Parking disputes. Family quarrels. Unpaid debts. Homeowners association conflicts.
Since when did these become classifications of complaints that should never have been filed?
In the report on his October 7 interview with DZRH’s “The Situation Report,” Justice Secretary Fredderick Vida warned against “weaponizing the prosecutor’s office.” He referred to quarrels among siblings, homeowners association disputes, and contractual debts given an angle to make them appear to be estafa.
But the Department of Justice should be careful about the message it sends. The setting of a dispute does not determine whether a crime has been committed. A complaint does not become frivolous merely because the parties are siblings, neighbors, homeowners, or persons who once trusted each other with money.
Consider a family member who, through fraud or misappropriation, wastes the estate of the parents to the detriment of the other heirs. Should the aggrieved heirs be turned away because theirs is supposedly just a family quarrel? Kinship does not excuse wrongdoing. The fact that the offender is a brother or sister may make the betrayal more painful, but it does not make the grievance meaningless.
Consider, too, a debtor who issues a worthless check and then avoids receiving letters of demand, hoping to use the notice requirement under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 as an escape valve. Must the complainant be treated as someone merely using the prosecutor’s office as a collection agency? The prosecutor must examine the acts complained of and the evidence supporting them. Calling the controversy an unpaid debt does not answer whether a criminal offense was committed.
Then there are homeowners association disputes. A contest over leadership may become the occasion for circulating or publishing libelous letters to embarrass a neighbor, destroy his reputation, or discredit him before the community. Does the existence of an association controversy make the defamatory act unworthy of investigation? A homeowner does not surrender his reputation upon joining an association.
These complainants are often ordinary, humble citizens. They seek redress because they believe they have been swindled, defamed, or taken advantage of by someone who expects to escape accountability. They approach the DOJ for assistance, protection, and vindication. They should not be received as though their grievances are merely an inconvenience to the government. Btw, the annual budget of the DoJ is ₱46.435B. Is this inadequate in one year’s operations?
That is precisely why the prosecutor’s office exists. Its personnel are paid to examine complaints, evaluate evidence, and determine whether prosecution is warranted. The work cannot be avoided by attaching a dismissive label to the relationship between the parties.
The heightened preliminary investigation standard of reasonable certainty of conviction already places a heavier burden on complainants. If that burden is accompanied by an institutional attitude that family disputes, unpaid debts, and homeowners association conflicts are presumptively frivolous, access to criminal justice becomes even more forbidding.
How is an ordinary citizen supposed to feel when, after gathering documents, engaging counsel, and recounting a humiliating experience, he is told that he is merely “weaponizing” the DOJ?
Filing a complaint necessarily causes inconvenience to the respondent. He must answer allegations and account for his conduct. That consequence alone does not establish harassment. Otherwise, every complainant could be accused of weaponizing the law simply because the person complained against would prefer to be left undisturbed.
A target of resolving complaints within 120 days may serve the public. But speed must come from diligent evaluation. It must not come from treating whole categories of human grievances as undeserving of the prosecutor’s attention.
There is a deeper danger in driving complainants away. A person who already feels oppressed may come to believe that the institutions established to protect him offer no remedy. Despair and resentment can deepen until he is tempted to take the law into his own hands.
That is a warning about the consequences of institutional abandonment. A justice system that closes its doors to grievances risks feeding the very violence and criminality it is supposed to prevent.
The DOJ may congratulate itself for reducing its docket, only to find that the grievances it refused to examine have irrigated that docket with murder and other premeditated crimes. “I want to commit the murder I was imprisoned for.” [J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban]
Examine the complaint. Test the evidence. Determine whether the elements of the offense are present. Dismiss it when the evidence and the law warrant dismissal.
But do not dismiss the citizen before examining his grievance. Justice cannot be measured solely by how many complaints the government succeeds in turning away.
Editor’s Note: The publication provides this space as a venue for the free expression of ideas. The opinions, comments, and statements contained in this column are solely those of the author. The publisher, editors, and staff neither endorse nor assume responsibility for the views expressed herein and shall not be held liable for any claims arising from the contents of this article.