SC approves rules on use of body cameras when serving search, arrest warrants

The Supreme Court (SC) has approved a resolution providing rules for the mandatory use of body-worn cameras during the execution of search and arrest warrants.

The SC en Banc has specified the guidelines under Administrative Matter 21-06-08-SC dated June 29, 2021.

Under the resolution, law enforcers must have at least one body-worn camera and one alternative recording device or such number needed to record the relevant incidents during the execution of search or arrest warrants.

In case of unavailability of body-worn cameras, law enforcers shall file a motion before the court to use alternative recording devices for justifiable reasons.

Arrest warrants

For arrest warrants, law enforcers are mandated to notify the person to be arrested and other subjects of the recording that the execution of the warrant of arrest is being recorded.

The cameras shall be worn in a “conspicuous location” and in a manner that will maximize the ability to record the entire arrest.

Both video and audio recording functions shall be activated by law enforcers as soon as they arrive at the place of arrest.

It shall not be deactivated until the arrest has been fully concluded or the person arrested was brought to the nearest police station or jail.

For warrantless arrests, the recordings and the affidavits of arrest shall be submitted to the prosecutor handling the inquest proceedings.

“Failure to observe the requirement of using body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices shall not render the arrest unlawful or render the evidence obtained inadmissible,” the SC said.

The high court explained that the facts surrounding the arrest may be proved by the testimonies of the arresting officers, the person arrested, and other witnesses to the arrest. 

However, law enforcers may be liable for contempt of court if they fail to use body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices without reasonable grounds or they intentionally interfere with the body-worn cameras' ability to “accurately capture audio and video recordings of the arrest, or otherwise manipulates such recording during or after the arrest.”

Search warrants

For search warrants, law enforcers, as early as practicable, are still mandated to notify the lawful occupants of the premises to be searched that their warrant was approved by the court and the entire operations are being recorded.

The cameras shall be worn in a “conspicuous location” and in a manner that will maximize the ability to record the entire search operations.

Both video and audio recording functions shall be activated by law enforcers as soon as they arrive at the place of search and it shall not be deactivated until the operations are fully concluded and the police officers are back at the station.

“Failure to observe the requirement of using body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices, without reasonable grounds, during the execution of the search warrant shall render the evidence obtained inadmissible for the prosecution of the offense for which the search warrant was applied,” the SC said.

Likewise, law enforcers may be liable for contempt of court if they fail to adhere to the requirements during the execution of a search warrant or they intentionally interfere with the body-worn cameras' “ability to accurately capture audio and video recordings of the search, or otherwise manipulate such recording during or after the search.”

Recordings from body-worn cameras and alternative recording devices will be stored in an external media storage device and will be deposited in a sealed package with the issuing court.

The recordings should come with the affidavits of the officers whose body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices were used, indicating the date, time, place of recording, and other circumstances surrounding the execution of either the arrest warrants or search warrants.

The legal counsels and the subjects of the recording shall witness the downloading of the footage from the body cameras and alternative devices.

The guidelines also specified the chain of custody over the recordings.

In issuing the resolution, the SC en banc noted the increasing reports of civilian deaths resulting from the execution of warrants issued by trial courts.

Following these incidents, SC said various legal groups and human rights advocates urged the high court to review its rule on the issuance of search warrants.

NUPL

Meanwhile, the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) welcomed the issuance of the guidelines saying they are “grateful and appreciative of the responsive action of the SC on the matter.”

“Generally, it is grounded on abundant experience and appears to have taken into good account the clamor to address the situations that arise in rights violations. It also incorporated or includes provisions similar to the specific concrete recommendations we submitted to the Court,” NUPL president Atty. Edre Olalia said.

The NUPL was referring to the provisions on submission of recordings during inquest, denial of multiple search warrant applications, limiting the scope of the power of courts to issue search warrants only within their judicial region, inadmissibility or suppression of seized evidence in searches without use of recording devices, protocols when deaths occur, use of cameras by witnesses, and rules on chain of custody, among others.

They, however, said some provisions “unwittingly” provide gaps, loopholes, and opportunities for circumvention on the ground.

“At all events, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so to speak, and we shall continue to actively cooperate, recommend and even call out as these welcome reforms are tested out there on the ground.  After all, it is not only a matter of trust and presumptions, but ultimately a matter of experience,” the NUPL said.

Before the guidelines were released, the Philippine National Police (PNP) in June launched the body-worn camera system for the police to ensure transparency and legitimacy of law enforcement operations.

An initial 2,696 body-worn camera units have been distributed to 171 police stations and offices, but the PNP needs 33,000 to 34,000 units to cover the entire country’s police force. —KG, GMA News