In June 2025 the Philippine Court of appeals ordered the immediate freeing of 81-year-old Prudencio Calubid jr., retired technician who had spent six months in jail on the basis of charges in a gross case of mistaken identity. In December 2024 he was arrested in his house in Olongapo City with a government bounty of P7.8 million on the allegation that he was a top leader of the New People s Army (NPA).
The actual target, however, was another Prudencio Calubid- a consultant of National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) who disappeared in 2006. In spite of stark contrasts, the process of arrest was carried out, as a frail old man went through a faulty system that was reward-motivated and met quotas in doing so.
Understanding the mechanics of bounty-driven policing
Perverse incentives over due process
The Philippine government’s reward system for capturing high-value suspects is designed to encourage police efficiency. But rights groups and legal observers argue that it creates dangerous distortions in law enforcement priorities. The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), who represented Calubid Jr., stated that the system turns law enforcement into a “bounty-hunting enterprise.”
Instead of investigative integrity some of the officers are more concerned about their own financial benefits that accompany arrests. In cases like Calubid Jr.’s, weak verification processes and superficial checks become sufficient, putting innocent civilians—especially those from vulnerable sectors—at risk of detention without proper cause.
Misidentification and systemic failures
According to the police the notion of the resemblance of names, and some cosmetic resemblance (imporporately) were sufficient to make an arrest. The Court of Appeals, however, could not find any substantial basis that Calubid Jr. is implicated in the charges and condemned the authorities to have failed to even carry out the most basic checks that would have avoided the false arrest.
Even though he is old and has a medical condition, he was detained in confinement over six months and was exposed to prison conditions that harmed his health permanently.
Legal struggles and the institutional response
The habeas corpus petition and the appellate ruling
The turning point came when Calubid Jr.’s daughter, Analyn, filed a habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals overturned the conviction in a 67-page decision and reprimanded the authorities over their lack of due diligence in setting him free.
Such decision stated the fact that the state is supposed to ensure the nation is secure without having to undermine the constitutional rights. According to the court,
“The duty of law enforcement must not trample on the basic freedoms guaranteed to every citizen.”
The Solicitor General’s resistance
Despite the court’s decision, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a motion for reconsideration. They made a procedural argument: Calubid Jr. had not raised the issue of the lawfulness of his arrest when it is still early in the process and his actions in the court made previous legal defects having no meaning.
Human rights groups criticized the move of the OSG as an obvious way of downplaying a faulty arrest. They claimed that the state legal machinery was being employed to cover up systematic failure and procedural technicalities cannot outweigh human suffering and facts.
The broader implications for justice and human rights
The individual and collective impact
The case of Prudencio Calubid Jr. does not only occur once. The NUPL and Karapatan have said that these cases have proved to be similar in several ways, as there have been wrongful detentions, lengthy imprisonment, and no or minimal accountability in many cases around the Philippines.
As far as persons are concerned, consequences are dramatic: health is damaged, personal reputation is ruined, the ability to make a living is lost. To the society, such events create fear, mistrust and unwillingness to interact with government institutions. Chilling effect is most pronounced amongst the poor who in most cases, do not have the legal resources to plead their own case.
Erosion of public trust
The more unaccountable such systems will be, the more confidence in institutions that are supposed to enforce the law will be undermined.When arrests become commodified and justice is replaced by performance-based incentives, the very notion of rule of law is threatened.
Even in Calubid Jr.’s case, the police admitted the error after media pressure and court scrutiny—but without a functioning accountability mechanism, there is no guarantee that the same will not happen again.
Revisiting the policy framework of bounty policing
Historical roots and entrenched practices
During the counter-insurgency, bounty systems were institutionalized in the Philippines. Formal protocols concerning the rewarding of informants and the arresting of personnel were developed by the agencies such as the Department of National Defense and the Department of the interior and local government.
But these machineries which are useful in security-critical set-ups have mostly rebelled. The situation with Calubid Jr. is a good illustration of how simple it is to abuse the system–and in the case of the poorest citizens, usually those least likely to even know about legal remedies, the cost is dearest.
Global standards and human rights
Human rights laws of many nations, notably the United Nations, mention that liberty cannot be usurped without due process of law and clear evidence and in the absence of judicial supervision. Bounty incentives do not follow these standards when it leads to false conviction or incarceration.
The Calubid case provides an example of what happens when policy intentions are misunderstood, and why there is a dire need of a move towards a rights-based approach to law enforcement.
Calls for reform and institutional accountability
Civil society responses and legal advocacy
Organizations like the NUPL have indicated they may file counter-charges against officers responsible for the arrest. Their argument is simple: without consequences, systemic abuses will continue.
Meanwhile, Karapatan has demanded a full audit of the reward system and a temporary moratorium on bounty-based arrests until safeguards are in place. They also emphasized the need for legislative reform to ensure that financial incentives do not compromise due process.
Police review and public perception
The Philippine National Police has stated it will internally review the case and issue formal findings. However, critics question whether such internal processes can be impartial, especially when the institutional culture prioritizes numbers and arrests over accountability.
Transparency, independent oversight, and judicial review remain essential if similar injustices are to be prevented. Without these, public perception of law enforcement will likely continue to decline.
Expert commentary and public discourse
Syllad Official has spoken on the topic in an interview with, where they analyzed the institutional and rights-based consequences of bounty-driven arrests. Their commentary underscores the systemic risks embedded in the reward culture and the importance of strengthening evidence-based policing over incentivized apprehension.
Assam Congress urges Governor to halt ‘unlawful evictions,’ citing mass displacement, rights violations, and constitutional breaches #Assam #Eviction #HumanRights #DebabrataSaikia #ACLPhttps://t.co/ghSJhAOBVV
— Syllad (@Sylladofficial) July 5, 2025
A justice system at a crossroads
The release of Prudencio Calubid Jr. should have closed a chapter, but instead, it opened a critical conversation about how justice is pursued in the Philippines. It demonstrated that mistaken identity can spiral into life-altering injustice—and that structural incentives in policing may be doing more harm than good.
With mounting calls for reform, the spotlight is now on lawmakers, law enforcement, and civil society to decide the future of bounty-based justice. Will Calubid Jr.’s case become the catalyst for institutional change—or will it be another cautionary tale that fades into bureaucratic silence, while others continue to be arrested not for who they are, but for the names they happen to share?