of the Philippines the criminal justice system is - Article 2

him. He was not armed and did not resist when arrested at a
police checkpoint. We are also aware that while he was subjected
to custodial investigation at your headquarters, he was tortured
further.
You mentioned that the Miranda Doctrine was observed by
your men when arresting Buisan. Are you claiming that there
was no violation when the arresting officers failed to inform
Buisan of the nature of the charges against him upon arrest, to
show him the valid warrants for his arrest, to inform him of his
right to remain silent, and in denying him legal counsel of his
choice while under custodial investigation?
If indeed these procedures and the doctrine were observed by
your police during Buisan’s arrest, why are there reports
regarding allegations of irregularities in the conduct of arrest,
detention and treatment of the victim while in police custody?
Furthermore, why have the police reportedly not been
transparent with the victim’s family, in particular in providing
them the results of the victim’s medical examination?
While we recognise the order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
by Judge Isaac Alvero V. Moran issued on 23 December 2005
denying the victim’s application for habeas corpus and
subsequently confirming that Haron Abubakar Buisan and Ariel
Bansalao, a person charged for robbery with homicide are the
same, we strongly maintain the this does not give the police
immunity in torturing the victim.
The use of torture in any circumstance is totally unacceptable.
This is evident in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article 3,
Section 12 (2) which stipulates that: “no torture, force, violence,
threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free
will shall be used against him (any persons)”. Additionally, the
Republic Act 7438 stipulates the rights of persons arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation, which were clearly
violated in this case.
We deeply regret that you have justified the acts of your men
while arbitrarily denying the victim of his constitutional rights.
We are extremely disappointed that no appropriate investigation
was conducted and that the police involved have not had to answer
to the allegations made against them. We urge you to take
effective steps to comply with the existing complaint mechanism
in the police service.
We are deeply concerned by the continued denial of appropriate
medical treatment and rehabilitation for the victim to ensure
his full recovery. As the arresting officers, the local police are
obligated according to law to ensure the victim’s health. We are
completely unaware of any intervention made by your office on
this matter.
We take this opportunity to inform you of the order issued by
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Oscar Noel on 17 January 2006
to conduct a reinvestigation into the charges of robbery with
164
article 2 • February 2007 Vol. 6, No. 1