A scandal over the charging of a ticket of S/2 on a bus from a non-commissioned officer opened the debate on the police free pass.
The controversy points to whether this benefit to the Police, in force since 1994, should be maintained or whether Law No. 26271, which has already been in force for 31 years, should be repealed.
The embarrassing incident between a police officer and an urban driver occurred last Saturday the 4th and did not take long to go viral on social networks.
That day, around 11:30 am, police officer Judith Cuba Lara boarded a bus from the Urano Tours company, driven by José Villafuerte, near the Venus location, on Brasil Avenue, Magdalena district.
One of the videos of the incident that quickly went viral on social networks.
The driver reported that neither the agent nor her companion paid the fare and that she did not identify herself, doing so only when she was taken to the Monserrat police station, in Cercado de Lima.
“I am identified”
In videos broadcast on social networks, such as TikTok, reviewed by Perú21, it is seen that the non-commissioned officer talks with passengers and states: “I have boarded and I say pass. What has the man told me? That I have to pay my fare. There is a law, a right, as long as they do not repeal the law.”
Cuba was referring to Law No. 26271, in force since 1994, which grants free passage on public transportation to police and firefighters, whether or not they are in civilian clothes.
Article 1 of the norm states: “The right to free passes and differentiated passes and the right to passes charged by passenger transport service companies in the urban and interurban areas of the country will only apply in the case of: a) Members of the National Police and members of the Volunteer Fire Department of Peru…”.
During the journey to Caquetá, in San Martín de Porres, the non-commissioned officer shows her golden badge and maintains: “I am identified.” Then he adds: “What did the man (driver) say? They are scourges, criminals… At no time have I disrespected the man… The law protects me (Law No. 26271).”
Driver version
Villafuerte, on the other hand, recalled that he only said: “Why don’t you identify yourself?”, which, according to him, was the only thing he complained to the police agent.
He also assured that he never required him to pay the fare, but that the police became upset when he reminded him that many of his colleagues do pay their fare “for the murders of public transport drivers,” despite the validity of Law No. 26271.
The driver also clarified that the non-commissioned officer did not ask him to stop at any location. However, he was denounced for resistance to authority, contempt and crimes against public administration, under the argument that he did not stop the bus when she requested it.
According to the police report, Villafuerte was transferred to the Monserrat police station around 12:10 pm and remained detained for 28 hours, until his release on Sunday at 5:00 pm.
This happened when the bus, according to a video recorded by a passenger, was intervened by a group of eight police officers at the height of the bridge that leads to the Caquetá oval, after the call from the non-commissioned officer.
police defense
The Police defender, retired PNP general Máximo Ramírez, assured this newspaper that Villafuerte’s arrest “did not occur because he wanted to charge her for the fare,” but because he verbally attacked the agent, as seen in the video, and because he did not stop the bus when she requested it.
He added that the non-commissioned officer had to ask for support because the driver was resisting authority. He also clarified that Cuba was not traveling with his partner, as the driver stated, but only with his son, whom he was taking to a health center.
“For resistance to authority you can face a sentence of two to three years,” Ramírez said.
They would be left without a ticket
The driver’s lawyer, Rodrigo Noblecilla, indicated that his client will be investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office, although he has not yet received a summons.
For his part, criminal lawyer Andy Carrión considered that the arrest was an abuse of authority: “From my point of view it was only an administrative offense, and, therefore, an excess by the Police. They are arrested in flagrante delicto when a crime was committed and not an administrative offense.”
Carrión maintained that Law No. 26271 requires greater precision, since failure to comply should be punished as an administrative infraction and not as a crime.
Along the same lines, criminal lawyer Ciro Cancho described the incident as “an excess.” In an article published on the Pasión por el Derecho portal, he wrote: “Not respecting a police officer’s free pass can lead to an administrative sanction. But considering it a flagrant crime of disobedience to authority, which enables an arrest, is not only an excess, but also possible criminal conduct.”
They would be left without a ticket
In parallel, the Peru Libre bench—taking advantage of the opportunity—has presented a bill to repeal said rule, according to the Police Legal Defense Institute. This seeks to make the police officers pay their fare again like any ordinary citizen.
The debate over the police pass on public transport, without a doubt, is already open.
I KNEW THAT
-More than 30 years. Since 1994, a free pass has been in force for police and firefighters who travel by public transport.
-Eight police officers. That was the number of troops that went to Caquetá to arrest José Villafuerte.
-Excess? The bus remained hospitalized at the Monserrat police station until Tuesday, despite the fact that the driver was released on Sunday.
Receive your Perú21 by email or Whatsapp. Subscribe to our enriched digital newspaper. Take advantage of the discounts.
