SC urged to set new rules on inquest of EJK cases

A lawyer has appealed to the Supreme Court to institute additional rules to prevent and investigate extra-judicial killings amidst the government’s war on drugs.

In a letter, lawyer Severo Brillantes urged Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno to adopt new rules in relation to an earlier petition by a human rights advocacy group.

He stressed that what will deter extrajudicial killings is the certainty of investigation, prosecution and eventual conviction of the perpetrators.

“That is, for everyone to be made aware that an investigation will inevitably automatically be conducted, with the suspected perpetrators subsequently prosecuted and those found guilty thereafter meted the punishment due to them,” Brillantes said in his letter.

The lawyer wrote the letter in connection with the petition of the Center for International Law, which proposed additional rules on inquest as safeguard against extrajudicial killings.

Earlier, Centerlaw suggested that a new mandatory inquest procedure be instituted to investigate such killings linked to the government’s antinarcotics war.

Centerlaw has proposed that police fully document any operation, from planning, implementation to its aftermath and the mandatory submission of detailed reports, forensic evidence, autopsy reports, etc.

Brillantes outlined his suggestions which may be incorporated into the rules  proposed by CenterLaw.

Among his proposals were for police superiors to exercise strict supervision and control over law enforcers ordered to make arrests, that they should not use unnecessary force and should comply strictly with the law, and accord to the suspects all their constitutional rights;

Whenever there is a killing or infliction of injury during police operations, those responsible shall immediately submit a written report to their superiors and the prosecutor within three days.

The city or provincial prosecutor shall conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether or not the killing was  in selfdefense, defense of relatives, defense of stranger or in the fulfillment of a duty, bearing in mind that “when a person is killed by another, the burden of proving selfdefense or some other justification lies on the assailant.”