So astonishing is the claim of the former president that he knows more than all else and others could hardly understand his position. He tells everyone of his knowledge as a lawyer and his vast experience as prosecutor, police training instructor, mayor and president. Unfortunately, all his claims are clearly contrary to law that even law students could explain.
He anchors his argument on his work experience as a prosecutor where some cases are allegedly dismissed not much on the merits but on alleged corrupted evaluation of the prosecutor. The problem is administrative which could be handled by anti-corruption agencies. It is not for the former president to use as basis to take shortcuts and kill the suspected criminal without due process.
Without regard to due process of law which is a fundamental tenet enshrined in the constitution, the former president puts to doubt his being a lawyer who is expected to uphold the law. The instruction given to police trainees and policemen to shoot a suspected criminal who resist an arrest that are often warrantless. Again, in the course of trying to justify his instruction to shoot upon resistance of the suspect, he explained that the police officer must encourage the suspected criminal to resist and draw a gun to justify the killing as self-defense.
But very clear is the provision of the revised penal code that the culprit must not have caused the provocation upon the suspected criminal in order to invoke the exempting circumstance of self-defense. The same is true with regards to the rule on entrapment where the law enforcement officer must not induce the subject to commit the offense in order to make the arrest valid under the law. Much more to encourage prospected criminals to resist and draw a gun just to justify the police officer to kill the suspect.
The order to police officers to kill a suspected criminal who resists a warrantless arrest appears without basis in law. To argue that it is better to kill a criminal than to see a police officer dead for failing to shoot first, is simply revolting. The act is clearly unlawful as it makes the police officer act as judge, condemning the person as criminal and not as a mere suspect who is presumed innocent under the bill of rights.
The conflicting claims of the former president has unduly exposed his bloody war on drugs as a killing machine composed of rogues and scalawags in police uniform. Despite vehement denials by those involved in the bloody drug war, the truth is slowly being unearth to expose the irregularities attendant in the deaths that remain uncertain in terms of the number of victims who suffered from a system that emanated from the directives of the former president that under the law are all wrongs.
comments to alellema@yahoo.com
