The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman junking the complaint filed by the Commission on Human Rights against police officers in Tondo, Manila over the operation of a so-called “secret detention cell” discovered in 2017.
In a 15-page decision dated January 4, 2024, but was only made available to the public on Friday, the SC said that there was no evidence of a hidden detention cell or violation of the Anti-Torture Act of 2009.
“The Court agrees with the Ombudsman that the CHR failed to prove its Complaint with probable cause. Other than the alleged secretary detention cell which the CHR has seen firsthand, its allegations constituting the crimes of grave threats, grave coercion, robbery/extortion, violations of Republic Act No. 9745, specifically Section 4(a)(1) to (4) and Section 4(b)(3) and (11) were based on hearsay considering that the CHR stated that the detainees relayed it to them,” according to the decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho, Jr.
It also noted that 10 out of the 12 detainees executed sworn statements before the Public Attorney’s Office, “which did not support the CHR’s claims that the detainees were threatened, maltreated, or abused.”
“On the contrary, the 10 detainees stated that their condition inside the station was fine. In addition, the medical certificates of the detainees issued on separate dates showed no manifestation of physical abuse,” the SC added.
The Ombudsman dismissed in 2021 the criminal and administrative complaints filed by the CHR against the Manila policemen over the hidden cell. The Ombudsman then said the CHR failed to establish probable cause against the policemen in Raxabago Police Station 1 in Tondo.
The complaints stemmed from CHR’s discovery of several detainees inside a small and cramped jail facility behind a bookshelf in the said police station.
While the SC recognizes the “deplorable state” of the jail facility, it pointed out that “it will be the height of injustice to blame the officers on the ground for the alleged unbearable detention facility.” It added that one of the police officers said that “they were forced to be resourceful due to budget constraints.”
However, the SC highlighted its call on policymakers and stakeholders to improve jail facilities in the country.
“It does not escape the Court that the improvement of penal facilities may be restricted by a budget which only the Congress can provide and which the Court cannot compel to allocate. This budgetary constraint, however, does not mean that the inmates or detainees in prison or jail are not entitled to their right to live a decent life while in penal facilities,” the SC said.
Leonen dissents
Meanwhile, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen was the lone magistrate to dissent in the decision.
In his 8-page dissent, Leonen said that the detention cell’s deplorable state is “sufficient to show probable cause of a violation of the individuals’ rights against torture and freedom from other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.”
The senior SC official also pointed out that “it is difficult to accept the conditions of the holding cell simply as a result of the police officers’ supposed resourcefulness.”
Further, Leonen said that the case requires urgent and systematic remedies.
“With its mandate to protect and enforce the people’s constitutional rights, this Court will not find its role in addressing this social problem with passive acquiescence. We must take a more active role in protecting the most vulnerable of our people,” he said.—LDF, GMA Integrated News
