The Checkpoint

Hole of Justice

By Peter G. Jimenea

The Police at Checkpoints

We are reminded by law that the Bill of Rights is the bedrock of the constitutional government. If people are stripped naked of their rights as human beings, democracy cannot survive and government becomes meaningless.

Unwanted personal experience at PNP checkpoints has given my arresting police officers the best lesson of their lives as law-enforcers who acted beyond the scope of authority delegated to them. It has a lot to do with the above written reminder.

The policemen manning the checkpoint are from Molo Police Station under the Iloilo City Police Office, or the ICPO. But to protect the integrity of these people who inadvertently overlooked their limitations, we have to skip mentioning names.

The incident happened when my son returning from the smoke-testing-center, was apprehended at the checkpoint for having only a temporary operators’ permit (TOP). The officer-in-charge told him to look for somebody with driver’s license to get his impounded motor vehicle.

When informed, I went to the checkpoint to get the vehicle per police instruction. Out there a police officer asked for my driver’s license. But after I presented it, the officer-in-charge, the chief inspector, ordered him to issue me a traffic-violation ticket.

Under duress, they confiscated my driver’s license and issued a TOP. What compounded the problem is the written violation on the TOP which says “Disregarding.” The next day, I paid P200 to the cashier but retained the xerox copy of my TOP with note “payment under protest.”

This is not what we think police business is all about. They should know that “extreme enforcement of law may lead to injustice.” (Berico vs. CA, 225 SCRA 562). Yet, they deliberately stepped over-the-line of pardonable behavior to make me pay for my son’s fault when I can pay the fine for my son’s violation if they said so. Maybe a lesson No. 1.

In the evening, I called up Molo Police Station and requested the desk officer if I can talk to the police chief inspector in-charge of that checkpoint. When we were both in line, I told him in soft voice that what he did should not be repeated as it is wrong.

This is his arrogant reply; “We even spared your son from trouble for that traffic violation. Okay, do what you want we are ready to face you in Court.” He failed to understand that “gross negligence is equivalent to malice or intentional wrong. (Balatbat vs, CA, 261 SCRA 128). That’s lesson No. 2.

To make the story short, I filed the case with the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM). Soon after, policemen friends requested me to withdraw the case. I refused, until that young police officer who issued the TOP went to my house and said he is yet to complete his two months before becoming a full pledge policeman.

I told him (out of pittance) to bring his superior, the tiger-look officer to my lawyer (who is my co-host in TV program Atty. Pet Melliza) who will do the dropping of their case. Before he left, I advice him to study more on the Plain View Doctrine, Warrantless Arrest and Human Rights.

This story explains why the Bill of Rights contained in ART. III of the Constitution occupies a position of primacy to the fundamental law way above the articles on government powers. Litigation is not a game of technicalities, it deserves scant consideration by the Court and in this case, the advantage is mine.

PNP officers should know that the Court values liberty and will always insist on the observance of basic Constitutional Rights as a condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative and prosecutorial powers of the government. After learning his lessons, the tiger became a cat!