“The eyes of the nation, and indeed the world, are watching how justice will be served in this high-stakes drama”
IN A dramatic twist worthy of a legal thriller, the legal team of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is crying foul over the recent arrest warrants served on their leader, Pastor Apollo C. Quiboloy, and his associates.
The arrest, carried out on June 10, has spurred allegations of illegal procedure and excessive force, with former President Rodrigo Duterte, the newly appointed administrator of KOJC properties, thrust into the fray.
As the dust settles, it’s time to dissect these assertions with a critical eye, leveraging the full weight of Philippine law and Supreme Court precedent.
Core of controversy
Quiboloy’s legal team, led by Israelito Torreon, argues the police violated procedure by not informing Duterte before serving the warrants.
Torreon claims that, according to the rules, law enforcers should have sought Duterte’s permission before entering KOJC properties, and only in cases of refusal should they have forcibly entered.
Additionally, Torreon and his colleague, Dinah Fuentes, contend the simultaneous raids on multiple KOJC properties lacked reasonable belief Quiboloy and his associates were present at each location.
Service of warrants and property rights
Torreon invokes Rule 113, Section 11 of the Philippine Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states:
“An officer, in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, may break into any building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused admittance, thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose.”
Here, Torreon’s argument Duterte should have been informed first is not directly supported by the law.
The rule primarily emphasizes the need for an officer to announce their authority and purpose and permits forcible entry upon refusal.
There is no explicit requirement to inform an administrator before serving a warrant.
Doctrine of self-help
Torreon’s reference to the Doctrine of Self-Help under Article 429 of the New Civil Code, which allows reasonable force to repel unlawful invasion, is another focal point.
However, this doctrine must be balanced against the legality of the police action.
If the warrants were valid and the police followed proper procedures (as they claim), the entry was lawful, negating the application of self-defense or defense of property.
Validity of simultaneous raids
The simultaneous implementation of warrants at various KOJC properties is grounded in the need for thoroughness in law enforcement.
The Philippine Supreme Court has upheld the principle that warrants may be executed wherever the accused is reasonably believed to be.
In People vs. Magat, the Court ruled multiple locations could be searched if there was a reasonable belief the accused might be found there.
Given Quiboloy’s known influence and resources, the police had a justified rationale to conduct coordinated operations to prevent evasion.
Excessive force allegations
Duterte’s condemnation of “excessive and unnecessary force” during the raid introduces a subjective narrative.
The Police Regional Office-Davao’s statement highlights adherence to protocols and maximum tolerance, contradicting claims of overkill.
The use of water cannons and bolos by KOJC members, as reported, supports the need for a robust police presence to ensure order and safety.
Address specificity in warrants
Torreon’s argument about the address specificity of warrants holds some merit.
Warrants should indeed specify locations precisely to prevent misuse.
However, operational exigencies often necessitate flexibility.
The Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Velasco emphasized practical considerations over rigid adherence to technicalities when public safety and justice are at stake.
Recommendations
1. Clarification of Legal Procedures: The Philippine judiciary and law enforcement agencies should clarify and disseminate guidelines on the service of warrants, especially concerning properties with complex administrative structures like KOJC.
2. Judicial Oversight: Enhanced judicial oversight on the execution of warrants involving high-profile figures can ensure compliance with legal standards while safeguarding constitutional rights.
3. Training for Law Enforcers: Comprehensive training programs for law enforcers on the nuances of serving warrants and managing potential confrontations with large, organized groups are essential.
4. Public Transparency: Greater transparency from law enforcement regarding operational procedures and post-operation reviews can help build public trust and mitigate accusations of misconduct.
Conclusion
The legal battle over Quiboloy’s arrest warrants is a labyrinth of legal nuances and procedural debates.
While Quiboloy’s lawyers present some valid points, their arguments often stretch the provisions of law and precedent to fit their narrative.
As this case unfolds, it serves as a crucial test for the Philippine legal system’s ability to balance procedural rigor with practical enforcement needs.
The eyes of the nation, and indeed the world, are watching how justice will be served in this high-stakes drama.
