The Abused TRO, Unrealistic Bail, and Cybercrime
Posted on Tuesday, 1 July 2014
The
Abused TRO, Unrealistic
Bail, and Cybercrime
By
Apolinario Villalobos
It
seems that the
Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) has been
abused to the hilt.
Some parties which
are glaringly guilty find
it as a
means to slow
down the justice
system. All it
takes for these
parties to have
is a “wise”
lawyer who has
the guts to
use his trade
in twisting truths
to their advantage.
In any
democratic country, this
sad reality has
to be accepted
because of the
system.
On
bails, some has
been proven outdated,
especially, in the
Philippines. One classic
example is what
happened in our
neighborhood when a
burglar was caught
in the act of
going over the
fence of his
victim, by a
neighbor, at dawn.
A citizen’s arrest
was made. The
culprit was turned
over to the
barangay (village council)
for investigation, a
required process before he can
be turned over
to the police.
At the police
station, necessary recording
and other processes
were done until
the culprit was
brought to the
court for the
inquest. It was
already almost five
in the afternoon
when the whole
process was finally
capped (practically, it
took a whole
day), with the
culprit going scot
free after posting
a bail of
2,000 pesos! It was
disheartening and disgusting
because burglaries have
been committed in
the neighborhood for
months and the
residents suspect the
same syndicate. And, with a mere 2,000 pesos, he is free again to do this trade.
On
the issue of
cybercrime, the justice
system is again
questioned. The Supreme
Court sidelined important
issues on child pornography, hacking
and others, to
give more importance
to “libelous statements”.
Just recently, a
raid was made
in a suburb
of Manila in
a house and
a school where
on-line pornography was
in progress. Among
those brought to
the police station
were of course,
the participants, but
a very disturbing
information was about the
use of a
three- year old
child in the
trade. The raid
did not merit
much publicity. Add
to this the lukewarm
issue the ongoing
hacking of websites
even of the
government agencies. Unfortunately, these
two particular activities
do not seem
to interest of
the agencies concerned.
Obviously, the one
on “libelous statements”
seem more heavy
as an issue because
the “reputation” of
those in the
government is at
stake.
Discussion