Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This aspect of the study reviews the various literature and studies related to the

study.

Foreign Literature

In recent years, mayors and municipal leaders throughout the United States have

confronted increasing problems of community safety more prominently affected are the

youth. These problems have affected not only urban centers but also small towns and

rural municipalities. Many other countries have experienced similar rapid increases in

crime that have only begun to decline in the past few years. The response of many

governments has been to toughen their legal and justice systems, increasing policing

capacities and penalties (Kelly, T. 2011).

Traditionally, the public has viewed crime reduction as the responsibility of the

police and the courts. However, in spite of increased expenditures, these institutions have

been unable to contain the epidemic of crime. The result has been a loss of confidence

in criminal justice systems and high levels of public concern about crime. Migration, rapid

changes in populations, rising poverty levels, and income disparities continue to affect

many countries. Crime prevention, rather than reaction or repression, has generally

played a very minor role in addressing crime problems. To have an impact on current

crime problems and avoid even greater problems in the future, a more balanced approach

and perceptual shift by society are necessary (Killias, M., et al 2016).

Mayors and local government officials have played a major role in the evolution of

community safety over the past 20 years in Europe, North America, Africa, and
Australasia. Increasing numbers of initiatives target crime, victimization, and the social

exclusion of individuals, minority groups, and neighborhoods. The links between poverty

and social disadvantage and crime and victimization have shown that many agencies

need to work together to prevent crime. Mayors and local officials have come to see

community safety as a basic human right and an important aspect of the quality of life in

their communities. They have mobilized local partnerships with key actors— the police,

government agencies, community organizations, and residents—to develop safe, secure,

and vibrant communities in metropolitan as well as rural areas. These partnerships have

made significant gains in how crime prevention is viewed (Shearing, 2013).

Defining youth and developing and sustaining partnerships are not simple tasks.

Much can be learned from past successes and failures. Including youth partnerships,

understanding the links to underlying problems, looking at the strengths and assets of

communities and individuals as well as risk factors, working on the analysis and planning

process rather than focusing solely on programs that provide quick results, and

addressing funding and evaluation are important activities that must be thought through

(Wong 2013).

Examples from Australasia, Europe, and North America, described in greater

detail. The initiatives are at different stages of development, and not all have reached the

evaluation stage. They include 3-year strategic plans in large cities, projects targeting

youth needs in public spaces, small town coalitions, neighborhood problem-solving

committees, comprehensive community programs, hotspot initiatives that pool funding

resources, coalitions targeting violence against women, groups of cities working on

problems and create targeted action plans (Shearing, 2013).

Mayors are strategically placed to make a difference in these endeavors. They can

provide leadership to identify and mobilize key partners; authorize development of a

rigorous safety audit that includes an action plan with short- and long-term goals; assign

staff to implement, monitor, and evaluate the plan; and act as a conduit for exchanging

expertise and good practices (Killias, M., et al 2016).

In the past few years, levels of recorded crime and violence have fallen significantly

in a number of European countries and in North America.1 In the United States, the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported a 7-percent drop in serious crime in 1999,

the eighth consecutive year that the number of reported serious crimes fell. Reductions

occurred in all types of crime, both violent and nonviolent against the youth, and they

were found in all regions of the country. In Canada, crime against the youth have fallen

for the past 8 years to the lowest crime level in 2 decades. In England and Wales,

recorded crime fell 8 percent between 1993 and 1995, and a further 10 percent between

1995 and 1997, although violent crime rates are still rising (Hague, G. 2009).

These community safety partnerships are part of the new National Strategy for

Neighborhood Renewal. Since 1998, the Social Exclusion Unit has produced a series of

18 Policy Action Team reports as part of this strategy. The reports outline ways to achieve

four objectives: less long-term unemployment, less crime, better health, and better

qualifications.12 Local governments can apply for some of the $415 million in funding for

developing crime reduction strategies targeted to high-risk crime areas and families. In

addition, 10 percent of this money is to be spent on evaluating these programs to assess

on what is called “joined-up thinking,” trying to work across agency boundaries at the

local, regional, and national levels (Social Exclusion Unit, 2009b).

In France, local security contracts (or CLS) have been in existence for more than

15 years. They are based on the notion that security equals prevention plus sanction and

reintegration. Prevention and reintegration are seen as the responsibility of the youth in

the community. The contracts require local partnerships to foster access to justice and

victim assistance, to create new youth jobs and training, and to take action to prevent

delinquency through youth employment, parent support, and sports and cultural programs

that meet local needs (Marcus 2015).

Juvenile curfews are local ordinances proscribing minors, generally within a

specified age range, from occupying public areas and streets during particular times.

These policies are not new. The first youth curfew was enacted in Omaha, Nebraska in

1880Although many cities have long had curfew statutes, the most recent period of

sustained enforcement came in the early nineties when violent crime and victimization of

juveniles began to rise and cities learned how to craft curfew legislation in a manner

amenable to the courts. Previous to this period, many cities had been unable to defend

their curfews from legal challenges that they violate civil rights, especially the first, fourth,

and fourteenth amendments of the constitution (Hemmens et al, 20099).

Once the curfew actually went into effect, police had substantial discretion over

how they would implement the ordinance. Police could give youths in violation of the

curfew a verbal warning, take them home, issue a ticket with a fine as high as $500, or

take them into custody. A youth detention facility was staffed by the city for holding curfew
violators. If a child was found in repeated violation of the curfew, police had the authority

to fine the child’s parents up to $500. Furthermore, businesses could also be fined for

allowing minors to remain on their premises during curfew hours. In conjunction with these

penalties were a series of youth programs including a midnight basketball program and a

youth education program. Other cities such as New Orleans went further than this and

sent minors picked up on curfew violations to a detention center staffed by psychologists,

medical professionals, and clergy to provide counseling for violators (Hemmens et al,

20099).

Local Literature

A barangay tanod, also known as a barangay police officer and sometimes

as BPSO (which can stand for barangay public safety officer is the lowest level of law

enforcement officer in the Philippines. He is a watchman for a barangay who is

supervised by the barangay captain and performs a variety of police functions. Tanods

are front liners in the preparation and response to any type of atrocities, public disorders,

emergencies and even disasters or man-made calamities that threaten peace and order

and public safety. They may be either unarmed or armed simply, say with a truncheon or

a bolo, a type of machete (Vestil, et al 2012).

While they cooperate with the Philippine National Police (PNP), they are not a part

of the PNP. They do not have the same authority as police officers. Rather tanods

augment the police and fulfill "certain functions which the police force cannot immediately

discharge especially with respect to the implementation of national and local laws within

barangays." The Local Government Code of the Philippines sets out the basic duties and
responsibilities of a tanod. The Department of Interior and Local Government provides

training and a fuller definition of duties (Bayan 2011).

While they are often described as volunteers, they can receive some payment and

other benefits which are paid out of the barangay's, municipality's, or city's funds which

mostly come from the Internal Revenue Allotment, supplemented by other sources.

Tanods can receive different pay and benefits depending upon the wealth and need of

the local community. In Cebu City, the city government permits each barangay to pay a

tanod an "honorium" of 4,000 pesos per month. In other places, tanods only receive 300

pesos per month (Borromeo 2013).

In 2004, there were over 700,000 tanods, the number, however, varies from city to

city and barangay to barangay. The city of Cebu authorizes each barangay to hire up to

20 tanods. In 2011, the city of Baguio, with a population of approximately 325,000, had

392 tanods across 88 barangays, or an average of 4.5 per barangay. In Cagayan de Oro,

there are 950 tanods across 56 barangays, or about an average of 17 per barangay. In

the province of Southern Leyte, there were 3,452 tanods as of 2012 (Torregoza 2013).

The Barangay Initiated Ronda System is an offshoot of Presidential Decree No.

1232 authorizing the organization of community groups to serve as effective vehicles for

organized community participation in crime prevention. The said groups are organized by

barangay officials. The most common community-based crime prevention programme

implemented by the Barangay Council is the Ronda System conducted by the Barangay

Security and Development Officers or Barangay Tanods (Village Watchmen). Based from

the interviews, Ronda was implemented as far back as 1972 and is still in operation today.
The Barangay Security and Development Officers (BSDOs) or more popularly known as

the Barangay Tanod, are the volunteers who are responsible for peace keeping activities

in the barangay. Recruited civilian volunteers are engaged primarily in unarmed civilian

assistance that includes intelligence information gathering, neighborhood watch or

“Rondas”; medical/traffic/emergency assistance; assistance in the identification and

implementation of community development projects; and gathering relevant information

and data as inputs to peace and order planning and research (Caparas 2009).

The barangay tanod brigade plays an important role in the development and

progress of the barangay. It is one of the implementing mechanisms of the Barangay

Peace and Order Committee (BPOC), which has the primary task of ensuring that peace

and order prevail in the barangay. Peace and order in local communities translates to a

sense of a shared feeling of security among the citizens. People who have this sense of

security are more likely to participate in community activities that aim to improve the

livelihood and well-being of all. In this sense, the maintenance of peace and order is part

of the foundation for genuine, community-based development (Panelo 2013).

This is supported by a study that findings states that the ronda system was the

actual foot patrol of the barangay officials or barangay tanods and police officers around

the barangay to apprehend violators. The ronda system included securing of computer

shops and establishments serving liquors around the area while at the same time

informing the residents regarding the ordinances. Curfew for minors, computer shops and

liquor establishments were successive, thus, the ronda system was not only for the latter

but extended to the other two ordinances. According to the key informants, most of the

minors were caught at the computer shops and establishments serving alcoholic
beverages, and in dark areas. Thus, most of them concentrated on these areas. Minors

who shall be caught by Barangay Tanods after 7PM should either be sent home or

referred to the police officers. The police officers will either send the children home or

refer them to the MSWDO for guidance and counseling. The MSWDO then will send the

children home after the guidance and counseling with the parents (Balangen 2011).

Minor curfews are local ordinances proscribing minors, generally within a specified

age range, from occupying public areas and streets during particular times. It is enacted

by a local or state government that restricts certain people from being in public places at

specified times of the day. Many cities and towns have a curfew law in place to prevent

teenagers from being out at certain times, typically spanning the late hours of the night or

school hours during the day. Any teenager caught out after curfew can face a fine or even

jail time, depending upon the specific laws of the town (Kline, 2011).

The use of curfews on minors can help to protect vulnerable children for not all

parents are responsible and inevitably their children suffer, both from crime and in

accidents, and are likely to fall into bad habits. Society should ensure that such neglected

children are returned home safely and that their parents are made to face up to their

families. (Kline, 2011)

Juvenile curfews laws have appealed to liberals and conservatives alike, though

usually for slightly different reasons. For conservatives, curfews fit into an approach of

more vigorous enforcement efforts, more punitive sentencing, and increased social

controls. For liberals, curfews fit into the program of identifying juveniles in early stages

of delinquency who could benefit from intervention strategies (Adams, 2003). Additionally,
the costs of enforcing curfews are perceived as relatively low and the measures perceived

as very effective (Adams, 2009).

Delinquency prevention efforts are considered by many to be crucial to the

development of a consistent and comprehensive approach to the problem of youth crime

and delinquency. Traditionally, evaluations have lacked empirical support prevention

programs’ impact on juvenile misconduct. Today, however, a growing body of research

supports the idea of delinquency prevention as both a practical and cost-effective means

of reducing youth misbehavior. In the conduct of preventing and or controlling delinquency

one of the means being applied is the implementation of curfew hours (Brannen, 2012).

The Council for Protection for Youth and Children was also asked to review the

ordinance. Recent deliberation focused on whether there is a need to adjust the curfew

hours since some students might have to do some assignments and other school works

which could go beyond the 7 p.m. curfew. Section 2 of Ordinance 50, s. 2009 states that

children below 16 years old are prohibited from roaming or playing in the streets, roads,

plazas, parks, or other public places from 7 p.m. to 5 a.m. Another concern is the protocol

on the custody of offenders. The city government has been updating the Curfew

Ordinance to address delinquency, teenage gang violence, and other violations

committed at nighttime. (Asuncion, 2016)

The CSWDO shall ensure that the community service is appropriate to the child

and is consistent with the goals of the intervention program. Adults who are the guardian,

parent, or authorized custodian of the offending child within the third degree of

relationship, either by consanguinity or affinity, shall be penalized under other applicable

laws and ordinances. (Asuncion, 2016)

immediately sent home. Since some parents were not aware of the said ordinance, they

were likewise informed of the ordinance. The minors, who were caught either loitering on

the streets, inside computer shops, and hanging out, were assisted by personnel from the

city’s Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Meanwhile, the parents

and guardians of the arrested minors said they weren’t aware that there is such an

ordinance being implemented (Araneta, 2012).

Hague, G. (2009). “Reducing Domestic Violence—What Works? Multi-Agency Fora.”

Briefing Note: Policing and Reducing Crime. London, England: Home Office.

Kelly, T. (2011). “Planning Brings Results: Comprehensive Blueprints for Community

Safety.” NCPC presentation to National Conference on Preventing Crime,

November 1998. Washington, DC: National Crime Prevention Council.

Killias, M., and Ribeaud, D. (2016). “Drug Use Among Juveniles: An International

Perspective.” Studies on Crime Prevention 8(2): 189–207.

Shearing, C. (20013). “Participatory Policing,” Imbizo 2: 5–10.

Wong, S., Catalano, R., Hawkins, J.D., and Chappell, P. (2013). Communities That Care

Prevention Strategies: A Research Guide to What Works. Seattle, WA:

Developmental Research & Programs, Inc.

Marcus, M. (2015). Faces of Justice and Poverty in the City. Paris, France: European

Forum for Urban Safety.

Social Exclusion Unit (2009b). National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal Report of

Policy Action Team 17: Joining It Up Locally. London, England: The Stationery

Office.

Vestil, Justin Anjuli K; Nilda Gallo; and Hayde Quiñanola (June 18, 2008). "Tanods use

illegal guns". Cebu Daily News. Retrieved 6 November 2012.

Bayan, Nerie (February 24, 2011). "http://www.sunstar.com.ph/baguio/opinion/bayan-

barangay-tanod-system". SunStar Baguio. Retrieved 28 June 2013.

Borromeo, Rene U. (February 22, 2013). "City treasurer urged: Release tanod, lupon

stipend monthly". The Freeman. Retrieved 27 February 2013.

Bulletin. Retrieved 27 February 2013.

Caparas, Donna Lynn A. “Participation of the Barangay Tanod for a Peaceful

Community”, UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 56 (Tokyo, 2009).

BALANGEN, CRISLYN F. APRIL 2011. Young Lurkers at Night: Awareness and

Compliance of Selected La Trinidad High School Students on Curfew Ordinance.

Benguet State

University, La Trinidad, Benguet.

Kline, P. (2011). The Impact of Juvenile Curfew Laws on Arrests of Youth and Adults.

Retrieved on August 2, 2016 from NBER [email protected].

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~pkline/papers/curfews_resubmit.pdf

Adams. K. (2009) The effectiveness of juvenile curfews at crime prevention. Retrieved on

Dec.13, 2015 from http://www.nyclu.org/files/gv _curfew_study-(9th Ed.). U. S. A:

Thomson Wadsworth.

Brannen, S. (2012). Thresholds mentoring juvenile justice ministry in the Archdiocese of

Santa Fe. Retrieved on February 12, 2016 from

http://yvj.sagepub.com/content/6/4323.full.pdf

Asuncion, W. (2016) Review of Curfew edict up. Retrrieved on June 30, 2016 from

http://www.baguiomidlandcourier.com.

ph/city.asp?mode=%20archives/2016/june/6-26-2016/city4-Review-of-curfew-

edict-up.txt
Araneta, S. (2012) Manila to enforce curfew for minors during summer break. Retrieved

on January 15, 2016 from http://www.philstar.com/.../manila-enforce-curfew-

minors-during-summer-bre..

Hemmens, Craig and Katherine Bennet. 2009. “Juvenile Curfews and the Courts: Judicial

Response to a Not-So-New Crime Control Strategy.” Crime and Delinquency,

45:99-121.