DIFFERENT APPROACHES IN POLICING

Police and researchers have developed a variety of different policing strategies, philosophies, and
methods for dealing with crime. Often, different approaches to policing overlap because different
groups come up with similar solutions to the same problems. These various approaches may be
aimed at goals that include crime prevention, effective use of police resources, or suspect
location. Rigorous research can determine which strategies are the most effective in various
circumstances.

The organization of police in different countries is primarily rooted in the socio-cultural and
historic background of the country. As such police organizations have nothing in common in
many countries except their basic goals.

This topic presents the different models of policing and innovative policing or strategies.

MODELS OF POLICING

The models of policing are categorized based on a.) legitimacy and b.) command structure.

1. Classification based on legitimacy or legal backing of police function:

 Policing by consent
o It indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is
based upon a general consensus of support that follows from
transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those
powers, and their accountability for doing so.
o This approach was expressed in "Peelian Principles"

Sir Robert Peel's Policing Principles

In 1829, Sir Robert Peel established the London Metropolitan Police Force. He
became known as the "Father of Modern Policing and commissioners established a
list of policing principles that crucial and urgent today as they were two centuries
They contain three core ideas and nine principles.

9 Policing Principles
1. To prevent crime and disorder as an alternative to their repression by military force
and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties
is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their
ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3. To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the
public means also the securing of the willing cooperation of the public in the task of
securing observance of laws.

4. To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be
secured

diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion
for

achieving police objectives

5. To seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by
constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to law, in complete independence
of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual
laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the
public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy
and friendly good humor, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting
and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is
found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure
observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical
force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the
historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the
police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to
duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and
existence.

8. To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and
to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging
individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty
9. To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and
disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing wi

 Based on this policing approach, police forces are not an arm of the state but
servants of the community whose confidence they must secure. Moreover,
success in this depends upon police officers understanding the fears and
apprehensions of all groups of people within the community, including ethnic
minorities, and doing whatever is necessary to enable all citizens to go about
their lawful business.
  This approach was underlined by Lord Scarman who stressed that if the police
are to secure the confidence and assent of the community, they must strike a
balance between the measures to enforce the law and the maintenance of the
peace.
 Policing by law
o It believes in the word of the law, and for them, it's set in stone. It denies any form of
flexibility to suit your purpose.

2. Classification Based on Command Structure:

 Centralized
o refers to a setup in which the decision-making powers are concentrated
in a few leaders at the top of the organizational structure.
o Decisions are made at the top and communicated to lower-level
managers for implementation.
 Decentralized
o A type of organizational structure in which daily operations and
decision-making responsibilities are delegated by top management to
middle and lower-level managers.
o This frees up top management to focus more on major decisions.
o Do not have an apparent command structure.
 Single/ Singular
o The default operating system is used by most small businesses, because
it centralizes decision-making with the owner.
o Unlike other organizational structures, the simple, or flat, structure
doesn't have formal departments and layers of management.
o If a country has a single force, under a single commander.
 Multiple ( Coordinated or Uncoordinated )
o new organizations or arrangements that result from the partnership of
two or more organizations.
o If a country has a number of police forces (i.e India).
 Multiple Coordinated - if police forces have well-defined
territories of functioning and their functions do not overlap each
other.
 Multiple Uncoordinated - many agencies can have overlapping
jurisdictions.
 Coordinated Centralized - police force is highly organized and having
centralized command.

The above-mentioned model classification is based on two dimensions:

1. The number of forces to be commanded.

2. The type of forces.
  TRADITIONAL POLICING
o tends to draw from police officers and law enforcement agencies
working solely at identifying problems in the community
and tackling how to solve them on their own.
o Departments that use more traditional policing also tend to be more
reactive and can create a disconnect with the community.

Innovative Policing

 COMMUNITY POLICING
o The partnership between the community and law enforcement agencies,
especially the police
o Two main components: Community Partnership and Problem Solving

For example: There is a rapid increase in robbery cases in Barangay Sinamar Norte.
Hence, the municipal police station of San Mateo gathered all barangay officials to
discuss the problem and gather suggestive solutions and propose their own policing
method to address the problem.

However, this community partnership is not an immediate process. Below is an

illustration of how community policing works.
 BROKEN WINDOW THEORY
o James Wilson and George Kelling
o “one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so
breaking more windows costs nothing.”
 PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING
o It was first introduced by Herman Goldstein in 1979.
o Goldstein together with John Eck and William Spelman (1987) created
the SARA Model for problem-solving.
o SARA MODEL
o Scanning - (first step); involves the police identifying and
prioritizing potential
 problems in their jurisdiction that may be causing crime
and disorder
o Analysis - This involves the police analyzing the
identified problem(s) so that appropriate responses can be
developed.
o Response - has the police developing and implementing
interventions designed to solve the problem(s)
o Assessment - involves assessing the impact of the response
on the targeted problem(s).
o means diagnosing and solving problems that are increasing crime risks,
usually in areas that are seeing comparatively high levels of crime (e.g.,
“hot spots”). (RandCorporation)
 PULLING LEVERS POLICING
o Selecting a particular crime problem (such as youth homicide);
o Developing a response to offenders or groups of offenders that uses a
variety of sanctions (“pulling levers”) to stop continued violent behavior;
 THIRD-PARTY POLICING
o Persuade or coerce third parties such as landlords, parents, local
governments and other regulators, and business owners in the crime
prevention and suppression
 HOTSPOT POLICING
o Focusing police efforts at crime prevention in a very small geographic
area where crime concentrates.
 COMPSTAT POLICING
o Computer Comparison Statistics
 EVIDENCE-BASED POLICING
o implicates the use of research, evaluation, analysis, and scientific
processes in law enforcement decision-making.
o This requires a strong emphasis on analysis and data to guide decision-
making.
 Others

POLICING A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY

The fall of the Iron Curtain, persistent regional conflicts, repression and political
unrest, the opening of borders by previously closed societies, and a variety of trends
related to globalization figure prominently in the world at the end of the 20th century
and the beginning of the 21st. A consequence of this international tumult has been the
migration of large numbers of people from one place to another. This movement is
changing the cultural diversity and the ethnic composition of both sending and
receiving areas, in some cases transforming longstanding homogeneity.

Countries that historically may have been less than welcoming to outsiders have
suddenly become multicultural and multiethnic. In states that have undergone
significant political change without a major influx of immigrants, no less profound
shifts have altered features and expectations of, and demands on, societal institutions,
including the police. These internal shifts have literally transformed the “policed” into
the police; peoples who historically were the recipients of police actions and services
have themselves become the police delivering those actions and
services or have been placed in positions to review, revise, or otherwise influence
policing policies and practices.

The Challenge
Notwithstanding differences in the previous postures taken by various jurisdictions
toward immigrants and marginalized subjects, a common underlying question
remains:

What impact have these transnational trends had on institutions dedicated to the
preservation of order and stability?

Indeed, one of the societal institutions for which these emerging global patterns can be
expected to have posed fundamental challenges is the police. The police in all
societies are charged with maintaining public order and protecting public safety, and
that generally means conserving the status quo in whatever form it may take. The
police are inherently conservative in both their actions and their predispositions. They
represent the vested economic and political interests and values of the societies in
which they perform their policing duties. Where countries are changing and adding
cultural and ethnic multiplicity, the police are most likely to be aligned with the old
cultural and ethnic guard, or they may be perceived as such by new, or newly
empowered, constituents. As a result, questions about the philosophy and practice of
policing are ultimately liable to come under close and probing scrutiny.

The police operate at “street level,” where they have direct contact with all who are
involved in any way with the law and public safety. In fact, the police represent the
sole agency with which the vast majority of those who ever have any dealings with
the criminal justice system come into contact. As a result, the police have enormous
power to influence attitudes and public opinion about fundamental concerns regarding
a political entity’s capacity to act in just, legitimate, and accountable ways. Police-
community relations are shaped on the street and in the station houses, and it is there
that such controversial practices as profiling and “zero tolerance” are enacted. Using
their discretionary arrest powers, the police are also the gatekeepers of the criminal
justice process. They determine who is subjected to the power of the law and who is
not. Because of this unique role and powerful position in society, the police are likely
both to influence and to be influenced by the social implications of migration and
shifts in the political power of various communities.

Rapid transformations in the relative heterogeneity of the population, and the

accompanying discourse on multiculturalism, can lead to questions about the validity
of definitions of laws or crimes for some groups and conceptions of “order” or
“disorder” for others. Conversely, the arrival of new groups often provokes questions
about the appropriateness of practicing what those groups consider “normal” domestic
or familial relations, duties, or privileges. Thus, an increase in the number of ethnic,
cultural, and linguistic communities and racial groups can give rise to conflicts about
the legitimacy of legal and communal standards and definitions, and hence present an
enormous challenge to law enforcement and order maintenance activities.

A Response
Two of the many nations encountering these new challenges to policing are Israel and
the United States. In an effort to better understand the issues, and, most important,
learn the lessons taught by the experiences of others in this critical area, the Israel
National Police (Division of Community Policing and Civil Guard) organized a
conference on policing a multicultural society. The conference, cosponsored by the
National Institute of Justice of the U.S. Department of Justice (hereafter NIJ), was
held in Jerusalem, Israel, in March 2001.

Experts from a number of countries were invited to submit papers and participate in
the workshop. To ensure wide dissemination of the workshop products, agreement
was reached with the academic journal Police and Society to devote a special issue to
this topic. Police and Society (Pinchas Yehezkealy and Orit Shalev, coeditors) is
published (normally only in Hebrew with English abstracts) under the auspices of the
Division of Community Policing and Civil Guard of the Israel National Police.
Because of the broad interest in this important subject, this special issue of Police and
Society is being published in English (with Hebrew abstracts) and, in addition to its
regular subscribers, is being made available by NIJ to a worldwide audience in
electronic form via the NIJ Web site. Not all contributors were able to come to
Jerusalem, but all those submitting a paper have had their contributions considered for
inclusion in this special collection. Decisions have been based upon a rigorous peer
review process.

Contributors to this issue of Police and Society, who are drawn from a variety of
countries, address a wide range of topics and nations. The articles lay out the
problems, contradictions, or dilemmas facing the police in their respective societies
and the ways the various countries have addressed the issues and responded to the
challenges. The authors in this collection take different approaches. The collection
includes general perspectives on some countries, descriptive accounts of practices in
other countries, theoretical perspectives on problems inherent in multicultural policing
in still other countries, and finally, empirical studies delineating some of the issues
that present themselves in specific contexts in yet other countries. The problems
associated with policing in culturally and ethnically diverse societies are not unique to
countries that have undergone dramatic changes in recent years. It is clear that such
problems can also be found in relatively stable, albeit diverse, countries where change
has been more evolutionary than revolutionary.

Three such countries are Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. According to
Philip Stenning, Canada has seen its dramatically increased immigration over a 40-
year period met by police forces that are reluctant to even see the need for, much less
embrace, changes in their organizations and practices to meet the new challenges.
These new challenges are especially apparent in cities like Montreal and Toronto,
where attitudes of immigrants toward government, police, the law, justice, social
order, interpersonal relations, and child rearing clash with the prevailing standards.
Canadian police departments, in their effort to deal with the problems of policing a
multicultural society, have adopted a number of practices, which Stenning discusses
in some detail. Stenning singles out as especially noteworthy the provision of
“cultural sensitivity” training for the police. Such training creates a “conceptual
dilemma,” or ambiguous situation, for officers, based in the attempt to draw a
distinction between “positive” and “negative” discrimination. The “progressive”
policy response is to train the police to be more sensitive to cultural differences, to be
alert to such differences, and to respond accordingly (including, at times, with
tolerance and respect). At the same time, as another tenet of this progressive response,
the police are told that cultural difference is an inappropriate basis for discretionary
decisionmaking and that equal treatment under the law is what is required. The
distinction can prove to be unworkable in practice, and the police response to this
ambiguous message can often be confusion, impatience, and an inclination to stick
with the status quo. Such less than thoroughly developed responses to the task of
improving policeminority relations are central to Simon Holdaway’s analysis of the
role of race in policing, which is framed around two calamitous events in the United
Kingdom. The two events - a police crackdown and the subsequent racial riots in
Brixton, London, in 1981, and the police investigation of the murder of a black youth
in 1993 - led to much soul searching and to efforts at police reform. Holdaway argues,
however, that typical police responses to these and similar incidents are misplaced and
ineffective.

New laws, policies, managerial strategies, and training in multicultural issues are
equally unlikely to improve police-minority race relations. In fact, he argues that an
overemphasis on multiculturalism can actually reinforce rather than ameliorate racial
prejudice and that discrimination (evident in the differential meanings and experience
of “citizenship”) can function independently of multicultural policies and
prescriptions. So what should be done? He argues that “racialisation” is key to
understanding (and possibly improving) police-minority relations. Racialisation is not
limited to actions undertaken by the police or other state agents; it is an ongoing,
constitutive process, integral to the construction of social reality, evident in the
ongoing classification of individuals into (and out of) racial categories that furnish
grounds for subsequent inference and action or inaction. Holdaway submits that
people do not possess “race” or “racial identities” uniformly. Although group
identification and categorization are inevitable, there must be recognition that the
nature of police-minority race relations is shaped by a mutually interactive process.

Australia provides an interesting contrast to those countries, like Canada and Britain,
where the multicultural policing issues are related to relatively recent immigration
(that is, situations where the problems arise from traditional police forces having to
deal with new immigrants). In Australia, according to Mazerolle, Lindsay, and
Marchetti, the main multicultural policing challenges emanate from the indigenous
Australian communities. The Aboriginals and others who make up these communities
are not newcomers; they actually preceded the more recent white Australians who
began arriving 200 years ago. The issue, instead, is the disparate economic, political,
and social relationship between the white and indigenous Australians. Mazerolle,
Lindsay, and Marchetti note that, although indigenous peoples live predominately in
rural areas, and consequently there are not ethnic ghettos in Australian cities, the
police are highly centralized. There is thus “little basis for diversity and localized
approaches to policing local communities.” And it is just such local communities that
constitute the vast majority of all Aboriginal communities. The result is that, despite a
number of initiatives to reduce social distance, the Australian police continue to
exacerbate the historical tensions between themselves and the indigenous populations.
In their article, Adelman, Erez, and Shalhoub-Kevorkian focus on the tensions the
police face when policing violence against women in multicultural societies,
particularly the theoretical and pragmatic dilemmas involved in respecting differences
while enforcing laws in a nondiscriminatory fashion. The authors examine the
gendered meaning of “community” in community policing and link the
new emphasis in policing on local values, multiculturalism, diversity, and cultural
sensitivity with the invisibility of gender differences within these minority
communities. Community policing is oriented toward partnerships with and input
from the community and toward serving the interests of differentiated “communities.”
It is also oriented toward events and interactions that are taking place on the streets
rather than behind closed doors. But an exclusive focus on the lifeblood and health of
the public face of a community may run the risk of overlooking the welfare and well-
being of the members within the community. As a result, domestic violence may be
placed beyond the reach of community policing. In light of the push to criminalize
domestic violence, community policing may be problematic in multicultural societies
in which police, reflecting the dominant community ideology, characterize
subordinated or minority communities as inherently primitive or violent. Drawing on
the literature on policing violence against minority women, including their research on
the policing of violence against

Arab women in Israel, they argue that gendered racism and racialized sexism shape
victims’ and police responses to domestic violence, resulting in the culturalization and
underpolicing of violence against women in minority communities. They recommend
that police seek out nontraditional community leaders and organizations that challenge
rather than reinforce myths and stereotypes about minority women. Another critical
issue with respect to community policing in a multicultural society is the very
meaning of community itself. Ibarra’s article addresses this topic by looking at the
means and circumstances through which residents of two Los Angeles neighborhoods
contact the police. Drawing on his ethnographic fieldwork, he describes and discusses
the often contradictory perceptions of “order” and “disorder” that can coexist in a
multicultural neighborhood, even one as small as a few city blocks. The data
demonstrate how identifying something as a problem worthy of police response is
contingent on neighborhood social relations as well as ethnic origin, social standing,
immigration status, and/or residents’ personal and political histories. Conceptions of
contacting the police that are prevalent in many Western societies may not, according
to Ibarra, be useful or even applicable to some segments of the population or in some
situations. Alternative ways of contacting the police, as well as different perceptions
of crime and disorder, need to be considered by the police to be effective and to
accomplish their mission. Ibarra emphasizes that it behooves the police to think of
how their work may foster relationships of trust with (and within) the community, as
opposed to engendering hostility, bitterness, and distrust. The issue is not just the state
of relations between the police and the community; also at issue is how relations
among members of a community frame the meaning of contacting the police and are,
in turn, affected by neighbors’ complaints to the police. The decade of the 1990s
witnessed enormous political, economic, and social change.
Among the countries undergoing particularly eventful political upheaval were
Germany and South Africa. Ewald and Feltes describe how the breakdown of the
Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, meant the end of the Iron Curtain and the
beginning of cataclysmic change for Germany. Following the relaxation of borders
that had divided East from West for nearly five decades, a virtual flood of people
began traveling from the East to the West. The formerly homogeneous society of the
socialist German Democrate Republic (East Germany) was transformed practically
overnight, with increased xenophobia and all its repercussions being among its
esults. The former West Germany had an influx of asylum seekers, including persons
from Eastern Europe claiming German heritage. Both the police as an institution and
police officers as individuals had to confront and cope with these critical changes. For
example, police in the East, accustomed to the totalitarian tactics of a police state, had
to determine who they now represented, the public or the government. According to
Ewald and Feltes, across Germany, there developed great uncertainty among police
officers, the outcome of which often was frustration, opposition to organizational
change, and a general withdrawal from public contact.

The German example is an enormously valuable case study of a society’s efforts to

cope with both the burdens of its past and the new challenges of dramatic change. The
German police have been and continue to be at the center of these efforts. The burdens
of the past and the challenges of the present likewise characterize current
developments in South Africa. Post-apartheid policing offers another illuminating
case example of the profound changes policing has to undergo to cope with the new
realities of a reordered political scene. Buntman and Snyman argue that the new South
African Police Service (SAPS) has both a legal and political commitment to
accommodate cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity. There are, however, two
constraints that limit the multiculturalism of the SAPS. First, their heightened
awareness and concern has not yet been matched by real changes in the ways the
police deal with different citizens and communities. Second, the police have been
overwhelmed by the increases in crime, particularly violent crime— increases that
they are trying to combat with limited human and financial resources.

History tells us that concerns for human rights and civil liberties often take a back seat
to calls for cracking down on crime and preserving law and order under these
circumstances. Buntman and Snyman paint the complex South African scenario in
vivid detail. Finally, William McDonald presents what is perhaps the most optimistic
(and at the same time controversial) of the papers in this collection. Sketching various
developments in the United States, he argues that a new paradigm for policing
multiethnic societies is emerging. Accepting the premise that the police reflect the
societies in which they exist, McDonald concludes that culture in the United States
and other “liberal democratic societies” has become more tolerant of diversity and
demanding of equality and that police practices and policies have moved with this
change. The United States aside, assuming that Australia, Britain, Canada, and
Germany would all qualify as liberal democratic societies, the papers about those
countries in this volume seem to point to a different conclusion. The same might be
said about his conclusion that police priorities are shifting from fighting crime and
maintaining law and order to maintaining racial and ethnic peace. Other authors here
would probably disagree.
Where there would likely not be disagreement is with McDonald’s conclusion that the
challenge for the police in multiethnic, liberal, democratic societies is to find the
proper balance among the public goods at stake. What the McDonald paper
exemplifies is that, indeed, the subject of policing multicultural societies is one about
which there are many opinions. We have tried to capture a few of them in this
collection.

Read the following articles:

Policing for Multi-ethnic Society

Community Policing in Mutlicultural Society

The following video shows some of the police minority encounters.

To understand troubled relations between police and many communities today, we

must first understand the national and global history of policing and acknowledge that
law enforcement has not always stood on the right side of justice. In this candid talk
informed by his 48-year career in law enforcement, former Philadelphia Police
Commissioner Charles Ramsey says law enforcement needs to shift its perceived
mission from one of enforcing the law to one of protecting the rights of all. When the
latter becomes the priority, communities experience not just safer and more secure
neighborhoods but the presence of justice. And the thin blue line that allegedly
separates good from evil instead becomes a strong thread woven throughout the
community, helping to hold together the very fabric of democracy.

Women and Minorities Policing

 PHILIPPINE POLICING SYSTEMS

There are several law enforcement agencies in the Philippines under the Executive branch of the
government. Policing is the responsibility of all law enforcers, including the public officials and
community volunteers in the country. However, the Philippine National Police (PNP) is
considered the primary government agency that is entrusted to promote peace and order, ensure
public safety and effectively discharge its mandate of performing police functions
(senate.gov.ph).

You have learned in your LEA1N (Law enforcement Organization and

Administration- Inter-agency Approach) the development and organizational structure
of the PNP. In this page, Barangay Peacekeeping Operations, Human Rights-Based
policing, including Community and Service-Oriented Policing will be discussed.

I. Barangay Peacekeeping Operations

A. ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE BARANGAY

PEACEKEEPING ACTION TEAM

Pursuant to the authority of the National Peace and Order Council and the Philippine National
Police, the Barangay Peacekeeping Action Team (BPAT) is hereby created as the primary
operators to conduct Community-Oriented Policing and Public Safety System. The BPAT will be
composed of PNP supervisor, Barangay Chairman, Ex-O, Barangay Tanod (sectoral
representatives, police auxiliaries).

MISSION
To conduct peacekeeping activities in association with the various sectors of the community and
ensure their continuous support towards the maintenance of peace and order and safety.

VISION
A peaceful and orderly community is organized and responsive to the safety and security needs
of its citizens in cooperation with the local police.

FUNCTIONS
● Organize and mobilize various sectors of the community in support of the maintenance of
peace and order and safety.
● Conduct crisis management, disaster mitigation, search, rescue, and relief operations within the
community.
● Strengthen and support the Barangay Justice System (Lupong Tagapamayapa).
● Conduct crime prevention and deterrence measures to protect the vulnerable sectors of the
community.

B. APPROACH

As an added feature of the PNP medium term Development Plan Launched on

October 2002, the PNP PCR Masterplan and its two components “Sambayan” and
“Santinig”, have gone a long way insofar as furthering the Community Oriented
Policing System doctrine is concerned. Much has been accomplished in bringing the
police closer to the people, forging partnerships which have successfully addressed
peace and order concerns.
However, with the dynamic nature of humans and his activities, occurrence of crime
and advent of conflicts even the coming of disasters have left our citizens unguarded,
thus, vulnerable to the very traits the humankind bear innately and so with natural
calamities which sometimes come without warning.

With the Barangay Peacekeeping Operations and the BPAT, security and safety
services traditionally dispensed by the PNP will be enhanced by the grassroots
approach. The BPAT, the prime movers of the BPO will render services tailor-made
for the community which they belong and serve. They will be focused on the three
general endeavors which are; security services focused on proactive community based
policing system, conflict resolution through Barangay Justice System and crisis
management which includes disaster mitigation. These and more, is what the BPO and
the BPAT is all about. This is the new dynamic and proactive approach to community
peacekeeping which the PNP leadership is pushing for. Law enforcement activities
such as “Ronda” from one place to another should have the involvement of
community members. Community peacekeeping activity through this is believed to be
more effective considering the direct support and participation from the community
members, specifically in monitoring and reporting purposes.

This activity starts from the police community precinct where the police personnel
directly involved in patrolling are supposed to get instruction/ briefing from his/her
direct superior. Then the patrol personnel shall proceed from one place to another
place in the community with the end view of conferring with civilians in-charge of
local peace and security (e.g. Tanods, Security Guards of different establishments/
subdivisions, Principals/ teachers, etc.). Conversation among the patrol police
personnel and civilians shall focus on peace and order situation issues. Result of the
meetings on peace and order and safety situation shall become one of the basis of the
PNP unit involved in developing their Community Public Safety Plan.

In line with the PNP’s newly acquired role of providing active support to the Internal
Security Operation effort, the BPAT is created into an ORGANIZATIONAL
EQUIVALENT of the CTM Barangay Module which has been, for so long, a tough
nut to crack until recently. It shall be composed of a PNP supervisor, whose skill
includes community organizing and a good public relations officer, the barangay
chairman, the tanod executive officer and sectoral (farmers or laborers, women, youth,
business, senior citizens and others) representatives.

C. BPO/BPAT FUNDAMENTAL

BPAT desks shall be established in the City and Municipal Police Stations or the Police
Community Precincts in the Urban Centers. The present Police Community Relations Office
(PCR) shall allocate a BPAT Office where the organization regularly holds meetings.
Consequently, the PCR Officer becomes the BPAT Officer. Traditional PCR functions and the
Beat Patrol System will be implemented by the BPAT Officers.

Inherent to their functions as BPAT member is their involvement in an on-the-spot community/

barangay conflict resolution. When confronted by such situation, a BPAT member(s) is obliged
to bring the parties before the Barangay Peacekeeping Desk (BPD) within their locality and
address the issues in such a manner that will bring harmony to all party concerned. If necessary,
the presence of any elected Barangay official and/or police supervisor is required. Members of
the BPAT or organized sectors shall be selected from among the community members who are
of good moral standing in the society. They shall be selected by the elected Barangay Officials
(Chairman or Kagawad) and shall be endorsed to the Chief of Police concerned for concurrence.

Thereafter, it shall be forwarded to the Office of the Mayor for approval. Membership from the
BPAT shall be terminated on the following grounds:
1. Voluntary resignation,
2. Conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude,
3. Inactive status for six (6) months, and
4. If a member is a nuisance to the organization or society.

Any member of BPAT may be suspended indefinitely if he/she commits any crime or offense
and properly charged before any forum. Termination or suspension may be initiated/
recommended (after compliance to the requisite due process before an appropriate committee) by
the Elected Barangay Official or Chief of Police to the Office of the Mayor for approval.
Termination or suspension order is immediately executory.

The advantages favor the BPAT Concept for more than the traditional policing or the COPS
because of the following:
a. broader range of police services to the public thereby endearing
 the organization to the local populace,
b. One Stop service,
c. Decentralized decision making in line with the commanders Quick Look Program,
d. Localized problem solving, and
e. Enhanced Job Scope and Performance for BPAT Officers.

The formation and operationalization of the BPAT shall be guided by the following principles
and guidelines:

1) Awareness Phase
Social investigation shall be conducted prior to the recruitment of prospective members of the
BPAT. The results of the investigation will be the basis for the configuration of the team since no
two barangays are the same in terms of peace and order and safety situation. Citizens will then be
informed of the formation of the new organization which will cater to the needs of their own
community. Included in the information will be the basic knowledge on crime prevention and
deterrence and safety precautions during calamities. A very important facet will dwell on the
shared responsibilities of each and every member insofar as community peacekeeping is
concerned.

2) Organization and Training Phase

The BPAT Officers, in close coordination with LGU and other sectors, shall organize Barangay
officials, barangay tanods, and other potential force multipliers to compose the initial core group
of BPAT. They shall be organized into teams performing their specific functions. The members
will be screened and carefully selected from among the existing Barangay officials, barangay
tanods and other anti-crime groups within the community. The Chief of Police and Station
Commanders of City/Municipal Stations shall direct their policemen to include in their patrol
and visitation of the Barangays under it and establishments which are high risk to criminal
elements.

The PNP shall also conduct the training of the BPATs based on a standard Program of
Instructions (POI) which focuses on law enforcement, community organization and public
information, disaster mitigation, relief and management, and case monitoring. Also, gender and
juvenile concerns and religious consideration and human rights shall form part of the training
module. There shall be a committee composed of the Chief of Police and representatives from
NGO,

Religious Sector and LGU (City/Municipal/Barangay) as the case may be to assess/evaluate the
performance of the BPATs and its impact to the peace and order situation in the locality.

3) Mobilization Phase
The organized BPAT shall converge to their assigned BPAT Desk in the Police Stations or PCP
or community room. This is to account the members and disseminate to them pertinent
information before deployment to their respective duties. Their function shall be composed of
“Ronda” and other law enforcement activities, on the spot conflict resolution, community
organization and public information and disaster relief to hasten delivery of basic public safety
services to support police operations within the barangay. Law enforcement function shall be
limited to city, municipal, and barangay ordinances to referrals and mediation in accordance with
RA 7160 (Local Government Code). But if the instant case merits a hearing, it shall be coursed
through the Barangay Justice System. Cases that need immediate police intervention must be
referred to the nearest police unit for appropriate action.

The BPAT desk shall maintain a logbook of all events and matters that happened or acted upon
during each tour of duty. The records therein shall be considered confidential unless required by
appropriate authority.

4) Assessment/Evaluation Phase
The concerned Police Station shall form a committee to conduct a periodic assessment after the
operationalization of BPATs.

D. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF BPAT

E. BASIC DAILY OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

Read and download for your reference.

BPATMANUAL

II. HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED POLICING

Human Rights-Based Policing (HRBP) is the comprehensive, systematic, and

institutional compliance with international human rights standards and practices in the
conduct of police or law enforcement functions. It is also an approach to policing that
defines the relationship between individual citizens and various groups or sectors of
society as claim holders whose rights have to be respected and protected by the police;
and the Police as duty holders that have obligations to respect, protect and fulfill
human rights.

HRBP also aims to empower claimholders to claim their rights, while strengthening
the capacities of duty-holders to meet their duties and obligations as human rights
protectors.

The PNP has three levels of human rights obligations: to respect, protect and fulfill
human rights.
1. To respect human rights means refraining from interfering with the enjoyment
of people’s rights.
2. To protect human rights means to implement laws that provide equal
protection to all persons from human rights violations by state authorities or by non-
state actors.
3. To fulfill human rights refers to the act of establishing institutions and
implementing systems, mechanisms or procedures that enable people to claim and
enjoy their rights.

Mainstreaming human rights-based approaches in policework is done by

incorporating human rights principles and practices into police doctrines, strategies,
and plans. These principles and practices are also applied to all police
systems,procedures, methods, and tactics. To be truly effective, even police
equipment, supplies, and facilities are reviewed and upgraded to enable a police
organization to meet human rights standards for law enforcement.
Human Rights-Based Policing is considered to be institutionalized when human rights
principles and practices are taught and applied at all levels, in both operational and
administrative functions ofthe police organization. Once human rights-based policing
is institutionalized, a police organization enhances its effectiveness and credibility in
networking with other government and non-government agencies to address various
human rights issues and concerns.

While the historical context, socio-cultural background, economic realities, and crime
situation have an impact on how a police organization plans and performs its
functions --- there are internationally recognized human rights standards for law
enforcement that must be met by all police agencies including the PNP.

As a reform initiative, Human Rights-Based Policing is a strategic approach for

reorienting the police organization from the traditional policing models or theories
based purely on social control or repression to a new paradigm anchored on genuine
respect for human rights and dignity, transparency, accountability, rule of law, and
people’s active participation in democratic governance.

Read and download for your reference.

PNP-Guide-on-Human-based-Policing.pdf

III. COMMUNITY AND SERVICE-ORIENTED POLICING SYSTEM

Community and service-oriented policing is a philosophy of policing in which police

officers work closely with the community and the local government by developing a
sense of the character of the neighborhood through regular and informal contacts with
residents and institutions in the area.

It is based on the premise that the police should work together with the communities
not only to resolve crime, but also to assist the local government in the delivery of
basic services to the citizenry and improving quality-of-life issues.

It is founded on close, mutually-beneficial ties among the local authorities, the police
and community members.

Read and download for your reference.

CSOP