Scribd
Upload
84 views1 page

Preventive Suspension of Policemen Explained

Himagan, a policeman, was suspended until the termination of his case. He challenged the suspension as a violation of equal protection under the law, noting that preventive suspensions are normally limited to 90 days. The court explained that policemen can be treated differently due to their role as armed law enforcers. If suspended policemen facing serious charges were reinstated, victims and witnesses could be intimidated. Therefore, suspensions of over 90 days for policemen do not violate equal protection rights given the threat posed to cases.

Uploaded by

Doni June Almio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
84 views1 page

Preventive Suspension of Policemen Explained

Himagan, a policeman, was suspended until the termination of his case. He challenged the suspension as a violation of equal protection under the law, noting that preventive suspensions are normally limited to 90 days. The court explained that policemen can be treated differently due to their role as armed law enforcers. If suspended policemen facing serious charges were reinstated, victims and witnesses could be intimidated. Therefore, suspensions of over 90 days for policemen do not violate equal protection rights given the threat posed to cases.

Uploaded by

Doni June Almio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION OF

POLICEMEN - HIMAGAN V. PEOPLE


(G.R. NO. 113811, OCT. 7, 1994)

Facts:
Himagan a policeman, was suspended until termination of his case. He challenged the
said suspension saying it is in violation of the equal protection of laws stating that under
P.D 807 of the Civil Service Decree, preventive suspension is limited to 90 days only.

Resolution:
In Himagan v. People, the court explained that the reason why members of the PNP
are treated differently from other classes of persons charged criminally and
administratively insofar as the application of the rule on preventive suspension is
concerned, is that policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law which can be
used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them. If a suspended policeman
criminally charged with a serious offense is reinstated to his post while his case is
pending, his victim and and the witnesses against him are obviously exposed to
constant threat and thus easily cowed to silence by the mere fact that the accused is
uniform and armed. Therefore the imposition of preventive suspension of over 90
days under Section 47 of R.A. 6975 does not violate the suspended policeman's
constitutional right to equal protection of laws.

You might also like