Central Philippine University

College of Law
Iloilo City

LEGAL RESEARCH AND THESIS WRITING

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION

WORK OUTPUT

1. My research problem is Legalization of the Body-worn Camera on Police’ Day-to-Day

Operation in the Philippines.

2. The conditions which gave rise to my research questions are: (Provide present evidence
from existing data or related literature that will confirm the existence, seriousness, and
relevance of your problem.)
Since President Duterte assumed power in July 2016, over 7,000 suspected drug
users and traffickers have been killed, but the government is only taking responsibility for
about 2,500 of these deaths, which it said was a result of legitimate police operations
where most of the slain suspects shot it out (nanlaban) with authorities. President Duterte
has frequently characterized his “war on drugs” as targeting “drug lords” and “drug
pushers.” However, in the cases investigated by Human Rights Watch, the victims of drug-
related killings were all poor, except for one case of mistaken identity, and many were
suspected drug users, not dealers. Almost all were either unemployed or worked menial
jobs, including as rickshaw drivers or porters, and lived in slum neighborhoods or informal
settlements.
Philippine authorities have failed to seriously investigate drug war killings by either the
police or “unidentified gunmen,” according to Human Rights Watch. Although the
Philippine National Police has classified a total of 922 killings as “cases where investigation
has concluded,” there is no evidence that those probes have resulted in the arrest and
prosecution of the perpetrators. Having to require the police wear body camera during
those times could help get the evidence and monitor what actually happened during
those times.

3. The ideal situation would have been: (State the standard rule or prevailing law or
doctrine, or that which is mandated or recommended.)
The House committee on public order and safety conducted deliberations on
various measures mandating members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and other
law enforcement agencies to wear body camera during their operations. Body-worn
camera promotes transparency, provides audit trails, speeds up proceedings, declogs
court dockets, and aids in administration of justice in various types of interaction that law
enforcers perform on a daily basis that protects not only the law enforcers but citizens
alike.

4. The possible reasons for the discrepancy between No. 2 and 3 are:’
a. Not enough fund to provide body cameras to every station in the Philippines
b. Expense involved in data storage
c. Prescribed length of time as to how long bodycam footage will be stored for
future use
d. Scarcity of body camera units
e. Probability of the Police officer to tamper or misuse the body camera
 f. Attitude of lawmakers in the Philippines in implementing the Body On-Cam
Act

5. The following interventions have been done to address the problem, and the outcomes
were: (If none, say so.)
A new bill filed in the Senate of the Philippines calls for body cameras to be
mandatorily worn by policemen at all times, especially during operations. Senate Bill no.
1563 of the 17th Congress, filed by Senator Richard Gordon aims to promote
accountability and transparency in the conduct of police operations. Under the said bill,
police officers are required to wear body cams all the time, and most especially during
the time of operations. The bill also sets standards for the wearable cameras — they must
be able to produce a video size of 640 x 480 px with wide angle lens and support for night
vision/night view, at least 25 frames per second, and storage and battery good enough
for the wearer to record continuously for up to 3 hours without any interruptions.
However, up till now it was not made into law.

6. The following facts/findings have been reported in related studies about the problem
(Prepare a Summary of at least 3 recent related studies.)
The issue of requiring law-enforcement officers to wear body cams has become a
global issue for the past few years, particularly in light of problems in the United States
that apparently point to the police using excessive and unnecessary force in dealing with
the public.

On first examination, it would appear that requiring police officers to wear body
cams is a logical and positive step in controlling what might mildly be called
“misbehavior.” Any one of us that have been involved in a minor traffic accident knows
that immediately taking lots of pictures of the mishap protects our rights and keeps the
story from being distorted. Thus, even requiring “dash cams” in automobiles has been
discussed for some time.

In the course of normal day-to-day police operations, studies have shown mixed
results that favor both using and not using police body cams. The first assumption might
be that the police do not want body cams as it might show their improper actions. A study
in the United Kingdom, though, showed that the use of body cams is a two-way street in
dealing with the public. The study revealed that police equipped with body-worn cameras
received 93 percent fewer complaints from the public. The questions then are, were there
fewer complaints because the officers wearing body cams acted more professionally or
that false complaints could not be made because of the digital proof of proper police
actions? Here is where it gets interesting. The researchers found that there was no
significant statistical difference between the number of complaints received by officers
wearing cameras and those without, as long as the public assumed that all the officers in
a district were body cam-equipped. For the police, the researchers theorized that even
non-body cam officers acted better because of what was called “contagious
accountability.”

However, in the US state of Washington, an 18-month study of more than 2,000

police officers found that officers equipped with cameras used force and prompted
civilian complaints at about the same rate as those who did not have them. Yet, perhaps
the best conclusion came from Chief Peter Newsham of the Metropolitan Police
Department in Washington, D.C. “I thought it would have a difference on police and
 civilian behavior, particularly for officers who might be more inclined to misbehave.” But
the most positive effect was that body cam usage increased the public’s trust in the police.
Newsham said, “You have to be legitimate and trusted. You can’t underestimate the value
these cameras bring to that.”

Moreover, researchers from the University of Cambridge's Institute of

Criminology (IoC) have now published the first full scientific study of the landmark crime
experiment they conducted on policing with body-worn-cameras in Rialto, California in
2012 -- the results of which have been cited by police departments around the world as
justification for rolling out this technology. The experiment showed that evidence capture
is just one output of body-worn video, and the technology is perhaps most effective at
actually preventing escalation during police-public interactions: whether that's abusive
behavior towards police or unnecessary use-of-force by police. During the 12-month
Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports
against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures.

7. The following questions about the problem, however, still remain unanswered.
 What are the factors affecting the legalization of Police Body On-cam in the
Philippines?
 Why the Police Body On-cam is still not made into the law up until now?