eng - World Organisation Against Torture

eintegrated to their families as their caseshave been dismissed or they have been acquitted.This reflects the changing attitudein the judiciary as at least eight judges havereferred children from the prisons to thePreda alternative home. The main obstaclenow in preventing the imprisonment of childrenin adult prisons is the lack of government-runholding centres to which judgescan refer children. Even the Preda alternativehome is filled up to capacity and needsexpansion if it is to accept more children.OMCT urges the executive branch of thePhilippine government to establish additionalholding centres for juveniles in order toaccommodate the number of children in conflictwith the law and consequently preventchildren being imprisoned with adults. Thegovernment should create a strong incentivefor the local governments to comply withPD No. 603, or centralise the provision ofYDHs and YRCs.Lack of Diversionary ProceduresDiversionary procedures, known as theKatarungang Pambarangay are establishedas a method of keeping children in conflictwith the law out of the justice system. Theyare aimed at settling the problem in a childfriendlyway. Rules dealing with theKatarungang Pambarangay have been issuedby the Department of Justice. Ideally,the barangay captain or the local councilchairperson can negotiate a deal regardingcompensation between the complainant andthe family of the child accused of having brokenthe law. This measure is to prevent thepressing of charges. While the barangay canlegally dispose of a criminal case – in particular,those wherein the penalty does notexceed an imprisonment term of one year ora fine of PhP 5,000. However, in most of thecases documented by PREDA, thebarangay was unable to dispose of thecharges because of the absence of a privateinjured party. Many of the cases involvedcrimes against persons or personal propertyand the penalties involved exceeded the ceilingas required in the KatarungangPambarangay.Arbitrary Detention: Pre-trialThe inquest or preliminary examination procedurecovers the majority of cases where nowarrant of arrest had been issued. The legalityof detention based on this procedureis questionable, with such a detention con-41