sa batas na (The law doesn't say) you 'may violently' disperse (protesters)."
"Does it mean (BP 880) na susuntukin at gugulpihin niyo sa loob ng nga mobile ang mga raliyista (that you will maul or maltreat the rallyists inside mobile cars)?" Casino asked. (DBP/Sunnex)
(October 13, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
|
