![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Civilian review boards have become popular throughout the world as agencies that handle citizens’ complaints against the police. In 1991, the Philippines established a body synonymous to a civilian review board known as the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB). This study comparatively examines the satisfaction of the complainants and police officers about the boards and their processes in the National Capital Region of the Philippines. Specifically, the study analyzes the relationship between the boards’ integrity and clients’ satisfaction. In general, the respondents claim that functional rather than structural independence of the board is a significant factor for their satisfaction. Also, experience with civilian review has differential influences on police officers’ satisfaction with the board.
Notes
[1] The number of PLEB offices does not correspond to the number of cities and municipalities due to a legal provision requiring each legislative district in the city to establish at least one PLEB office (Section 27, R.A. 6975). Thus, the city of Manila has six PLEB offices because there are six legislative districts.
[2] Under Section 4, Rule III of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 91002, the PLEB shall be composed of the following: (a) any member of the Sangguniang Panglunsod/Bayan (city or municipal council) chosen by his/her respective sangunian (council); (b) any barangay captain of the city or municipality concerned chosen by the Association of Barangay Captains; and (c) three other members who shall be chosen by the Peace and Order Council from the community, one of whom must be a member of the Bar or, in the absence thereof, a college graduate, or the principal of the central elementary school in the locality. The Secretary of the Interior and Local Government oversees the selection and screening of PLEB members representing the community and, where warranted, may direct the replacement of said PLEB members by persons who meet the statutory qualification. The chairperson of each PLEB is chosen by its members.
[3] Integrity has to be measured from the experience of each individual respondent as the study included respondents over the span of 10 years and they might have been processed under varying circumstances. It must be remembered that composition, location, and processes may change over time in different jurisdictions. Therefore, the most accurate measure would come from the clients. Also note that former police officers may be appointed to the PLEB. It is not uncommon for retired police officers to be appointed to a public office such as PLEB. This fact may impress upon the clients that the PLEB member may be sympathetic to the police.
[4] To accommodate complainants who had difficulties reading or understanding the questionnaire in English, the interviewer translated the questionnaire items in the vernacular. Although two methods of administering the survey were used, the questions remained the same. This dual method was employed by Strudwick (Citation2003) when she investigated the complaint process in the UK. Also, out of the 515 complainants only 11 (2%) opted for the oral interview, thus, its overall impact on the outcome of the survey was minimal.
[5] The researchers who assisted were three graduate students from a university in Manila who were trained by the author in research methods. The author was head of the Student Affairs Office when this study was conducted and this provided the author the ability to supervise and monitor the daily activities of the researchers.
[6] A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines. It may be compared to a neighborhood. This political subdivision is headed by a captain who has jurisdiction in several blocks in a municipality or a city.
[7] This latter group of officers might be considered self‐selected respondents but they were few to alter the survey outcomes. However, the low response rate limits the generalizability of the findings.
[8] A reviewer raised a concern regarding the approach of considering satisfaction as a one‐dimensional construct. The reviewer’s observation is valid but numerous studies have used satisfaction as a one‐dimensional measure and the field has not considered the approach as severely affecting the reliability of the measure.