beyond the bars

beyond the bars

Table 2 3 9 15

of

CONT ENTS

Beyond the bars: Looking through crime constructs

19

Krimen ng Estruktura

21

Territorial Stigma on Urban Crime in the Slums

Introduction

Criminalization of Resistance AJ Dela Cruz

Not Right nor Wrong: Is It Acceptable?

25

Risven Dela Paz

Familial Foundations

29

Faith Qua

Phebe Jandayan

Ian Jerome Noble

Inherited Gazes/ Paradox of Self-Policing Andrei Fuerte

The fluidity of the law/ The shift of the way we see crime Victor Soriano

31

Breaking the 4th Wall Conclusion

“The 'Enlightenment', which discovered the liberties, also invented the disciplines.”

- Michel Foucault

Beyond the Bars: Looking through crime constructs How do social structures construct the way we view crime?

Our earliest reference of crime may have been legal law — the set of morally-based principles that define what is an acceptable societal behavior and what is not. We do not steal or kill others because it says so in our laws. But is crime solely determined by law, or is there more to it?

Throughout our lives, starting with our parents, we may have been socialized to see crime legalistically in black and white, but this is not as simple as it seems — the line between right and wrong is more fluid than we think it is. So, what influences this line between right and wrong, good and bad? In this zine, we argue that it is the things around us — the social structures governing our lives.

In this zine, we will also tackle the ways the structures of family, education, government, media, and economics influence how people construct the way they view crime. We will also look at how systemic biases formed by these structures might result in unequal perceptions of crime based on race, class, gender, and other social positions.

We, the creators of this zine, had the freedom to express our sociological explorations of crime in our own ways. The differences in design, language, and more are extensions of our unique social positions.

When I was six, my entire Ilocano family moved to Metro Manila due to the lack of opportunities in the province. My aunt, an economics graduate from a state university, was the first of us to traverse the urban jungle. Her first job in the city? A 7-11 cashier. She eventually landed a government job and climbed the bureaucratic ladder — a success story that taught her and by extension, the family, to respect the government and never turn our backs against it.

Then came the pandemic and all its issues that radicalized me into becoming a national democratic activist. I believed that genuine learning happens not inside the four corners of my laptop but outside in the streets with the masses. Instead of attending my synchronous classes, I joined mobilizations, organized other students and my neighborhood, and created propaganda materials.

AJ DELA CRUZ

Similar to the experience of other activists, when my family found out, they were furious — like I committed a crime. And I did: I disobeyed the family rule to never bite the hand that fed us. They told me that if the government knew that their relative was conducting “anti-government” activities, they would be terminated from their posts, threatening our only source of livelihood during a period of economic unpredictability.

A micro-level analysis of this reasoning made me realize that my family’s conception of crime was (1) coming from their positionality as migrants trying to keep their place in an environment they had to toil for years to reach, and (2) constructed by their knowledge of the state’s institutional capacity to exact retribution against dissenting citizens by framing them as criminals.

My family knew of activists being falsely tagged as terrorists, illegally imprisoned on fake charges, and worst, extrajudicially killed — and they did not want such violent state-sponsored fates for me.

Aside from my positionality as a migrant and the institution of family, the construction of crime is facilitated by my positionality as a queer student and by the institution of religious education. My peers and I’s membership in mass organizations and our queer gender expression were violations of our Christian senior high school’s handbook.

The criminalization of long bleached hair, of gender-affirming lived names, of militant activism points to the latent function of meso-level environments like religious education to produce workers imbued with what Max Weber coined as the Protestant Ethic.

Weber argued that religious values such as hard work, discipline, and obedience reinforce the capitalist system by shaping individuals into compliant, self-regulating workers. The disruptive nature of creative selfexpression and organizing exists as a criminal threat to such system which relies, according to the ethic, on the moral imperatives of uniformity and individualism to turn its gears for eternity.

Some societal actors are challenging the exploitive gears of capitalism maintained by the intersecting institutions of the family, state, education, religion, and international organizations to a halt. But these actors are still tagged as criminals by different macro bodies.

For example, the New People’s Army, which seeks to replace the existing Philippine government with proletarian leadership and expel imperialist influence from the country, is tagged as a terrorist organization by the Office of the Philippine President, the European Union, the United States, and Japan.

Hamas, the militant Palestinian government combatting Israel’s profitable, United States-backed occupation of Palestine, is similarly designated as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Ironically, Israel’s genocide of Palestinians continues on without concrete accountability despite war crime rulings from macro bodies such as the United Nations, International Criminal Court, and International Court of Justice.

If macro resistances against capitalism are criminalized while profitable genocides are permitted, what is left of us students at the meso level, of families and individuals at the micro level?

Beyond our positionalities, we must recognize the role of intersecting hegemonic institutions in the construction of criminality and assert that since these institutions are socially constructed, they can be changed by the power of our agency as argued by Anthony Gidden’s structuration. I then forward Antonio Gramsci’s counterhegemony — the creation of alternative interactions, ideas, and institutions that undermine prevailing structures.

Coming from the ND tradition, I try my best to live a counterhegemonic life. As family and friend, I initiate digestible political discussions centered on issues close to my loved ones as stepping stones to more complex social ills and to debunking state narratives against activism’s purported criminality. As a student engaged in journalism and research, I immerse myself in communities to learn about their conditions and bring my knowledge from university back to them. I also use my discipline to reflexively formulate and advocate for an education system that does not criminalize resistance but is free in tuition, free in thought, and free to serve national needs, not corporate and foreign profit.

Finally, as a simple individual, I commit myself to criticism and self-criticism.

While criticizing oppressive institutions with all the theories out there is important, we must never forget to remold ourselves into kind, humble individuals. We cannot clinch people to our cause to change macro institutions that criminalize our every move if, at the micro level, we are arrogant and antagonistic to prospective allies, if we coddle abuse and erroneous “due” processes within our ranks, if we live with problematic attitudes that cannot be masked — or even often justified — by name-dropping Marxist theorists.

In sum, our little symbolic interactions of unlearning entrenched notions of criminality in different levels of society can pave the way for better institutions that will hopefully usher in a more progressive world.

Not Right nor Wrong: Is It Acceptable?

Risven Allen B. Dela Paz In my perspective, these standards for labeling an act as a crime goes beyond our social position such as our class in society but it can also be rooted in terms of a person’s cultural position wherein norms or beliefs also took place in constructing the way we view crimes. With various ethnicities that are present in the world— everyone has its own crimes to be labeled as. One reason is that based on our ethnic background and our environment within the society, it affects how we think about reality— one of which is what are crimes and what can be considered a crime. Since we were born and perceive things differently based on how we were raised and our cultural heritage, we get to have different ideas of what can we consider as a crime and what makes something a crime or not.

Picture from: Dondi Tawatao, found in “Abortion’s illegal in the Catholic majority Philippines, so more than a million women a year turn to other options”, accessed on: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/18/asia/philippines-abortion-ban-debate-women-rights-roe-wade-intl-hnk-dst/index.html

For example, in the topic of abortion, almost all of the US states and the United Kingdom have legalized abortion as they saw this as something that was necessary and needed to be accessible within the public. On the other hand, we Filipinos, have reservations about legalizing abortion or even some of us are strongly against it. Some of the reasons why are: first, Filipinos are known to be very family-oriented and religious, thus their strong opposition towards abortion. Aside from that, Filipinos believe that bearing a child means that you are responsible for bearing that child and to let the child have a chance to experience life. Because of our religious beliefs and how we are taught values

by our parents and the people around us, we tend to inherit these beliefs and are likely to pass them on to future generations; this is because our norms and culture are also a part of our views towards what makes a crime, crime (and what isn’t a crime). For the western societies, they are quite open to abortion, but for us Filipinos, aside from the lack of accessible and better abortion facilities, we also tend to oppose abortion because it is rooted out from our norms and cultural identity as Filipinos to really put importance on the essence of family and as a conservative society.

Picture from: Lorie Shaull found in “My body my choice sign at a Stop Abortion Bans Rally in St Paul, Minnesota”, accessed on: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:My_body_my_choice_sign_at_a_Stop_Abortion_Bans_Rally_in_St_Paul,_Minnesota_(47113308954).jpg

Cultural Appropriation Risven Allen B. Dela Paz

One specific example relating to racism is cultural appropriation. Since societies were developed with distinct characteristics and uphold unique values with its people, when societies tend to interact with one another, it cannot be helped that these cultural views overlap with one another. In order to gain mutual respect and understanding from one culture to another, the term “cultural appropriation” takes place where we recognize and acknowledge the fact that the values we hold does not always applicable in other cultures.

These values that may seem meaningless to us— may hold significant value and meaning to other societies. This is where symbolic interactionism takes place where the symbols we see in our everyday lives have meanings to us, but it varies from one person to another. For example, some types of braids can be worn and practiced by non-black people, but some braids are exclusively for them and can be seen as offensive to that espective cultural group as it holds a special meaning for them. By doing that kind of practice that is exclusively for them, we trespass our boundaries as “tourists” for their culture. The problem lies with our negligence and ignorance with the sensitivity and complexity of one’s culture. It is not on our hands whether that specific cultural practice is right or wrong— but it is our responsibility to learn proper manners and understand that not all things are not as we perceive them to be.

Picture from: @hyunah_aa, “It’s not ‘just hair’: HyunA and cultural appropriation https://thevisionmsms.org/2 in K-pop”, accessed on: 0384/entertainment/its-no t-just-hair-hyuna-and-cultura l-appropriation-in-k-pop/

ng hair Kardashian defends weari Picture from: BBC, “Kim sed on: tone deaf”, acces in braids: 'I'm not 72555 at-445 ews/newsbe https://www.bbc.com/n

Patriarchy

Risven Allen B. Dela Paz But, it doesn’t stop there— as patriarchy can also be seen as a cultural aspect of a societal problem wherein throughout decades, societies are still dominated by men while women were seen on a lower pedestrian zone with them.

In Ancient Greece during the Classical Period, women were only treated as wives where their main responsibilities were to act as a good wife to their husband, raise their children, clean their houses, and stay inside their homes. Men are seen as the breadwinner of the house; they are the ones who rule and the one who provides the family. Even though we recognize that this kind of mentality is still seen in today's society, we could still see the changes wherein rules like these don’t apply necessarily with these two genders. Mothers can also be the breadwinners of their household, while fathers can also be the one who takes care of their children. It is important to take note that our roles in society can be both reflexive and fluid— as the prehistoric Filipino community further proves this theory as leaders and roles were not limited to one gender only. It can also be seen in how we address someone as “siya”, a gender-neutral pronoun rather than having two separate pronouns for both genders. With that being said, it breaks the stereotypes that men and women Picture from: https://greektraveltellers.com/blog/rolewomen-ancient-greece-classical-period have in their supposedly “roles” in society wherein it makes the people within adaptive to its changes where roles shouldn’t limit one another and that gender should also not limit to a man and a woman.

This highlights the need of various analysis and different perspectives towards the matter, hence the importance of seeing these worldviews in a cultural lens while incorporating lessons that can be found in social aspects. Societies label crime not only on the matter if it is right or wrong, but also on the premise of what makes something morally or culturally acceptable with the society. It includes how offensive or how acceptable it would possibly be perceived by the general public, and what acts could possibly be offensive to a specific group of people. The idea of crime, and even deviance, are imposed based on how an individual thinks and gives meaning to these actions— how they would be able to live by it and how it would affect not only on others but also to themselves; because at the end of the day, we don’t do something to others that we don’t want done unto us. It is a manner of if we were in their shoes, is it alright for us to experience the same thing?

FAITH QUA

The family is considered as the basic unit of society.

All of us are born into one and many of us grow into multiple stages of our lives alongside them. At the same time, in the Philippine context, we must prioritize and place the family at the center. Therefore, the family holds a lot of influence over how we construct the idea od crime.

Firstly, the familial structure imposes the idea of crime through positive and negative reinforcement. From childhood, the concept of punishment vs rewards has been introduced. We are punished for actions our parents deem as wrong or deviant to their orders while complying will grant us rewards and praises. This becomes ingrained in our minds and acts as a foundation in gauging whether an action is one to be emulated or renounced. As we grow older, we learn to apply such teachings ourselves in discerning whether an act is a crime (whether petty or heinous) or not through our interactions with society and social media.

As we engage in various interactions with others, we expose ourselves to varying perspectives on what is considered shameful or wrong and the opposite.

Additionally, from these interactions, we also get to form specific standards of a model person or citizen, which is shaped by multiple subjectivities. We can then identify patterns within these standards and stand by them. For example, to be a model citizen, we can perceive it as being law-abiding because that is what is generally said around us. However, instead of finding patterns, we may also choose to pick apart those we perceive as more significant to us. Instead of law-abiding, we may perceive a model citizen as someone who embraces the nation through direct action like buying local products and updating oneself with local news. Being lawabiding still makes a model citizen, but we choose to place more emphasis on traits we deem to align closer with our values.

At the same time, social media also plays an integral role in shaping this distinction.

If we come across a criminal case online (or even smaller anecdotes from netizens), we have the opportunity to gauge the distinction between right and wrong from the general reactions of netizens. A simple click of the “quote tweets” on X and even just taking a glance at the reactions tab on the bottom left of a Facebook post provides enough information on the general consensus of different matters.

Therefore, with the foundational ideas from our family, actions that yield to negative engagement are associated with crime or an action we should not do to avoid facing the same outcome. At the same time, actions that garner positive reactions (like compliments, and physical rewards) are those we find ourselves trying to replicate or find ourselves praising in others as well.

With interactions we encounter in our daily lives and the digital sphere, we then tend to perceive crime as actions that lead to negative reactions (hateful comments, criticism, punishments) and/or challenge our idea of a model citizen/person.

HE WHO DOES NOT PREVENT A CRIME WHEN HE CAN, ENCOURAGES IT -SENECA

Next, even families outside of our own have the power to construct the way we view crime. Political families or simply families with power and influence have resources at their disposal that further blur the lines of what action is considered a crime.

With their power and status in society (even being a president in the Marcoses’ case), we witness many actions we consider crimes (with our foundational ideas previously stated) going unpunished and suspects being exonerated for such actions.

This includes taking the country’s funds, torture, taking away people’s freedom of speech, killings, and more under the Marcos rule. This starts an introspection within ourselves on such erasure of crimes. On one hand, some may start to identify the act as not a crime instead and may even try to replicate it due to the lenient aftermath and the lack of stakes. On the other hand, those who still consider it a crime understand that it is not solely the legal system that can make this distinction but there are also moral grounds at play.

This was true in my case. I found myself questioning how such actions I considered as crimes, which were even done in a very public and blatant manner are almost absolved (in the present) as the Marcos family were able to gain political power once more. At the same time, many continue to suffer under the aftereffects of martial law whether it is from the death of a loved one or from the torture they experienced themselves, and yet, receive little to no justice. I realized that people’s moral stances take up more of a forefront role in not only what constitutes a crime but also how they deal with it afterward.

With that, the influence of the familial structure on our perception on crime may stem from our own families, but it may also come from external families who possess status and power in our society.

Phebe Jandayan Ang mga gawain ay madalas na itinuturing na krimen batay sa mga batas na nilikha ng pamahalaan (istruktura ng lipunan), at ang mga batas na ito ay kadalasang nakaugat sa pangangailangang maiwasan ang mga paglabag sa karapatang pantao, at sa proteksyon ng buhay, ari-arian, at seguridad na nakatuon sa kaayusan ng lipunan na ideya ng teoryang Structural Functionalism. Ngunit hindi ito ang sistema sa lahat ng pagkakataon sapagkat kung minsan hindi ito lubos na kumakatawan sa pangangailangan at karapatan ng lahat na sektor kundi ng mayaman at makapangyarihan lamang. Ginagamit din ng ilang tagapamahala ng pamahalaan ang Sosyal na Kontrol at Dinamika ng Kapangyarihan (Social Control and Power Dynamics) upang gawin ang pansariling interes, kontrolin ang mga marginalisado sa lipunan, at tuwirang proteksyunan ang kanilang sarili sa kabila ng pang-aabuso na ginagawa nila sa mga nasa laylayan. Gayunpaman, ang paraan ng paglilingkod ng mga batas na ito sa mga indibidwal ay maaaring magkaiba-iba nang malaki batay sa kanilang katayuan sa lipunan at ekonomiya.

Bilang isang mamamayang naninirahan sa komunidad na nakatatamasa ng katamtamang kahirapan kung saan nakakamit ang mga pangunahing pangangailangan ngunit sa mahirap na paraan, at nakatuntong sa lipunang talamak ang korapsyon. Hindi maitatanggi ang krimen na karaniwang kinasasangkutan ng mahihirap tulad ng pagnanakaw, illegal na kalakalan ng droga, at illegal settling dahilan ng kakulangan sa pangangailangan at oportunidad . Tunay na mananatili itong krimen sa harap ng batas at ng lipunan anuman ang dahilan kung kaya may agarang pananagutan, mabuti man ang pangunahing dahilan at hangarin nito.

Subalit, ang kalagayang kinakaharap ng mahihirap ay nakasandig sa krimeng ginagawa ng makapangyarihan at mga estruktura tulad ng patakaran sa ekomiya, at sistema ng hustisya na nagdudulot ng paghihirap, kawalang-katarungan, at hindi pagkakapantay-pantay sa mga nasa laylayan.

Dahil patuloy nitong ipinagkakait sa mga tao ang kanilang mga pangunahing karapatang pantao, naniniwala ako na ang structural violence—gaya ng kawalan ng access sa serbisyong pangkalusugan, edukasyon, disenteng tirahan, at makatarungang trabaho ay dapat ituring na uri ng krimen. Isa lamang sa pangunahing dahilan nito ang talamak na korapsyon sa lokal na pamahalaan na sa kasalukuyan ay tinatanggap na lamang ng mga mamamayan bilang isang normal na gawain sa kabila ng lubusang kaapektuhan nito sa kanila. At dahil sa kapangyarihan at kayamanan, ang krimen na ginagawa ng mga nasa posisyon na gumagawa at nagimplementa ng batas ay madalas na isinasawalang bahala at pinapalipas na lamang dahilan ng kanilang Sosyal na Kontrol at Dinamika ng Kapangyarihan (Social Control at Power Dynamics).

Bilang karagdagan, ang posisyon sa lipunan, partikular ang socio-economic status ng isang indibidwal, ay may malaking epekto sa kanilang pananaw tungkol sa krimen at kung paano sila pinoprotektahan ng batas panlipunan. Halimbawa, ang mga marginalisado na grupo ay itinuturing na mga krimen ang mga kawalan ng katarungan at hindi pagkakapantay-pantay sa lipunan, tulad ng diskriminasyon, kakulangan ng access sa serbisyong pangkalusugan at edukasyon, bilang anyo ng structural violence.

Sa kabilang banda, ang ilang mayaman at makapangyarihan at lalo na ng mga kapitalistang indibidwal ay itinuturing na krimen ang pagkawala ng ari-arian ngunit hindi nila isinasama ang kontraktwalisasyon, pang-aagaw ng lupa, at mga hindi pagkakapantay-pantay sa lipunan laban sa mga marginalisadong grupo bilang krimen, basta't ito'y pakibang sa kanila.

TULA SA MAGSASAKA Isa lamang ang magsasaka sa mga marginalisado Na inaapi ng mga kapitalistang may yaman at ari-arian Madalas ang mga polisiyang ginagawa’t isinasabatas Ay angkop lamang sa may pera’t kapangyarihan Ninanakawan ng lupa, dekada ng sinasakahan Kapag di sinang-ayunan, karahasan, Militarisasyon at diskriminasyon ang tugon Mula sa pamilyang komersyalisasyon ang layon Sila ba'y bulag sa krimeng ginagawa nila?

Ngunit kapag pera’t ari-arian, sa kanila’y nawala Huntisya’y agad nakaantabay Tila polisiya’y naka-alalay Kailan mabibigyang pansin ang diskriminasyon, Sosyal na pagkiling, at kawalang katarungan Krimen sa mahihirap, ngunit yaman at halakhak Sa mayamang gaya ng Cojuanco, Araneta, at Villar Reference: Women in Peasant Movement. (n.d.). Peasant Month 2024, Quezon City, METRO MANILA, Philippines. https://file:/March-2024_PWS_Amihan.pdf

Ian Jerome Noble

Lumaki ako sa isang slum residence kung saan maingay at magulo ang karamihan ng mga tao. Sa murang edad pa lamang ay nakasanayan ko na ang ganitong kultura ng maingay na kapaligiran at bahagyang marumi at magulo’t dikit-dikit ang mga bahay. Normal ang mamuhay sa ganitong komunidad para sa akin. Subalit pagpasok ko ng elementarya, namulat ako sa pananaw ng ibang tao na nagsasabing may mataas na ingklinasyon na gumawa ng mga ilegal at masasamang gawain ang mga tao sa aming lugar. Nagmistulang culture shock ang pananaw na ito matapos na sabihin ito ng aking kaklase nang ikuwento ko kung saan ako nakatira.

Labis ang pagtataka ko dahil hindi naman ganito ang kinalakihan kong kultura. Kahit pa magulo ang komunidad namin, hindi naman kami humahantong sa paggawa ng krimen dahil lang mahirap kami. Sadyang kumakayod ang mga tao sa amin para itaguyod ang pang-araw-araw ngunit kalimitan ay hindi naman ito humahantong sa paggawa ng ilegal na gawain. Pero kahit na ganoon, napatanong na lang ako: bakit may ganitong pananaw ng kriminalidad na iniuugnay sa mga mahihirap at mga nakatira sa slums o mas tinatawag na ‘iskuwater’?

Mula sa ideya na ang standard na mamamayan ay dapat edukado at may delicadeza, iginuguhit nito na ang mga taong mahihirap sa “iskuwater”— maaaring tumutukoy sa lugar o sa taong nakatira dito—ay mas may tendensya na gumawa ng krimen. May ibang nagdadahilan na dahil nga sa pagiging salat at sa kahirapang nararanasan ay nagagawa nilang gumawa ng krimen, o mayroong ibang pananaw na nasa kultura na sa iskuwater ang paggawa ng ilegal na gawain.

Nagbubunga ito ng “territorial” stigma sa mga residente ng iskuwater—ang mga mahihirap ay itinuturing bilang mga walang delicadeza at mga kriminal. Dito makikita kung bakit laganap ang pagtanaw ng diskriminasyon sa mga iskuwater, kung saan idinidiin ang negatibong pananaw ng kriminalidad sa kanilang social position. Dahil sa hindi pagkakapantaypantay sa access sa kapangyarihan, edukasyon, at oportunidad sa lipunan, nagkakaroon ng pagbubukod batay sa kanilang posisyong pangekonomiko. Bunga nito, negatibo ang pagtingin ng mga taong nasa mas mataas na panlipunang uri (class) sa mga mahihirap dahil tinitingnan sila bilang may mababang katayuan sa lipunan.

Ang batas ang nagdidikta kung ano ang tama o mali na gawi ng mga mamamayan sa isang bansa. Ito ang nagsisilbing written codes na nagpapanatili ng kaayusan sa lipunan at pinapangalagaan nito ang ating mga karapatan. Pero bakit tila may kinikilingan ang batas sa Pilipinas?

Ang kamakailan lang na War on Drugs ng administrasyong Duterte ay kakikitaan ng ganitong pagmamanipula ng batas. Sa kampanyang ito laban sa pag-abuso sa droga, ang mga tinutugis ng gobyerno ay kalimitang mga mahihirap. Nagsilbing batas ang salita ni dating pangulong Duterte laban sa pagpatay ng mga drug offenders nang walang paglilitis. Sinang-ayunan naman ng ibang mga tao ang sentimyento ng pagpatay sa kanila. Sa pamamagitan din ng media, mas pinagtibay pa nito ang pananaw na ang mga iskuwater ay pinagpupugaran ng mga kriminal.

Mula rito, mahihinuha na ang batas ay nagkakaroon ng sariling interpretasyon na nakaangkla sa mga institusyon ng pamahalaan, depende sa impluwensya ng kung sino ang may kapangyarihan at awtoridad. Sa kaso ng War on Drugs, si Duterte, ang institusyon ng kapulisan, at ang impluwensya ng media, ang ilan sa nagdikta na kailangang puksain ang mga kriminal na drug offenders para sa ikabubuti ng lipunan.

Ito ay pagsasaalang-alang sa seguridad ng buhay ng mga mas nakaaangat sa buhay na tinatanaw bilang maaaring maging biktima ng mga kriminal sa iskuwater.

Pinapatunayan lamang nito na ang batas ay nababaluktot ng mga nangingibabaw na institusyong panlipunan at mga makapangyarihan.

Dagdag pa rito, hindi maipagkakailang mayroong kawalan ng katarungan sa pagdidikta ng krimen pagdating sa mga mahihirap. Masasabing mayroong “poor criminal justice system” sa Pilipinas. Mula sa terminolohiyang pa lang na ito, makikita nang tila may bahid na agad ng kasamaan at pagiging marumi ang pagkakaintindi sa salitang “poor.” Kumbaga nabuo na sa pananaw ng mga tao na ang terminong poor at mga tao o bagay na may kaugnayan dito ay may masamang konotasyon.

Ang “poor criminal justice system” sa Pilipinas ay naipapahayag sa mga kaso ng kriminalidad kung saan kalimitan ay walang takas ang mga mahihirap sa kamay ng batas, habang ang mga may mas kakayahan sa buhay ay kayang sustentuhan ang mahabang proseso ng paglilitis at pag-piyansa. Ito ay sa pamamagitan ng pagkakaroon ng mga middle class at elites ng resources at connections. Sa kabilang banda, ang mga mahihirap naman ang mas nagdurusa dahil sa kawalan nila ng sapat na resources upang maitawid ang kanilang mga kaso at makamit ang hustisya.

Dahil dito, masasabi ko na ang posisyon natin sa lipunan (race, etnisidad, kasarian, katayuang sosyoekonomiko, citizenship) ay mahalagang bahagi sa pagbuo ng identidad natin pagdating sa pagpapasya sa kriminalidad. Nagkakaroon ng hindi pantay na pagtingin ang mga institusyong panlipunan sa karapatan ng mga tao dahil sa hirarkikal nating posisyong panlipunan at katayuang sosyoekonomiko. Bunga nito, madalas na ang mga naaapi at marginalized na grupo o sektor sa lipunan ang nagiging biktima ng hindi pantay na pagturing sa kriminalidad—ito ay anti-poor. Kaya ang mga nangingibabaw na institusyong panlipunan ang nagmamando kung saan kumikiling ang dikta sa moralidad ng batas.

Inherited gazes Andrei Fuerte

Paradox of Self-policing Andrei Fuerte

In Foucault’s concept of Panopticism, he explains that a form of autosurveillance exists in society as individuals internalize imposed norms due to the expectation of being watched. This mechanism ultimately leads to control, instilling discipline in the observed. He suggests that this mechanism operates through various social institutions like academia or the church, where people are expected to behave in a certain way.

However, to begin this discussion, we will shift to a micro-level focus on the basic unit of society—the family.

Examining the power dynamics within the family, we see parents or household authorities conditioning a child to distinguish between acceptable and deviant behaviors. Good behavior is often met with praise or rewards, while deviant behavior leads to unpleasant reactions and punishment. However, this is where a paradox emerges: the children become agents of their own repression.

Through reinforcement of these standards, a certain discipline is instilled.

They internalize these norms while subconsciously sensing that an authority is monitoring them. In doing so, the individual becomes selfpolicing, both toward themselves and others, reprimanding those who violate these standards.

Language and Punishment

I don’t like blue, I don’t like pink; I don’t hate them, but I’ve disliked seeing things through either color.

I grew up with my father abroad most of the time, leaving me with my mom, grandma, aunts, and cousins. I became accustomed to their practices, behaviors, and preferences. From early childhood, I was already dancing to Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies,” and my anthem was probably “Someone Like You” by Adele. I’d rather play indoors with cooking sets than learn how to ride a bike. I thought all of this was normal; they were just my preferences until my father labeled them “kabaklaan”.

Living in a community quite far from the big city, a conservative and religious family is the norm, and ours was no exception. As I grew up and started wanting ways to express myself, the labels from my parents grew more frequent. I couldn’t act softly, couldn’t play with girls' toys, couldn’t wear clips, and—God forbid—watch Encantadia. As these labels flooded in, I became more hesitant to open up to others.

CRIME? DEVIANCE BAD DELINQUENT MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE VIOLATION TRANSGRESSI Perhaps this disillusionment was ON GUILT reinforced by language and punishment. Foucault argues that NONCONFORM punishment and control extend beyond physical forms to more ITY NORM pervasive tools, such as language.

The first time I was reprimanded, my STEREOTYPE father used slurs I had only heard in At school, where I could escape my family’s gaze to some degree, I felt increasingly uncomfortable around other boys. I acted rigidly and straight, just as they said I should.

Disillusioned by these norms, I began developing an internalized homophobia toward others expressing themselves freely. I may not have liked my father’s yelling at me for not conforming, but I adopted his mindset when I saw someone else doing what I once did.

connection with serious offenses.

Through his tone, choice of words, and labeling, I internalized the severity of my “deviance.” The association of words like "criminal," "delinquent," "deviant," or, in this case, “bakla” or “tomboy” in everyday interactions across various social settings taints even the “tabula rasa” minds of children with constructs of deviance.

the fluidity of the law The law regulates what is legal or illegal. It is a system of rules a society follows to regulate the actions and activities of its people. These rules take shape in different ways but we usually see them pointing out deviance or crime – an action is viewed as deviant when it goes against the rules and laws prescribed by the state. It is framed as being objective and universal and can be applied to all in society. I grew up in a strict family that always valued discipline and obeying rules. If you disobeyed you’d be considered hardheaded and the lesson was always: “This is for your own good”. Through the years of teenage angst, questions of: “For who are these rules really?” come to my mind, and I think this line of inquiry also applies to the Law. For who are these laws made, and are they truly here to regulate society? Is the law made for all?

Is

T H E

law UNIVERSAL

Maybe not. History shows us that the Law is not immune to the influences of the social structures present in society. It more often reflects the biases and interests of the dominant group. In this chapter, we’re going to dive into an example of how the law can be codified universally but applied selectively to reinforce social norms.

VICTOR SORIANO

THE SHIFT OF THE WAY WE SEE CRIME

VICTOR SORIANO

The case of Jose Tan Chong vs The Secretary of Labor is a landmark case that cemented a shift in the legal system that favored certain racial groups and excluded others. Jose Tan Chong was born in San Pablo Laguna, in July 1915 to a “Chinese” father and a “Filipino” mother. His parents took him to China in 1925 when he was 10 years old and returned to the Philippines in 1940 when he was 24 years old. Upon his return to the country, he was denied entry for being a Chinese citizen, a decision affirmed by the Secretary of Labor who also ordered his deportation. Tan Chong sued for a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release from the custody of the Secretary of Labor, which the court granted. But the solicitor general, representing the executive branch of government, appealed. In 1941, with an all-Filipino bench but still under the jurisdiction of the United States, the Supreme Court affirmed that Tan Chong having been born in the Philippines of a Chinese father and Filipino mother, is a Filipino citizen. A week after the high court made its decision the solicitor-general filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that Tan Chong was not a citizen based on the laws at the time of his birth. In 1947, now being an independent republic of the Philippines, the Supreme Court denied Tan Chong of his Philippine Citizenship.

Jose Tan Chong’s case shows us that the law is not as static as we may see. It shifts around depending on the context of the situation. When the Philippines was under the colonial rule of the United States, citizenship was then grounded in jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood) rather than the previous Malolos Constitution which was more inclusive and grounded in jus soli (citizenship by soil). It shifted to a law that was more exclusive to people of a certain descent which was influenced by US colonialism. This shift in the law parallels how crime is viewed – with a law that is shifting, the line between right and wrong also shifts. We see in this example that the way that policies change and shift not only highlights legal definitions – they also reveal the power of social structure in constructing our view of not only crime but of our identity and belonging. If we believe that the law is the be all end all of what we consider right and wrong we tend to ignore the inherent biases present within society which also color the law. Biases are constructed by social structures and this is what constructs the way we see crime. A good way to analyze this is through Haraway’s essay on situated knowledge, they believed that knowledge can not always be “universal”, knowledge should always be understood as situated within specific contexts. This leads to a more self-aware and inclusive practice in seeing what we consider a crime.

In conclusion…

Breaking the 4th Wall With the constant presence of multiple structures in each of our lives, there is no denying that they are capable of framing our views on crime. However, our agencies give us the power to confront structural influences alongside our own principles. It is this interplay of structures and agency that paves the way for the nuances and complexities of society.

Assessing societal complexities then demands the need to acknowledge that every person comes from different social positions that diversify their perspective and experience of society and its issues like crime. Hence, even if we all grew up in the Philippines, our varied social positions resulted in equally varied sociological explorations of crime.

Thankfully, our subjectivities enabled our introspections to venture into different structural institutions we deem more influential in our own lives.

Such multiplicity helped us to break the fourth wall — the smoke screen that had long blurred and limited our understanding of crime — and come to the conclusion that crime is not black and white.