‘Police as Means of Social Domination: Where is the Philippine Society Headed?
By Kat Dulay
Several youth-led protests have been going on in the past months. The most recent one of the said protests broke out in Nigeria’s biggest city: Lagos, when people blared against police brutality, particularly over a now-disbanded police unit — the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (Sars). Several people were killed and wounded in the encounter as soldiers opened fire straight into the crowd.
Another protest that erupted in Thailand in February of this year was the people’s clamor for the resignation of their Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha. Thailand has been experiencing political unrest even prior to this current movement. Last February, first-time voters of the pro-democracy Future Forward Party (FFP), along with its charismatic leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit was forced to disband after the court decided that FFP obtained a loan from Mr. Thanathorn. The loan was seen as a donation by the court, making the transaction illegal. This resolution infuriated pro-democracy groups for it was through the elections where they finally had the feasibility of overthrowing the monarch by electing their leader Thanathorn to hold office. This ruling prompted thousands to join the calmed street protests where citizens were met with hostility as police used water cannons to deter them. This hostility violated the 2020 United Nations guidance on less-lethal weapons in law enforcement.
“Water cannon should only be used in situations of serious public disorder where there is a significant likelihood of loss of life, serious injury or the widespread destruction of property.”
On the other end, thousands of people from several groups in Jakarta and other cities in Indonesia have been holding protests in response to the recent passage of the controversial Omnibus law, which aims to attract environmentally destructive investments from within and outside the country to take root in Indonesia. The protests were largely peaceful, yet in some locations, protesters clashed against the police, throwing rocks at the latter and set fires at the city center where two police posts and one transport stop were destroyed. The police in some locations fired tear gas at the protesters to disperse the groups.
In the Philippines, Reina Mae Nasino, 23, a political activist was arrested in November of 2019, with two other activists, was accused of illegal possession of firearms and explosives. of illegal possession of firearms and explosives. According to an interview with the BBC, the detainees denied possession and suspect that the authorities were the ones who planted this ammunition as a way to repress left-leaning activists.
These issues and protests taking place around the globe have exposed weak governing systems. Moreover, it has highlighted the prevalence of brute force among police and other law enforcement sectors. Guidelines for proper and humane means of enforcing the law were in multiple instances violated, such as in the case of Thailand where enforcers used water cannons and in Nigeria where the police overtly used guns in response to the protest.
There seems to be an alarming amount of instances throughout the world wherein basic human rights are breached. Take the unjust death of George Floyd in the US and the passage of the Anti-Terror Law in the Philippines earlier this year, for example. With all these injustices to human life unfolding one after the other, it is almost impossible for one to not take a step back and take a glimpse at the glaring problems these events imply about governments around the world.
Police’s brute force as a mark of a weak institution
A strong institution is characterized by strong adherence to the created laws and structure. This socio-cultural and political culture of obedience creates a sense of ease and trust between the people belonging to that institution and the institution itself. The police under this institution is perceived as protectors of the people, a case wherein violators of the rights of any citizen will be held accountable for any violation made. The forceful use of police power, therefore, can indicate a weak institution for two primary reasons firstly, the pervasive build-up of mistrust among the citizens towards their government and secondly, the question of their loyalty and trust with symbols of law enforcement.
The mere resistance of people from the hands of the police signifies blatant mistrust in the institution where people have become wary of the judgments made by both the state and the law enforcers. For one, it indicates that there may be an ongoing resistance manifesting in the aforementioned protests This may be linked to other ongoing problems in the nation’s bureaucracy. Take that case in Thailand, for example, where thousands of people joined in protest against an oppressive monarch and their inability to freely express concerns against the government, as initially, the idea of reforms for the monarch was considered taboo, given that the country’s “lese-majeste” law criminalizes criticisms about the monarch. Yet, youth groups were able to break this taboo when they protested against the aforementioned Thai court’s consensus of disbanding prod-democracy FFP before the elections took place.
Apart from this, the police force also worsens the very same mistrust among the governed to both the police and the institution. This is where the irony kicks in. The police’s primary function is to keep the people safe by being frontliners in upholding laws and the rights of citizens. Hence having to use force on people who are powerless with no ammunition to defend themselves will depict a different image of police in the minds of the people: an officer that picks on the innocent and the vulnerable.
Police’s brute force as part of the authoritarian tradition
Authoritarian regimes can be characterized by a highly centralized means of governance with the state actively suppressing any form of political opposition. This suppression can happen in several ways: it can be through suppression of political opponents in the media or armed protection of the administration by the police.
With this tone, it is still to be considered that a single incident of police’s use of brute force may not necessarily connote a suppressive regime. However, if one puts together that force with issues such as the controversial consensus regarding the ABS-CBN franchise renewal or the recent passage of the Anti-Terror Law, it is challenging to see this force as mere coincidences.
In the case of Reina Mae Nasino, as a detainee, she is legally innocent since she is yet to be proven guilty by the court of law and thereby subject to rights given to any innocent person. Supporting this, Commission on Human Rights spokeswoman Atty. Jacqueline De Guia said in a statement,
“Even in detention, persons deprived of liberty should not be subjected to any cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment and that it remains to be a State obligation to respect their inherent dignity and value as human beings, in line with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners or the Nelson Mandela Rules.”
Yet despite these rights clearly laid out, Nasino still received cruel treatment from the armed law enforcers that were present during her 3-month old Baby River’s funerary rites by not letting the family carry the baby peacefully to her final resting place. Nasino was shackled in handcuffs for most of the duration of her baby’s wake, and during the funeral march, the officers signaled the hearse to move faster, leaving the people who were mourning behind. Additionally, supporters as well as progressive organizations calling for justice were banned from entering the funeral home.
These inhumane episodes during the burial translate to the reality that the police’s regard was not anymore to sustain the rights of a citizen- in this case, the right to mourn solemnly for a 3-month old baby whom she was not able to see in months of detention. Instead, it is to sustain the protection for the Duterte administration. This is further amplified by how police easily banned organizations present in the wake despite the family’s wishes to allow these groups to enter to show support and solidarity with the grieving mother.
The use of power by the police and the judgment of whether this use is just or not is only dependent on where the loyalty of these officers rest. Being loyal to the people and their welfare would signify a humane, law-abiding means of enforcing the law, whereas loyalty to the administration can be characterized by partial and often unlawful use of police power.
Do they commit themselves in service of the people through upholding and protecting basic human rights, or do they succumb to the unjust commands of the people in power?
This calls for all citizens to become aware and to know by heart every right that they have as members of the state. It is during this time when the people must stand in solidarity in the protection of the rights of each one when the administration fails to deliver to the people the rights that any human being deserves.
