Body cams during arrests, searches
The Rules are designed to serve as a deterrent to police officers’ use of excessive force in law enforcement resulting in civilian deaths, human rights violations, and violation of basic constitutional rights
Published in Daily Tribune on July 16, 2021
by:
In 2017, the public demanded that the Philippine National Police (PNP) use body cameras in its war on drugs following collateral damage in the deaths of Kian de los Santos and Carl Arnaiz.
The then Drug Enforcement Group’s Director, Chief Supt. Joseph Adnol, was quoted as saying, “For me, there really is no need for a body cam, our camera as policemen is God.” Uhm, right. If only lawyers can call God to the witness stand.
Fast forward to 29 June 2021 and the Supreme Court (SC) promulgated A.M. 21-06-08-SC, otherwise known as the Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants. The Rules are designed to serve as a deterrent to police officers’ use of excessive force in law enforcement resulting in civilian deaths, human rights violations, and violation of basic constitutional rights. How does this work?
The Rules apply to the execution of arrest and search warrants as provided under Criminal Procedure and those instances where warrants are no longer required.
The scope is wide enough to cover buy-bust operations and sting operations by the PNP. They provide the minimum requirements for the body camera to effectively capture the incident in the heat of action.
In effecting an arrest or a search, the Rules require that at least one body-worn camera and one alternative recording device are ready to capture action at the time of the enforcement. The primary recording device (both video and audio) is the body-worn camera and only in instances where there is a technical malfunction, damage or unavailability of the body-worn camera can the PNP resort to alternative recording devices subject to an explanation in writing.
The officers who wore the camera or whose device was used in recording the incident must execute an affidavit stating the circumstances of the recording. The PNP may redact the files and submit the same to the Court but the unredacted recording must likewise be turned over to the Court.
When the enforcers fail to comply with the requirements of the Rules, evidence gathered in the operation is inadmissible in cases of search warrants. The same is not true for arrests, however, since circumstances of the arrest may still be established by testimonies of the arresting officers, the person arrested, and other witnesses to the arrest.
The use of the recording is subject to the consent of the person arrested or whose person or place has been searched. Consent must be expressly withdrawn to bar the use of the same or the person’s silence will be taken as consent to use the recording for or against him. By extension of this rule, the person concerned is assured of the privacy of this recording. As such, the recording is not a public record unless it involves an incident resulting in loss of life or an assault upon the law enforcer.
When the recordings will be used in court, the officers are obligated to maintain the integrity of the recording, and the chain of custody of the recording must be protected against improper access, review, and tampering. Accordingly, the recording can only be accessed by the person subject of the recording or his counsel, the parent or guardian in cases of minors, the spouse, and the employees of the law enforcement agency to which the owner of the recording device belongs.
This is a welcome development in the field of human rights and law enforcement. This innovation in law enforcement will surely be tested in future cases but I believe that this rule will withstand these challenges. While I would still have wanted to call God to the witness stand in cases where law enforcement operations are doubtful, surely, these rules will provide the next best thing.
