Officers of the Philippine National Police were surveyed to examine whether their experiences with the civilian review board, the People's Law Enforcement Board (PLEB), influence their perceptions about the board's integrity and legitimacy. This study examined two groups: officers who had cases processed by the board (reviewed group) and officers who had never had complaints heard against them before the board (non-reviewed group). In addition, the satisfaction of both groups with the process as well as their overall satisfaction were examined. The findings support the contention that the experience of being reviewed may shape or alter officers' perceptions about civilian review. In addition, there may be a tendency for police officers to mistrust a completely civilian review, but it appears that such mistrust may be overcome by the board's exercise of fairness, objectivity, and thoroughness in its processes.
BartonP. G. (1970). Civilian review boards and the handling of complaints against the police. University of Toronto Law Journal, 20, 448–468.
3.
BayleyD. H. (1985). Patterns of policing: A comparative international analysis. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
4.
BayleyD. H., & ShearingC. D. (2001). The new structure of policing: Description, conceptualization, and research agenda. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
5.
BittnerE. (1970). The functions of police in modern society. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
6.
BrooksT. R. (1973). “No! says the P.B.A.—NYC.” In RuchelmanL. (Ed.), Who rules the police? (pp. 226–241). New York: New York University Press.
7.
BrownD. (1987). The police complaints procedure: A survey of complainants' views. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
8.
CaidenG., & HahnH. (1979). Public complaints against the police. In BakerR. & MeyerF. A.Jr., (Eds.), Evaluating alternative law enforcement policies (pp. 169–176). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
9.
de GuzmanM. (2001). Integrity, legitimacy, efficiency, and impact: Do all these matter in the civilian review of the police? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
10.
GellerW. A. (1983). Police misconduct: Scope of the problems and remedies. American Bar Foundation Research Report23 (Fall).
11.
GellhornW. (1966a). Ombudsmen and others: Citizen's protectors in nine countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
GellhornW. (1966b). When Americans complain: Governmental grievance procedures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
GoldsmithA. J. (1991). External review and self-regulation: Police accountability and the dialectic of complaint procedures. In GoldsmithA. J. (Ed.), Complaints against the police: Trends to external review (pp. 13–62). New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
GutangR. (1993). Pulisya. Manila, Philippines: Rex Bookstore.
15.
HalpernS. C. (1974). Police employee organizations and accountability procedures in three cities: Some reflections on police policy-making. Law and Society Review, 8(4), 561–582.
16.
IrisM. (1999). Police discipline in Chicago: Arbitration or arbitrary?The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 89(1), 215–244.
17.
KahnR. (1973). Police accountability in New York City: 1950–1970. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
18.
KerstetterW. A. (1985a). Who disciplines the police? Who should? In GellerW. A. (Ed.), Police leadership in America: Crisis and opportunity (pp. 149–182). Chicago, IL: American Bar Foundation and Praeger.
19.
KerstetterW. A. (1985b). Controlling the police—The art of the possible: A rejoinder to Napper, Pomeroy, and Schwartz. In GellerW. A. (Ed.), Police leadership in America: Crisis and opportunity (pp. 196–198). Chicago, IL: American Bar Foundation and Praeger.
20.
KnoohuizenR. (1973). Chicago police board. Chicago, IL: Chicago Law Enforcement Study Group.
21.
KrajickK. (1980). Police vs police: No one knows about Internal Affairs Bureaus, so everyone distrusts them. Police Magazine, 3(3): 6–15; 17–20.
22.
LandauT. (1994). Public complaints against the police: A view from complainants. Toronto: Centre of Criminology University of Toronto.
23.
LenziM. A. (1974). Reviewing civilian complaints of police misconduct: Some answers and more questions. Temple Law Quarterly, 48(1), 89–125.
24.
LewisC. (1999). Complaints against police: The politics of reform. Sydney, Australia: Hawkins Press.
25.
LewisC. (2000). Feasibility of an independent system for investigating complaints against the police. London: Research, Development and Statistics, UK Home Office.
26.
LohmanJ. D., & MisnerG. E. (1973). Civilian review—Philadelphia (pp. 46–73). In RuchelmanL., (Ed.), Who rules the police?New York: New York University Press.
27.
LovedayB. (1988). Police complaints in the USA. Policing, 4(3), 172–193.
28.
McNamaraJ. (1967). Uncertainties in police work: The relevance of police recruits' training and background. In BorduaD. J. (Ed.), The police: Six sociological essays (pp. 163–252). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
29.
Memorandum Circular No. 91002. National Police Commission.
30.
MillerJ. (2002). Civilian oversight of policing: Lessons from the literature. Paper presented at the Global Meeting on Civilian Oversight of Police, Los Angeles, CA, May 5–8, 2002.
31.
MontanaR. (1992). Survey of civilian complaint systems. NY: New York City Police Department.
32.
Office of the Inspector General. (1997). Six-month report: January 1997. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners.
PerezD. (1978). Police accountability: A question of balance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
35.
PerezD. (1992). Police review systems. MIS Report, 24(8), 1–15.
36.
PerezD. (1994). Common sense about police review. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
37.
PowersM. D. (1994). Civilian oversight is necessary to prevent police brutality. In WintersP. A. (Ed.), Policing the police (pp. 56–60). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
38.
ReinerR. (1993). Police accountability: Principles, patterns and practices. In ReinerR. & SpencerS. (Eds.), Accountable policing: Effectiveness, empowerment and equity. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
39.
ReissA. J. (1976). Police brutality: Answers to key questions. In NiederhofferA. & BlumbergA. S. (Eds.), The ambivalent force: Perspective on the police (2nd ed., pp. 333–342). Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
40.
ReissA. J., & BorduaD. J. (1967). Environment and organization: A perspective on the police. In BorduaD. J. (Ed.), The police: Six sociological essays (pp. 25–55). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
41.
Republic Act No. 6975. An act establishing the Philippine National Police under a reorganized Department of the Interior and local government, and for other purposes. Approved on December 13, 1990. Available at www.congress.gov.ph.
42.
Reuss-IanniE. (1983). Two cultures of policing: Street cops and management cops. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
43.
RuchelmanL. (1973). Who rules the police?New York: New York University Press.
44.
RussellG. D. (1997). The political ecology of police reform. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 20(3), 567–589.
45.
RussellK. (1976). Complaints against the police: A sociological view. Leicester: Milltak Ltd.
46.
SeneviratneM. (2004). Policing the police in the United Kingdom. Policing & Society, 14(4), 329–347.
47.
SkolnickJ. (1966). Justice without trial. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
48.
SkolnickJ., & FyfeJ. (1993). Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force. New York: The Free Press.
49.
SnowR. (1992). Civilian oversight: Plus or minus?Law and Order, 40(12), 51–56.
50.
StoneC. E., & WardH. E. (2000). Democratic policing: A framework for action. Policing & Society, 10, 11–45.
51.
TalB. (2003). Civilian oversight in Philadelphia: The first 50 years. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Police Advisory Commission.
52.
TerrillR. J. (1982). Complaint procedures: Variations on the theme of civilian participation. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 10(4), 398–407.
53.
TerrillR. J. (1988). Police accountability in Philadelphia: Retrospect and prospects. American Journal of Police, 7(2), 79–99.
54.
TerrillW., & McCluskeyJ. (2002). Citizen complaints and problem officers: Examining officer behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 143–155.
55.
UildriksN., & Van MastrigtH. (1991). Policing police violence. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
56.
Van MaanenJ. (1993). Making rank: Becoming an American police sergeant. In DunhamR. & AlpertG. (Eds.), Critical issues in policing: Contemporary readings (2nd ed., pp. 165–180). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
57.
WagnerA. E., & DeckerS.H. (1993). Evaluating citizen complaints against the police. In DunhamR. & AlpertG. (Eds.), Critical issues in policing: Contemporary readings (2nd ed., pp. 275–291). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
58.
WalkerS. (2001). Police accountability: The role of citizen oversight. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
59.
WestP. (1988). Investigation of complaints against the police: Summary report of a national survey. American Journal of Police, 7(2): 101–121.
60.
WilsonJames Q. (1963). The police and their problems: A theory. Public Policy, 12, 189–216.
61.
WoodD. & MacAlisterD. (2005). Accountable, responsive, and independent: On the need for balance in police governance. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 7(3): 197–207.
62.
ZaideG. & ZaideS. (1993). Philippine history and culture. Manila: National Book Store.
63.
ZidarK., & KlemencicG. (2004). Confronting a phenomenon of impunity and denial: Contemporary European trend in dealing with allegations of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials. In MeskoG.PagonM., & DobovsekB. (Eds.), Policing in central and eastern europe: Dilemmas of contemporary criminal justice, (pp. 339–352). Slovenia: Faculty of Criminal Justice, University of Maribor. Translation available at www.ncjrs.gov.
