8.

LIBRT Giving of Subpoena Powers to the Chief PNP is Constitutional

AFFIRMATIVE

Honorable adjudicators, worthy opponents, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

The resolution before us today is that the giving of subpoena powers to the Chief PNP is constitutional.
Let it be set that the parameters of this debate will include only the question of the constitutionality of the
granting of subpoena powers to the Chief PNP, and not on the exercise of such powers.

The affirmative side defines subpoena according to Section 21, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court which states
that a “subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing or the
trial of an action, or at any investigation conducted by competent authority, or for the taking of his deposition.
It may also require him to bring with him any books, documents, or other things under his control, in which case
it is called a subpoena duces tecum.”

As such, the affirmative has identified two reasons why the giving of subpoena powers to the Chief PNP
is constitutional and necessary:
(1) There is a need to speed up criminal investigation; and,
(2) There is a need to prevent extrajudicial killing.

On March 1, 2018, President Rodrigo Duterte signed Republic Act 10973, which amends Republic Act
6975 or the Local Government Code. Under RA 10973, the PNP Chief and the Director and Deputy Director for
Administration of the PNP-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group “shall have the power to administer oath,
issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum (documents) in relation to its investigation.”

The purpose of subpoena is to assist in the investigation process in criminal proceedings. In our laws and
jurisprudence, the conviction of the accused should always be based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, status quo illustrates that proving the guilt of the person, more so in criminal cases, takes a very long
time, is very difficult, and more often than not, deliberately prevented in order to prevent, or possibly evade,
conviction.
 With the existence of RA 10973 giving the Chief PNP the powers to issue subpoena, the criminal
investigation process will improve because the Chief PNP will now have the power to compel a person or a
witness to present evidence which is vital to the disposition of the criminal case. Not only will this save time and
resources of the government, but this will also result to the catering of new cases which is essential in a state
where justice is given the utmost importance.

If one has nothing to hide, one need not be afraid.

As to our second argument for the necessity of the proposition, there is a need to prevent extrajudicial
killings. According to the Human Rights Watch World Report 2017, the Philippines has seen an unprecedented
level of killing by law enforcement since Duterte took office. Police statistics show that from July 1 to November
3, 2016, police killed an estimated 1,790 suspected “drug pushers and users.” The death toll constitutes a nearly
20-fold jump over the 68 such police killings recorded between January 1 and June 15, 2016. Police statistics
attribute an additional 3,001 killings of alleged drug dealers and drug users to unknown vigilantes from July 1 to
September 4.

With the giving of subpoena powers to the Chief PNP, he can summon a person to appear before him
for interrogation and determine any probable cause or guilt of any person, thereby preventing any extrajudicial
killing, which as established is already rampant, in the process.

Moreover, it is part of the newly-enacted law that the person who appears for investigation due to the
receipt of subpoena must appear with a lawyer, otherwise the testimony will be null and void. Therefore, even
the Miranda rights, or the right to remain silent and to counsel and that any statement one might make might
be used against him, is protected.

With these constructive points being raised, we stand firm that the giving of subpoena powers to the
Chief PNP is constitutional.
 8. LIBRT Giving of Subpoena Powers to the Chief PNP is Constitutional
NEGATIVE

Honorable adjudicators, worthy opponents, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

The first speaker of the affirmative side has raised these grounds regarding the necessity of the granting
of subpoena powers to the Chief PNP…. However, (REBUTTALS).

With those being said, I will now proceed with my constructive speech.

Ladies and gentlemen, granting of subpoena powers to the Chief PNP is unconstitutional and is not
necessary. The negative side of the bench has identified two reasons why:
(1) There is no need to grant the Chief PNP subpoena powers because warrant of arrest and search
warrants already exist; and,
(2) There is no need to grant the Chief PNP subpoena powers because the current criminal justice system
is already designed in a way that has improved criminal proceedings without impairing any
constitutional right afforded to the people.

Sec. 2, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.”

The essence of the issuance of subpoena is to compel a person or a witness to present himself before
the Chief PNP for interrogation in order for the latter to get evidence that would assist in the determination of
probable cause or the guilt of the accused. However, while it is true that RA 10973 granting the Chief PNP
subpoena powers calls for the need for the subpoena to state the nature and purpose of investigation, and be
directed to the person whose attendance is required, it only requires a “reasonable description of the books or
documents being sought” in cases of subpoena duces tecum.
 This runs contrary to the constitutional right of persons against unreasonable search and seizure. In
Stonehill vs. Diokno, and in any settled cases before and after it, the requisites of a valid search warrant are
stated: (1) That no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner
set forth in the Constitution; and, (2) That the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized.

Again, under RA 10973, what only needs to be stated is a “reasonable description of the books or
documents to be sought”, while it is constitutionally guaranteed that should any evidence be derived from a
witness, it should be described with particularity. This means that the powers of the Chief PNP to issue subpoena
would circumvent the constitutional right of the people by imposing a very lax requirement.

What then is the purpose of warrants of arrest and search warrants if the Chief PNP is now able to get
evidence without such?

As to our second argument, there is no need to grant the Chief PNP subpoena powers because the
current criminal justice system is already designed in a way that has improved criminal proceedings without
impairing any constitutional right afforded to the people.

The primary purpose for the granting by the President to the Chief PNP of subpoena powers is to speed
up the criminal justice system. However, it should be emphasized that in 1998, Congress already passed RA 8493
or the Speedy Trial Act providing for procedural rules to “ensure a speedy trial of all criminal cases before the
Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial
Court.”

Following the passage of this law, pre-trials began to be conducted after arraignment. At this level, facts
are stipulated, evidence of both parties are marked, and both prosecution and defense can object to the
admissibility of evidence. The logic behind it was so when the case reaches trial, it is already solid and concise,
making it quicker for the courts to hear and resolve it.

Therefore, with regard to the purpose to speed up criminal investigation, this is already being remedied
by the enactment of the Speedy Trial Act. Unlike RA 10973 granting subpoena powers to the Chief PNP which
blatantly circumvents the Constitution, not to mention infringes the constitutional right of the people, the
Speedy Trial Act is doing what it exactly is meant to do – to assist in criminal proceedings without violating any
constitutionally guaranteed right.