TWO seemingly unrelated events occupied the local headlines in the past weeks. But they are, what one would say, two sides of the same coin because they both pertain to the complex tasks that the public has delegated to government.
The first incident reveals the often difficult and perilous mission of law enforcement. We all know that government has been hell-bent in winning the war on drugs and at the forefront of this effort are government anti-drug agents who sacrifice their lives for this cause. This is what five of them, two of whom were female, died for recently when they were ambushed last October 5, 2018 by suspected drug personalities in a lonely stretch of a secluded highway in Kapai, Lanao del Sur.
They attended a public event, reportedly a dialogue with former drug dependents in nearby Tagoloan town. Despite having police escorts with them on the way back, armed men peppered their vehicle at close range leading to the gruesome death of the five and the wounding of two others according to news reports. The government agency released statements pointing to local drug groups in the area as the culprits behind the revenge killings.
The other incident pertains to the equally important function of the courts in the midst of the drug war. I am talking about the release of suspected drug personalities last month after RTC Judge Acebido from Cagayan de Oro noted the irregularities in their arrest. The alleged drug queen together with a host of suspected drug runners were arrested last July 23, 2016 in a raid in the city during what was then the first few months of the Duterte administration and the beginning of his declared war on drugs.
The case underwent trial for the next two years and last September 11, 2018, the judge promulgated his decision dismissing the charges noting that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the possession of the items by the accused at the time of their arrest.
It is easy to take the cynical route and accused the judge of bias given the kind of sacrifices that government agents make to enforce the law. This point could not be dramatized more by the painful death of the agents who were ambushed recently. But does this valid perception justify the vilification of the judge for protecting the rights of the accused? An understanding of basic political principles will disabuse us from this error.
What we are shown here, as indicated above, are two separate functions of government delegated to the executive and the judiciary. The government anti-narcotic agents, as part of its executive functions, are, in principle, protecting the public from the social harm of illegal substance abuse and are therefore allowed to use force in the course of enforcing our drug laws. The courts are there to ensure that whoever is accused and brought to the courts shall enjoy the presumption of innocence until proven guilty according to established judicial standards. It is a principle enshrined in all civilized societies that claim fealty to modern democratic beliefs and practices.
In other words, in a symbiotic relationship that it is at the core of democratic societies that pursue the collective good without sacrificing individual rights, the enforcement of laws, no matter how notorious the accused may be, should always pass the bar of justice as determined by jurisprudence and the courts.
Judge Acebido, from this point of view, is equally justified to receive public support and admiration for standing his ground even if it meant promulgating an unpopular decision. One camp may cite the social harm his decision may cause weakening government’s efforts in thwarting the growing drug menace. But he has weighed in on the issue and, following constitutionally enshrined rights he has sworn to protect and uphold, considered it an equal if not greater social harm if legal processes of arrest and evidence gathering are not followed by law enforcement agencies.
We mourn the servants of the public who are subjected to violent retribution by criminals. But in order to make the complex task of democracy work at this troubled stage of our evolution as a nation, the work of the courts as guardians of our rights remains equally valuable and important. This complex system of check and balance should be recognized as the pillar of our democratic way of life and the officers of the court respected, especially at a time when one branch of government often oversteps and usurps the functions of the other branches.