Police-Community Relation is a slowly evolving policing system that is gaining recognition internationally. It is a policing system that can be equated with diplomacy such that even the subjects of policing actions view the system as the most acceptable form of Police-Community interaction to ferret out crimes, do some public safety related police work, or just carry out plain maintenance of peace and
order. Edward Davis, the Chief of Police of California postulated that the ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior, and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect. There is that feeling of public acceptance when its existence, actions and behavior were not routinely criticized, maligned, or branded with unacceptable languages or treated with
synonymous situation that can already be considered as a hostile environment. Otherwise, it will truly be difficult for police officers to work under a stressful scenario as it can also spark human emotions and cultivate friction points. Police work is intrinsically reactive. Michael Trimoglie wrote in his paper that a police officer is never called when things are going well. They are only called when there is a problem, usually a
critical one. It is only natural that police receive the criticism that they do. After all, any occupation charged with the responsibility of bringing order out of chaos or enforcing the rules- baseball umpires, building inspectors, referees, etc.- are going to be controversial positions. Police officers have only a set of narrowly defined objectives- and a body of law that is continually subject to revision and interpretation- to guide them. Given the urgency of the
plight in which police usually find themselves, it is a wonder that the police are able to perform their duties with as little controversy as they do. There is no question that many times police are forced to act intuitively, yet, this is not the characterization of police that is rendered to the public. Police work is rarely presented to the public in a positive light. The mainstream liberal media seem to think that police work is not entertaining unless it is in a
quandary. The thousands of acts each day that police officers perform or demonstrate, the mainstream media never mentions their compassion, their competence, and their fidelity. However, let a police officer make an error, then a torrent of invective is let loose. Also, special interest groups that profit from police controversies begin campaigns demonizing the police. Their propaganda campaign is used to discredit the police thereby assisting in the settlement of substantial
lawsuits, or worse, a collapse of an entire case. This special interest groups; like the National Democratic fronts (NDF), Trial Lawyers Association, so-called social activist’s organizations like KARAPATAN, GABRIELA, et. al., are doing nothing more than disparaging the police for their own political or financial gain. So adroit are these groups at hate mongering and the use of scare tactics that they are able to enlist the aid of a willing and compliant mainstream media. The
result is that public opinion is swayed very easily against the police. In such an environment, the rank and file police officer cannot depend on politicians for support. They cannot depend on the media for a voice and neither can they disregard public opinion. Some experts claim that the social phenomenon known as public perception can be seen as the difference between an absolute truth based on facts and a virtual truth shaped by popular opinion, media coverage and/or reputation. Celebrities, politicians and even police organizations all face the same scrutiny by the public they serve, and it can be very difficult to overcome a negative public perception. On the other hand, experts added that Public perception is not necessarily inaccurate or based on something other than
the truth. The public at large can often receive enough factual information in order to form a general opinion about a public figure, celebrity or police organization without relying on innuendo or unfounded rumors. There can be instances, however, when public perception of a situation is affected by other issues, such as cultural bias or prejudice. A defendant accused of a heinous criminal act may or may not be guilty of the actual crime, but public perception of that type of crime can be difficult for a judge or fact finding committee to ignore while deliberating. It is this public perception that police finds difficulty in discharging their respective duties in the
communities as police view this phenomenon as a challenging reality that may affect, or at worst destroy, their respective careers. The Philippine National Police today continue to reinvent its policing system on the fast growing communities and as communities grew, social interaction becomes complex as social inventions interfaced with various issues in the community that sometimes develop into a problem on peace and order. In the growing
complexities in the environment, policing the communities has become a growing headache for police organizations as policing systems are finding difficulties to cope with the demands of the times. This is also largely caused by work attitudes of Police elements in the City Police Stations/Municipal Police Stations (CPS/MPS) where some administrative works mandated by law such as protection and preservation of environment, cultural properties and natural resources; campaign against illegal
drugs; activities pertaining to security preparations and disaster preparedness, have crowded the already busy schedule of police officers in the streets and confused the Chief of Police. Partly also, the seeming attitudinal inaction of the police is blamed on the thinking that the public view the police as inept, corrupt and abusive. In short, at the station level, it is already quite difficult to push action plans that may enhance police and community relations. At
present also, the operational management at police stations is deemed soaked with systems that fail due largely, to the inability of Chiefs of Police (COPs) to optimize utilization of human and material resources and party because of bad work culture and work habits of police elements at the station. (Among which is the 1-day-duty-one-day-off practice, 15-30 work appearances, details of personnel to politicians and wealthy businessman, details to secure vital installations that are not public
corporation, etc.). Specifically, it fails also probably because of an orientation or mindset of the police officers that is not consistent with the intent of the framers of the PNP law, and the poor leadership ability, or the lack of it, of small unit leaders who, despite appropriate training, have not learned how to exercise small unit management. A quick review of the present practice in policing vis-à-vis the intent provided by PNP law appears that the policing practice is
concentrated more on projects that are operational results oriented and not an activity oriented. It still shows a very strong indication of military mindset that was influenced by members coming from the defunct Philippine Constabulary (PC) who joined the PNP in 1991. On one hand, the PNP Law (RA 8551) under the Title I, Sec. 2, Second Paragraph (declaration of Policy and Principles) provides that; xxx The Philippine National Police (PNP) SHALL
BE A COMMUNITY AND SERVICE ORIENTED AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND ORDER AND PUBLIC SAFETY xxx Which clearly, the intension of the framers of the law provides for a police system that is an activity oriented (community based and service oriented) and not a result or a mission oriented policing system. On the other hand, Sec 24, CHAPTER III of RA 6975, (PNP Law) provides in part; xxx “The PNP shall have the following powers and functions; 1. Enforce the laws and ordinances relative to the protection of lives and properties; 2. Maintain peace and order and take all necessary steps to ensure public safety; 3. Investigate and prevent crimes, effect the arrest of criminal offenders, bring offenders to justice and assist in their prosecution.” xxx Interestingly, the PNP outlines its MISSION STATEMENT as follows xxx – THE PNP SHALL ENFORCE THE LAW, PREVENT AND CONTROL CRIMES, MAINTAIN PEACE AND ORDER AND ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND INTERNAL SECURITY WITH THE ACTIVE SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY – xxx The above mission statement is very similar to the first three paragraphs of the eight broad functions defined in Sec. 24, of RA 8551 as amended. Notice that the first two paragraphs a, and b, of Sec 24, RA 6975, are crime prevention activities. In paragraph a. the primary function of the police is to enforce laws and ordinances relative to the protection of lives and properties. Which means, the conduct of law enforcement and other related police activities that prevent the movement of instruments of crimes (such as; firearms and other sharp objects through the conduct of check points, patrol operations, stop and frisk, etc.) and limit the movement of people with criminal minds from harming others and stealing other’s properties. In Para b., the framers of the law intend that police should conduct police activities that will deny criminal minds of the opportunity to commit crimes, harmonize a smoother community interaction, and initiate activities that protect the public from any danger, either man-made or act of nature, and mitigate its effects. It should logically mean that police should anticipate or intervene with obtaining events that are potential for conflict in order to maintain peace and order in the environment. It also mandates the conduct of activities that prevent anybody from harming any member of the community or of harming self (barricaded situation or suicide), or of being negligent that causes injury to others, or require anybody to take action to prepare, act and mitigate result of both manmade and natural disasters. This function stipulated under Para b., however, is a shared responsibly of the police with the local government units (as provided by the local government code of 1991, RA 8551). The Law enforcement, and the maintenance of peace and order and public safety functions, are two important functions that are categorized as crime prevention activities and the framers of the law put these important provisions above all other police functions (about 8 of them) to emphasize and prioritize its importance and yet, the police organization concentrated mostly in solving crimes (para 3) putting most of their manpower and financial resources to a function that is not the sole responsibility of the police. More often, when a particular case failed to even get a day in court, it is the police that get the blame. In Para c., it mandates the police to conduct activities to intervene with the progress of the crime and, if intervention failed to prevent its consummation, to effect arrest and assist in the prosecution of the offenders. This function however is a shared responsibility of the police with four (4) other Government Pillars of the Criminal Justice System, – The Prosecution, The Courts, Corrections and the Community. When the police therefore are already performing activities related to the solution of the crime, (conducting arrest, crime suppression, and assisting in its prosecution) then the police is approximating a failure in its first two stated basic powers and functions. There might be a need to reinvent the policing orientation of the police officers in the streets to be consistent with the declaration of policy and principles and be attuned to the functions stated in Sec 24, CHP III of RA 6975. The PNP should reorient the mindset of police officers through the development of transformation ideology that reflects the character of every police officer as a well rounded PCR man, as good fathers to all the kids, friends to the working adults and loving sons to the elderly. The DPCR therefore, shall endeavor to develop a police force that is Community and Service Oriented first, and a law enforcer second.
The DPCR envisions the evolution of Police Units and Police Officers into a “community and service” oriented organization working in partnership with a cooperative community towards a peaceful, orderly, safer and harmonious community interactions. (Title I, Sec 2. Para 2, RA 8551).
The DPCR shall develop, guide and steer a “community and service oriented” police organizations in forging relationship with, informing, persuading, shaping perception of, and mobilizing the communities towards the need for respect for laws, maintenance of peace and orderliness, and safety of environment. (Title I, Sec 2, para 2, RA 8551, and Sec 24 para a & b, RA 8551)
What is Community Policing? Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime. Community policing is comprised of three key components:
Geographic assignment of officers
Personnel
Information Systems (Technology)
Community Policing also revolves around the basic principle that the “Police are the Public and the Public are the Police” (Principle #7, Sir Robert Peel, Founder of the British Police system). It is a policing concept that requires every member of the community to exercise self policing, restraint other members against doing things that may harm each other, and require other members to conduct themselves in an orderly interaction. Requiring community members to follow certain orderly interaction means specific obedience to set of rules or common beliefs and aspirations with the community. It is necessary therefore that the basic policing in the community should focus on the core concept of Police Community Relations. A policing concept that wins the trust, confidence and support of the people in the community such that policing becomes a norm and not just obedience to set of rules. When community policing becomes a way of life in the community, then there will be no more need for organizations to police the community. Community policing is simply a way of life, a harmonious coexistence, a peaceful and an orderly interaction with one another. This is facilitated when members share common belief and may therefore be mobilized under a common cause. To influence greater numbers of member individuals for a common cause, it may require these basic steps:
What are the activities in Community Policing? Community Policing is a system that links and bonds the Police to the Community that also means a stronger and cohesive community interactions. Exchanges of information is fast due to established Police-Community Relations, each one knows one another, talk to and trust each other, and confident that their police can be relied upon for keeping the peace and making the community safer. Policing the community can be done through just three (3) types of activities: patrol activities, organizational work and community interactions.
b) House Visit – it is an interpersonal interaction that brings police closer to the communities, connects the police with the public, informs the community of various matters that affects their lives starting from issues involving peace and order, laws that affects their daily activities (FAs, Anti-fencing, Anti-Illegal drug and human trafficking. etc), economics, social and cultural issues, health, social inventions, to as odd as lives of celebrities. Talk about the need to follow house rules as an effective means of securing discipline in the family and the essence of following the wisdom of the community elders. CHAPTER II Important Policy statement and Legal basis Title I, Sec 2. RA 8551: Declaration of Policy and Principles. – It is hereby declared the policy of the State to establish highly efficient and competent police force that is national in scope and civilian in character, administered and controlled by a National Police Commission. The PNP shall be a community and service oriented agency responsible for the maintenance of peace and order and public safety. The PNP shall be so organized to ensure accountability and uprightness in police exercise of discretion as well as to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of its members and units in the performance of these functions (RA 8551). Section 24. Powers and Functions. – The PNP shall have the following powers and functions:
CHAPTER III To Serve and Protect; A principal paradigm of Policing The greatest leader who ever lived said, “I came not to BE served, but TO serve.” And, “he who would be greatest among you must be the servant of all.” To restore the public’s trust we must change our culture and commit to a Community policing paradigm built on honor, service, and responsibility.
CHAPTER IV Important Basic Principles of Community Policing The DPCR shall assist the appropriate directorates in the conceptualization of community oriented training and program development of police officers through an appropriate reorientation training strategy in order to develop a policing ideology anchored on the following Professional Police Principles mostly derived from the writings of Sir Robert Peel, Founder of the British Police system, and Edward Davies, the Chief of Police of California. Principle No. 1. – PREVENTION OF CRIME IS THE BASIC MISSION OF THE POLICE. The basic mission of the Police is to prevent crime and ensure a Peaceful and Orderly Community interaction without the necessity of resulting into a military intervention to repress crime and severity of legal punishment. The need therefore to enforce laws and ordinances that protect lives and properties and maintenance of peace and order, are preconditions that limit the formation of conflict in the environment and therefore ensure public order and safety. When the Police are already in crime deterrence and control function, then it is approximating a failure to perform its basic mission. Principle No. 2. – POLICE MUST BE RESPECTED BY THE COMMUNITY. The ability of the Police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior, and the ability of the Police to secure and maintain public respect. Arthur Nietherhoffer, a 20 year old New York police lieutenant wrote in his book that he believes that American police tend to hide a self pity syndrome; they tend to become paranoid and withdrawn. Edward M Davis, the Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles wrote that policemen should not be caught up in this “Nietherhoffer Syndrome” because no policeman can work in a hostile environment. Principle No. 3. – A CITIZEN’S RESPECT FOR LAW DEVELOPS HIS RESPECT FOR THE POLICE. The police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public. The Police must have a conscious and deliberate effort to influence the community about the need to enjoin or at the very least, persuade every citizen not to violate the law or tolerate amongst those who do. Let every citizen in the community realize that to violate the law, is to tear the character of his own and his children’s freedom and rights. Let obedience to laws be breathed by every parents behind their children’s necks… Let it be taught in schools, let the Police convey same to as many listeners as possible through leaflets, newsletters, primers, in the tri-media, in speaking engagements, and in the inter-personal interactions during area or house visits. Persuade the priests and the pastors to preach it in the homily and in short, let reverence for the law become the air breathed by the community. Principle No. 4. – COOPERATION OF THE PUBLIC DECREASES AS THE USE OF FORCE INCREASES. The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity for the use of physical force and compulsion in achieving police objectives. An Officer with the ability to firmly but pleasantly solicit the cooperation of individual or groups can frequently accomplish, through their cooperation, what it might take scores of officers to accomplish through the use of a “hard” approach to the situation. In areas where there has been a pattern of using strong physical force to achieve police objectives, a concurrent pattern of resistance develops within the individual or group. The result is resistance and lack of cooperation on the part of the law violator and the subsequent necessity for resorting to force on the part of the police. The use of force is thus self-perpetuating. Principle No. 5. – THE POLICE MUST RENDER IMPARTIAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW. The police seek and preserve public favor, not by service to the law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individuals; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing; by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. It is not the job of a policeman to determine what the legislators should say what constitute a crime. It is not the mission of the police to judge whether any law is good, bad, too harsh, or too lenient. Laws are made by the legislators and are an imperfect reflection of society’s mores. Laws are subject to change. However, when the law is established, it is job of the policeman to enforce that law impartially. Principle No. 6 – PHYSICAL FORCE IS USED ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. The Police should use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient to achieve police objectives; and police should use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. Principle No. 7. – THE POLICE ARE THE PUBLIC AND THE PUBLIC ARE THE POLICE. The Police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; The Police are the only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interest of community welfare. Principle No. 8. – POLICE REPRESENTS THE LAW. The police should always direct their actions strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the Judiciary by avenging individuals, of the state, or authority judging guilt or punishing the guilty. Principle No. 9. – THE ABSENCE OF CRIME AND DISORDER IS THE TEST OF POLICE EFFECIENCY. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them. What is the professional model of policing?From the 1930s to the 1960s, U.S. law enforcement relied on a professional policing model. This model was based on hierarchical structures, efficient response times, standardization, and the use of motorized patrol cars.
What is the difference between traditional policing and community policing?Community policing differs from traditional policing in how the community is perceived and in its expanded policing goals. While crime control and prevention remain central priorities, community policing strategies use a wide variety of methods to address these goals.
What is problemProblem-oriented policing (POP) means diagnosing and solving problems that are increasing crime risks, usually in areas that are seeing comparatively high levels of crime (e.g., “hot spots”).
What is meant by intelligence led policing?Intelligence-led policing (often shortened to ILP) is a practice that leverages technological advances in both data collection and analytics to generate valuable “intelligence” that can be used to more efficiently direct law enforcement resources to the people and places where they are likely to do the most good.
|