Martial law abuses
>> Thursday, June 1, 2017
LETTERS
FROM THE AGNO
March
L. Fianza
While still on his
trip to meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin, Philippine President Duterte
on Tuesday night placed all of the southern island of Mindanao under martial
law, following deadly encounters between government forces and Islamist
radicals.
Government
troops are fighting about 50 members of the Maute clan, considered a local
terrorist group in Marawi City responsible for kidnapping, hostage-taking and
bombings in the locality.
Mindanao is
home to around 20 million people which, makes up around one fifth of the
country’s population. The President’s announcement limited martial law to
Mindanao but he also said he is willing to impose martial law nationwide if
needed.
While
Presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said martial law in Mindanao would last
for 60 days which the Constitution allows, Duterte said this can last for as
long as a year, depending on the situation.
After
Tuesday’s declaration, President Duterte whose controversial war on drugs
claimed thousands of lives said, he might be forced to ignore the Constitution
if there is need to impose martial law nationwide.
Comparing
the imposition of military rule in Mindanao as similar to the martial law of
President Marcos in 1972, Duterte however said that abuses will not be allowed.
The first few years of martial rule in the 70s stabilized communities, although
abuses were later reported, some of which I can colorfully recall.
Along
Magsaysay Avenue in front of the public market and General Luna Road, I can
still remember PC soldiers and local cops holding scissors and stopping the
jeepneys. The soldiers would then ask the passengers to alight.
Then the
cops would stare down the dresses of the lady and snip their skirts if these
were short. Male passengers would have their hair cut against their will if
these were long.
Fast
forward to last Tuesday afternoon, President Duterte has yet to declare martial
law nationwide but in La Trinidad, Benguet, traffic policemen are already
making their own rules and becoming the prosecutor, judge and executioner
rolled into one.
I parked
along Halsema National Highway just across one of the gates of the Benguet
State University and have just alighted to quickly buy some goods when suddenly
a cop was stealing picture(s) of my beetle then crossed the road to his patrol
jeep that was parked at the opposite side.
There was a
van that left before I parked and there were passenger jeepneys behind me but
there were no cops, making me think that the implementation of a traffic policy
was selective.
I felt
cheated because I had just parked with the motor still switched on and running
when the cop appeared, took the picture, saw me get back to the car but did not
bother to talk to me and explain the violations, if any.
That
portion of the highway is used as a loading and unloading section for residents
and students from BSU so that if I violated a “no parking rule”, the passenger
jeeps likewise should not be allowed to unload and pick up passengers.
That part
of the highway is lined by hardware stores and basic commodity stores so that
trucks that are backing in and out to pick up deliveries all the more cause
traffic. Also, there are no traffic signs that indicate the corresponding
violation.
I have not
heard of any public information drive in La Trinidad regarding traffic
policemen being ordered by law to take pictures of motor vehicles causing
traffic, which is required of any ordinance since implementation of rules and
law enforcement are based on consultation and not dictatorial.
Consider
the implementation of the Anti-Distracted Driving Act that was suspended
because there were no public consultations with the public.
Relative to
this, there are guidelines in the implementation of the “No Physical Contact
Apprehension” that traffic cops in Manila strictly follow. I wish to include
them here for the guidance of our traffic cops who are ignorant of the law.
Yes, the
image of the vehicle violating traffic rules are recorded or captured thru the
use of CCTV, digital cameras and other gadgets that are used to capture videos
and images.
But, a
“First” Notice signed by the traffic division head and the cameraman who took
the video or picture shall be issued to the vehicle owner. The traffic cops did
not do this, but just left like dogs.
The first
notice shall indicate the date, time, location, traffic violation committed,
the assessed penalties and a photo of the apprehended vehicle. The first notice
shall identify the driver at the time and place indicated in the notice, and
the address.
The notice
shall likewise contain a statement that the traffic violator shall have the
right to file a protest before the Traffic Adjudication Division within seven
days from receipt of the Notice, and failure to do so within the prescribed
period shall be seen as a waiver of such right to contest the traffic
violation.
Within
fifteen days from receipt of an adverse TAD resolution, the driver may file a
Motion for Reconsideration. If the MR is denied, the driver within 30 days from
receipt of the denial may file an appeal with higher officials where the
Decision shall be final and executory.
By the way,
payment of fines and penalties shall be paid within seven days upon receipt of
the first notice unless a protest is filed. And if no protest was filed within
the 7-day prescriptive period, and the fines remain unpaid, a Final Notice to
settle the violation shall be issued.
I felt
aggrieved and deceived because I was not given any chance to argue my side. If
these are the cops that we pay out of our taxes in our communities, then they
will continue to take advantage of us instead of protecting us.
0 comments:
Post a Comment