Scophil files direct assault and grave misconduct case against Duterte

Taking the cudgels for their mauled colleague, the Sheriff’s Confederation of the Philippines Inc. (Scophil) on Monday hit back at Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte, slapping her with a direct assault and grave misconduct complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman.

In a statement, Scophil said they chose to file the complaint because all of the sheriffs in the country’s courts and quasi-judicial agencies and tribunals are the injured parties in the attack against Sheriff Abe Andres.

“That attack—done while Abe was performing his official duties—impinges upon our very essence as agents of the law tasked to enforce lawful writs and processes without fear or favor—our ‘soul’ as sheriffs, so to speak. We cannot let it pass,” it said.

Duterte punched Andres when the latter tried to enforce a court order to demolish houses in a contested property in Davao City despite her request for a two-hour delay.

Andres himself has chosen not to file a complaint against Duterte. Scophil said it respects his decision, but it cannot take the incident sitting down.

Read more at Philippine Daily Inquirer

Con Yap

  • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

    Duterte may have been a little physical in this instance, but human realities overrule the same. That’s the tragic eventuality when one’s house and territory is threatened.

    Who desires to be evicted and left homeless?

    Laws were made to serve human needs, and not humans to serve the law or the system. That’s one flaw of our legal system. We are strict on the letter, losing the spirit behind it.

    The Sheriff should have known better.

    • Bert

      “That’s the tragic eventuality when one’s house and territory is threatened.”

      One’s house was threatened by a member of the household, wanting to enforce the law of the household. The head of the household battered the enforcer of the law of the household. And that, is the tragic eventuality.

      “Who desires to be evicted and left homeless?”

      Simple. Certainly not the legal and legitimate owner of the lot.

      • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

        Legitimacy is only conceptual. Actual humans with actual lives are residing in the property which should not have been tolerated in the first place. But since they were allowed to occupy the same, we simply cannot enforce the letter of the law to dispossess actual human beings from the same.

        We are a government of laws, but the same laws have been designed to serve human interests and human welfare. It is not rigid but flexible and adaptable to circumstance.

        Ownership is theoretical. From the largest perspective, all forms of ownership are temporal. There is nothing you brought into this world, not a single atom, you shall leave the same with every atom left within the same sphere.

        And don’t even think that just because you were once president or mayor, you are privileged from the same circumstance. Everything goes back to the box at the end of the monopoly game, so we better make the game worthwhile for everyone while we’re still in it.

        • Bert

          The law is hard, but it is the law. To disregard the law, and replaced it with the law of the jungle is folly.

        • Bert

          In a law of the jungle, the lion is king. Well, some people love the rule of the lion. Not me.