Worse than convicts
Convicted criminals are treated far better in this country than detainees still undergoing trial. Convicts live in relative heaven while detainees whose guilt is still unproven languish in virtual hell.
Look at pictures showing the comfortable conditions of convicts at the New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) in Muntinlupa City. Compare these with pictures revealing the hellish conditions of detainees languishing in city and municipal jails, and those waiting for the government to overturn their “presumption of innocence” in long court trials. Weep at how those presumed innocent are treated far worse than convicted criminals.
Pictures show appalling differences between the lives of convicts at the NBP and the presumed-innocent detainees in city or municipal jails. The convicts sleep in ample sleeping spaces, while the detainees take turns at sleeping and sitting up because they are packed like sardines. The state of our city or municipal jails reveal subhuman living conditions suffered by detainees still undergoing trial.
The secret detention cell hidden behind a book shelf found by a team from the Commission on Human Rights in a surprise visit at a Tondo police station last March—where 12 detainees ate, slept, and defecated in a small, windowless, and dingy space—is an illustrative example of how detainees who are presumed innocent under our Constitution are treated like
animals in reality. In fact, stray dogs and cats who sleep unburdened by severely constricted spaces enjoy far better lives.
Convicts can do exercises, socialize, bask under the sun, and breathe fresh air because of the NBP’s expansive outdoor grounds. But presumed-innocent detainees have no access at all to outdoor
areas in city or municipal jails.
Convicts have access to the following: recreational facilities where they can play various sports; educational facilities where they can complete schooling from elementary to college, or undergo vocational training, or enroll in adult literacy programs; and opportunities to engage in the production of handicraft that will enable them to earn income. In contrast, detainees whose criminal liability has not been proven have no access at all to such facilities and programs.
It is true that detainees whose cases remain pending can generally post bail to continue enjoying liberty while they undergo trial, unlike convicted criminals who are not entitled to bail. But the availability of bail
betrays an abhorrent injustice: If one has the means, one can post bail and avoid the subhuman life in jail. If one is poor, tough luck, one has to endure hell on earth while the government takes its sweet time hearing one’s case. As a result, we are a country that puts an economic qualification for being entitled to the benefits of “presumption of innocence.”
Notwithstanding the lofty words of our Constitution proclaiming that “the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,” our country condemns detainees who cannot afford bail to suffer a life worse than that lived by convicts until they prove themselves innocent.
Despite the exalted words of the Constitution declaring that no “cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment” shall be inflicted against any prisoner or detainee, our country has instead customarily employed these prohibited forms of punishment against detainees.
In spite of the noble words of the Constitution outlawing the “use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions,” our country has institutionalized the use of these forbidden jail facilities against presumed-innocent detainees.
If an impoverished accused were given a choice between the status of a presumed-innocent detainee and a convicted criminal, it is not hard to imagine that he or she would readily plead guilty (even if innocent) and get convicted fast in order to be entitled to a far better life in this country.
Comments to [email protected]
