IIRC: Limit Ombudsman’s power over PNP cases

Winding up its work of drawing lessons from the Luneta hostage crisis that rocked the nation last year, the Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC) has said that the Office of the Ombudsman should have limited jurisdiction on cases against Philippine National Police (PNP) members to avoid the harassment of policemen. The IIRC's recommendation was contained in its report on the second phase of its inquiry, the institutional review of government agencies involved in the August 23, 2010 Manila hostage tragedy where eight Hong Kong tourists were killed along with hostage-taker Rolando Mendoza, a decorated but disgruntled police officer. (Click here for the full text of the Second IIRC Report, in PDF file format.) The first phase involved the fact-finding probe of the hostage crisis, which ended in bloody carnage after an 11-hour stand-off and a botched rescue attempt. Dismissed officer Mendoza had demanded his reinstatement to police service and the dismissal of his case at the Ombudsman by hijacking a tourist bus full of Hong Kong nationals. Drawing the lesson from the Mendoza case, the IIRC chaired by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said that the Ombudsman should only handle the cases of PNP members covered under the jurisdiction of the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan. These include PNP members with Salary Grade 27 or higher, or those who have ranks of chief superintendent or higher. Mendoza held the rank of senior inspector with Salary Grade 23. “For all other PNP members, including non-uniformed personnel, the PNP should be vested with exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and decide their cases. This set-up will help unclog the dockets of the Ombudsman and spare most PNP members from unnecessary harassment cases," said the IIRC in its 63-page report. Extortion attempt by deputy Ombudsman? In its first report made public last September, the IIRC made a reference to the alleged extortion attempt by Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales on Mendoza at the height of the hostage crisis. Assistant negotiator Romeo Salvador had testified that he heard an irate Mendoza berating Gonzales on the phone because the latter was demanding P150,000 in exchange for the resolution of his case. A portion of the IIRC's first report said: “This is our society. It drives otherwise ordinary and simple men to turn into murdering monsters at a snap. Because they feel oppressed and need justice but are asked for money. They ask for redemption but are faced with extortion." Gonzalez, who refused to testify at the IIRC hearings, vehemently denied in media interviews that he demanded P150,000 from Mendoza during the hostage crisis. Mendoza's case Last year, a report by the Philippine Center for the Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) took note of the “special interest" that Gonzalez had in Mendoza's administrative case at least two years before the hostage-tragedy. In April 2008, Mendoza and four other Manila policemen were embroiled in extortion and robbery allegations by student-chef Christian Kalaw. But Kalaw's complaint was dismissed by the Manila City Prosecutor's Office because Kalaw did not appear during the investigative proceedings. The case was brought to the PNP's Internal Affairs Service, which subsequently dismissed the matter because the complainant did not appear before them as well. In July 2008, Deputy Ombudsman Gonzalez took interest in the case and ordered the PNP to transfer the case over to his office, the PCIJ reported. In February 2009, Gonzalez ordered the dismissal of Mendoza and his four other companions from police service. In May 2009, acting Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro affirmed the dismissal, prompting Mendoza to file a motion for reconsideration. The IIRC's report last year noted Gonzalez's actions: “It appears that the Ombudsman exercised jurisdiction over the case based on a letter issued motu proprio [on his own initiative] by Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzalez III, directing the PNP-NCR – without citing any reason – to endorse the case against Mendoza and the arresting policemen to his office for administrative adjudication, thereby showing undue interest on the case." It was the Ombudsman's supposed slow action on Mendoza's motion that led the dismissed policeman to hijack the ill-fated Hong Thai Travel tourist bus and use its passengers as leverage in pushing for his demand to be reinstated. Another PCIJ report has detailed how the country's justice system may have also driven Mendoza to the edge. (See: Broken police, broken legal system broke hostage-taker) A tangled web In its second report, the IIRC underscored the need for “a more focused administrative and disciplinary prosecuting arm to address all cases involving policemen should be established for the PNP." It added that the PNP's Internal Affairs Service should be the only body in the disciplinary set-up of the police organization that can spearhead the hearing of all administrative complaints and cases against police personnel, and the designation of Summary Hearing Officers to conduct such hearings. The IIRC said that during the early stage of Mendoza's case, the policeman was simultaneously being investigated by the Manila Police District's own Internal Affairs Service (IAS) and the Pre-Charge Evaluation Division (PCED). It noted that the IAS and the PCED did not know they were handling the same investigation against the same police officer. "The experience of Mendoza illustrates the effect of a complicated and confusing disciplinary mechanism and superstructure created by years of unmindful knee-jerk legislation all seeking to solve the problem of rogue PNP officers through the making of more and more laws, resulting in a web-maze of overlapping jurisdictions and turf-defending disciplinary offices," said the IIRC. The committee said that the disciplinary bodies of the so-called web-maze consist of the National Police Commission (Napolcom), the Office of the Ombudsman, the People's Law Enforcement Board (PLEB), and the PNP itself – including its IAS, and the IAS units of various police districts. Citing records from the PNP's Legal Service, the committee said that as of Oct. 28, 2010, there are 5,974 cases involving 5,736 policemen. This means that some 238 policemen have more than one case pending before the said disciplinary bodies. "In the end, police officers find themselves stuck to the web, and trapped inside the maze, with no end to the legal entanglements in sight," said the IIRC.– MRT/JV, GMA News