Iron-fisted superhero cops

In this controversy over whether the Ortigas incident, where three suspected carjackers were killed under still suspicious circumstances, I am aware of the school of thought that the country today is engaged in nothing less than a war on crime. And in that war, this thinking holds, ordinary rules of conduct simply do not apply.

Like the war on terrorism, the war against crime sees such aberrations as local versions of Abu Ghraib prison mental and physical torture, Guantanamo Bay detention center excesses, and secret "black sites" (similar to "safe houses" of the martial law era).

Thus, in the past we heard about, or were witness to, such things as intelligence methods violative of the Bill of Rights, "hard" interrogation techniques, detainees disappearing for inordinate lengths of time, or forever, and operations of government agents which always ended up with all the suspects dead.

We’d see news photos of "notorious criminals" hung by their necks from bridges, and "known felons" knifed, strangled with barbed wire or cleanly dispatched with gunshots to the head. Typically, messages with the warning "Huwag Pamarisan" (Do not imitate) were pinned on the victims’ clothes.

Perhaps some of us even harbored a secret admiration for these sentinels of the law who kept our streets safe of crime and unbridled lawlessness. Breathless crime reporters gave these shadowy men names straight out of the movies, such as "The Dirty Dozen," or attach fearsome monickers like "Bungo" or "Berdugo."

In some cases, movies were actually made of the lives and exploits of these crusaders against crime. They were usually depicted as mild-mannered, idealistic lawmen whose respect for law and human rights got them nowhere. Well-connected criminals would always go scot-free, until our heroes morphed into latter-day Charles Bronsons with lethal firepower ready to be unleashed against outlaws.

There are still those who yearn for the days when "known" criminals could be dispatched at will with nary a peep from a grateful public. They are the same people who scoff at all these "stupid" questions being asked about the Ortigas incident, who cannot understand why brave law enforcers are treated like murder suspects, and who will argue to their grave that the carjackers got what they deserved.

I recently looked up some of these former cops who were well-known for their no-nonsense, iron-fisted approach to crime. They are all retired from the force now. Some live out retirement in relative comfort, others still work in some aspect of law enforcement. A few segued to politics.

None are wealthy or totally without worry about their advancing years. This, they said, was irrefutable evidence of their selfless dedication to public service. Their work attitude was, "Walang personalan. Trabaho lang" (Nothing personal. Just doing my job.). I could imagine them telling that to the people they were about to send to their presumably eternal damnation.

I will have to keep their identities confidential, to respect the privacy and relative peace of mind they now enjoy. Throughout their controversial careers, none had to suffer the ignominy of a dismissal from the service or, worse, a criminal conviction. They had their share of internal politicking and periods in the career freezer. But by and large, they were as durable as garden weeds–you know what they say about "masamang damo"–and left the force with dignity, and niggardly pensions, intact.

Their reactions to the Ortigas incident were characteristically candid and pragmatic. Their natural instinct was to be sympathetic to the lawmen, while being critical, if not somewhat sarcastic, about the latter’s techniques. The worst mistake of the Traffic Management Group operatives, these street-wise veterans say, was that they left themselves open for witnesses, not only people who eye-balled the incident, but, of all things, a television crew with video cameras.

All of these "witnesses" saw only part of the action, and the part each saw was damning for the policemen. No impartial witness saw all the entire process, from the period the suspects were under surveillance, to the time they were spotted at the coffee shop, to the point where they allegedly ignored the marked police that flagged the suspects’ car down, to the chase through the Pasig commercial center until Garnet street, to the actual firefight and the eventual shooting of the suspects.

Though skeptical of the completeness of the UNTV video, they find nothing unusual about the actions of the lawmen around the suspects’ vehicle. A ground commander’s concern is primarily the safety of all his men, not the safety of the suspect. No one takes unnecessary risks. A suspect’s apparent disability is no reason to let one’s guard down. They cite experiences of colleagues who were seriously injured or killed by ostensibly unconscious or dead suspects who shot at the surprised law officers.

They have plausible explanations for everything, including the position of the firearms found in the suspects’ car, how the suspects could have fired at the agents even with side windows fully rolled up, why the unmarked police car had bullet holes facing outward, and even why the cautiously approaching TMG operatives would empty their assault rifles at supine suspects armed with one handgun and one machine pistol.

But even our veterans of violent encounters with criminals admit the operatives’ stories are full of holes. It will now be up to the Internal Affairs Service of the Philippine National Police to develop a full factual record.

For one thing, there remain questions of why police operations such as that which occurred at the Ortigas center typically leave no survivors who can be interrogated to shed light on the details of their criminal activities. Without these facts, the public is constantly left with nothing but entreaties to "trust" our law enforcers.

The citizenry does expect much of an embattled police force which is charged with fighting motor vehicle thefts, illegal drugs and kidnapping for ransom, to name just the high-visibility crimes. The familiar budgetary, manpower and equipment limitations are no excuse for shoddy work. Moreover, even as we can understand the frustrations of our lawmen, if the evidence shows violations of law by the policemen themselves, they will have to be dealt with in accordance with the law.

The war against crime will be won neither by the reckless vigilantism of our iron-fisted hero cops, nor by the clumsy operatives depicted on the UNTV tape. Society will triumph only if our policemen earn the confidence of the people in their ability to enforce the law without violating it. In this, there can be no compromise.