The Language of Police Arrest in the Philippines

Harriette Mae Mercullo^*
*Correspondence: Harriette Mae Mercullo, Letran Research Center, Intramuros, Manila, Philippines, Tel: 09777179432, Email:

Keywords

Police arrest • Miranda doctrine • Marginalization

Introduction

Policies and practices of police arrest in the Philippines

The warrant of arrest is a written document which authorizes an arresting officer to capture a person so that the arrested individual will be able to respond for a crime he has committed. Based on the Manual of the Philippine National Police, rules on arrest purports the following: an arrest should be done only if there is a valid warrant of arrest issued by a person in authority; any form of violence shall not be used during the act of arrest; the arrested person shall not be put into further harm aside from what is essential under the given situation; arrests shall be done on whatever day/s of the week and at any time; and a judge is the sole authorized person to provide an arrest warrant.

The rule further states the following: the arresting police officer has an authority to call for assistance; he may go inside an edifice where the suspect or arrestee is located, if he is not allowed to enter after declaring that he has the right authority; in situations when he has went inside the edifice to do an arrest, he may go out from there if needed; and if an arrestee was able to escape, any individual has the right to bring him back into prison without any warrant. It is also stated in the said manual as regard to the rules of arrest that one of the important responsibilities of the police doing the arrest is to notify the person to be arrested of his constitutional right to remain silent or popularly known as the Miranda Doctrine. This doctrine is a fundamental right of every citizen arrested in the Philippines as stated in the Constitution of the Philippines. Why does the Philippine judicial system observe the Miranda Doctrine and why is there a need to use it during police arrest?

This right originated from the Supreme Court decision of the Miranda versus Arizona case in the United States of America. In the context of American jurisprudence, the Miranda rights is one of its fundamental principles in American legal policy and practice. It is considered vital to the preservation of human dignity and to the fulfilment of human expressive freedom [1]. It is not a well-known right as posited by legal scholars, but it is also undoubtedly the most extensively recognized principle of criminal law among the members of the general public. The Miranda warning is the most famous criminal law principle in the world [2].

This right is incorporated in the Philippine Constitution, which states that, any individual who is investigated for a crime committed, shall be rightfully informed of his right to remain silent and to get an attorney of his own choice, and if he does not have any access to get a counsel, the government shall provide him. In addition, it must be taken into account that in the Philippines, our legal system is patterned after American jurisprudence, which is the primary reason why the Miranda doctrine is presently and continuously used during police arrest in the country. In the Philippines, the provision on Miranda doctrine requires stricter standards in terms of getting an attorney because the chosen legal professional must possess competence and should be the choice of the suspect or arrestee. It also provides stricter requirements in terms of waiving the right to counsel compared to the American version of the Miranda rights, wherein, it should be done in writing, and with the company of an authorized attorney. It also states that any admission attained against the requirements under the Miranda doctrine shall be disallowed to be used as an evidence against the suspect.

Methodology

Initially, the Philippine Miranda doctrine as used by arresting officers was read in two languages namely English and Filipino. After some amendments by the Philippine National Police on the rules of arrest, the said constitutional right can now be read or recited in other local languages such as Ilokano, Hiligaynon, Kapampangan, Bikol, Waray, Cebuano, Chabacano, Meranaw and Tausug. In addition, to make the Miranda doctrine more accessible to nonnative speakers in the country, the Philippine National Police also initiated the Philippine Miranda Rights Translation Project, which was undertaken in the year, 2016. The primary aim of this project was to translate and record the Miranda doctrine into four foreign Asian languages for easier access of the arresting police officers. This project was also pushed through due to the increase in foreign suspects being arrested in the country which entails the need to create translations in the Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese and Japanese languages.

One apparent characteristic of the Miranda doctrine is the use of legal language or legalese. As Tiersma in Solan et al. describes it, legal language is different in various aspects from ordinary or common language [1]. Tiersma cites that legal language is characterized by the use of technical and difficult vocabulary, utilization of passive and impersonal constructions, negation, nominalizations, lengthy and complex sentences, and being too verbose. Tiersma further says that lawyers have a language of their own making the language of the legal domain extensively diverse from common language. Holt and Johnson in Coulthard and Johnson also cites that the distinguishing feature of legal conversation is the use of questions [3,4]. Aside from that, it is also governed by a system of turn taking that police officers and arrestee adopt as Holt and Johnson [4] puts it. For them, it is essentially ordinary language being put to special use.

With the legal language present in the Miranda doctrine, it causes problems in comprehension, especially for a lay person such as the arrestee or the suspect. This is echoed in Tiersma wherein he cites that the features of legal English may impede communication with the people in authority and the public as well. Coulthard and Johnston [5] also describe the complexity of the language of legal documents and legal talk in terms of structure and syntax, but despite of its complexity, legal language possess peculiar institutional purposes and pragmatic impact.

Moreover, sociolinguistic research argues as cited by Eades in Gibbons and Turell [6] wherein it is not possible to deal with language and disadvantage before the law without considering the dynamics and complexities of the disadvantaged individuals. It has to be taken into account as well that one of the central factors involved in the failure to deliver equal treatment to all citizens is caused by the use of language and further emphasized that certain individuals are more disadvantaged than other people in the domain of law. These disadvantaged individuals include mentally incapacitated people, second language speakers, children, and some members of the minority group. As Gonzalez cites, citizens who do not have adequate competence in the language of the law which is English are said to be disadvantaged [7]. In this sense, individuals whose first language is not English have trouble in using and understanding the language of the legal domain. Hence, having less knowledge about English puts someone at a disadvantage position.

Eades in Gibbons and Turell [6,8] also states that, the most challenging aspect of any legal system is to deliver an ‘equal protection of the law’ to everybody. In order to address this, Eades cites that it necessitates an understanding of the intricacies of multilingualism, and the differences in culture and dialect, and the needs of individuals who are not expert in English, which is the language of the legal domain.

Moreover, Rogers cites that defendants who are mentally disordered possess a lack of understanding of the Miranda doctrine [9-11]. He cites that Miranda warnings seems to be unfamiliar to a majority of people. Meanwhile, Domanico [5] in his research on the use of Miranda doctrine shows that most suspects have a tendency to abandon their Miranda rights and immediately submit to interrogation, because police officers use strategies that will lead them to invoke their rights.

On the other hand, Bowen in his study, showed that minority group members such as the aborigines who are not good speakers of English have the tendency to incriminate themselves and have the feeling of confusion and disempowerment when faced with the process of the law [12]. Likewise, Rogers in his study also revealed that defendants who are in great need of legal help are those who are ignorant of the law, thus there is a need to explain the Miranda rights in a manner that will allow them to better know the meaning of it. Further, Rogers cites that juveniles’ comprehension is not as good with adults [13]. With the presence of terminologies in the Miranda which are complex and legal in nature, it hinders the ability of youngsters to understand its content and importance.

With the aforementioned studies, it can be deduced that juveniles, ignorant individuals, mentally disordered defendants and those whose dominant language is not English are faced with the greatest disadvantage before the law. In situations where they are read the Miranda rights during actual arrest, they resort to waiving it because of the lack of awareness and knowledge about it coupled with the difficulty of understanding due to the complex and difficult words that it has.

In the case of the arrestee, they can be considered disadvantaged because they belong to the second language speakers and are ignorant about legal language and the rules of law. It has to be emphasized that their dominant language is not English, which is the language of the legal domain. This kind of scenario puts them at risk to be marginalized and discriminated especially when they are faced with situation that uses the English language as a medium of communication during encounters with police officers. With the disadvantage and discrimination that arrestees face because of not being able to understand the Miranda doctrine, which is primarily attributed to the use of language, this study is conducted to investigate the language of police arrest in the Philippines and to draw implications on the upholding of the Miranda rights. This research project also aims to review the policy of police arrest in the Philippines in line with the actual practice. Further, this study hypothesizes that the improper use of language in the legal domain leads to marginalization of the people who are considered as disadvantaged before the law.

With these objectives at hand, this research is deemed significant for it will provide answers on how the improper use of language in the legal domain contributes to marginalization of disadvantaged individuals and at the same time this endeavour will add to the limited studies on language and law in the Philippine context.

Languages used in police arrests

This research project is intended to investigate the language of police arrest in the Philippines in order to know if the improper use of language leads to marginalization of people at the same time to be able to draw implications on the upholding of the Miranda doctrine. To carry out the said objective, the researcher used the descriptive qualitative method of research. Extracts of the data were gathered through interviews with selected respondents who are police officers in one of the regions in the Philippines who are doing the actual arrest. The research respondents were purposively selected by the researcher. Before the actual interview, the researcher initially visited the station of the arresting police officers in order to seek permission for the conduct of the interview and to set the date for the actual interview. After seeking permission from the respondents, an informed consent was given to them for ethical purposes. A set of questions were prepared by the researcher that were used for the interview. The researcher did notetaking and recording during the interview process. After the conduct of the interview, the researcher transcribed the recorded interview for data analysis.

Conclusion

Given the findings, this research suggests the need to review the policies on police arrest in the Philippines so that there is alignment of the policy to the actual practice. In addition, arresting police officers must be constantly reminded of the importance of reading the Miranda rights during police arrest so that the arrestee/s will be aware of the salient components of this right that is to remain silent and to get a lawyer. The research also suggests the need for the arresting police officer to explain clearly and conscientiously to the arrestee the content and meaning of the Miranda doctrine especially for individuals who are disadvantaged before the law such as second language speakers, intellectually disabled people, and minority groups. In this manner, the disadvantaged individuals will be able to receive an equal protection before the law. Finally, negligence to read the Miranda rights does not only violate the rules on arrest but it puts into peril the life of the arrestee.

References

1. Solan, Lawrence M & Peter M Tiersma. “The Oxford handbook of language and law.” Oxford University Press, United Kingdom, 2012.
2. Stuart, Gary L. “Miranda: The story of America’s right to remain silent.” Tucson: University of Arizona Press, USA, 2004.
3. Caldwell, Mitchell H and Michael S Lief. “You have the right to remain silent: The strange story behind the most cited case in American history.” American Heritage, 57 (2006).
4. Coulthard, Malcolm and Alison Johnston. "The Routledge handbook of Forensic linguistics." Routledge, New York, USA, 2010.
5. Domanico, Anthony J, Michael D Cicchini and Lawrence T White. “Overcoming Miranda: a content analysis of the Miranda portion of police interrogations.” Idaho L Rev, 49 (2012): 1-22.
6. Eades, Diana. “Coutroom talk and neocolonial control.” Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Genthiner Str., Berlin, 2008.
7. Gonzalez, Andrew. “Incongruity between the language of law and the language of court proceedings: The Philippine experience.” Lang, Soc law 16 (1996): 229- 234.
8. Gibbons, John & Turell M Teresa. “Dimensions of forensic linguistics.” John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2008.
9. “Philippine National Police Manual.” Philippine National Police Operational Procedures, Philippine, Asia, 2010.
10. Rogers, Richard, Kimberly S Harrison, Daniel W Shuman, Kenneth W Sewell, Lisa L Hazelwood. “An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage.” Law Hum Behav 31 (2006): 177–192.
11. Rogers, Richard, Lisa L Hazelwood, Kenneth W Sewell, Kimberly S Harrison, Daniel W Shuman. “The language of Miranda warnings in American jurisdictions: A replication and vocabulary analysis.” Law Hum Behav 32 (2007): 124-136.
12. Rogers, Richard, Lisa L Hazelwood, Kenneth W Sewell, Daniel W Shuman, Blackwood, Hayley L. “The comprehensibility and content of juvenile Miranda warnings.” Psychol. Public Policy, Law 14 (2008): 63-87.
13. Bowen, Alex. “It’s your rights, Ok?: Explaining the right to silence to Aboriginal suspects in the Northern Territory.” Australian National University, Australia, 2017.
14. Tiersma, Peter M. “Legal language.” University of Chicago Press Books, USA, 1999.
15. Biber, Katherine. “How silent is the right to silence?” Cult Stud Rev 18 (2012): 148-170.