I. Are you in favor of extrajudicial killings?

No, I am not in favor of Extrajudicial Killings. I am a citizen of this State and by that it is obliged
upon every Filipino citizen to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, pay taxes and duties,
and to cooperate with the duly constituted authorities in the attainment and preservation of a just and
orderly society. In line with this and in relation to the question at hand, it would be first wise to define
extrajudicial killings and to consult the laws of the state holding jurisdiction over this land.

Extrajudicial killing is a term used to describe an execution, killing, or deprivation of life of a

person absent any judicial determination of guilt for an act or omission punishable by law. However, the
very term "extrajudicial killing" cannot hold water in Philippine law because, simply put, there is no
"judicial killing" in this jurisdiction. Beyond Paragraph (1) Section 19, Article III of the 1987 Constitution,
and its prohibiting of the imposition of the death penalty, Republic Act no. 9346, AN ACT PROHIBITING
THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES, was passed in June 24 of 2006, specifically
repealing the legal imposition of any death penalty followed and applied by special laws in the past. The
worst punishment imposable by the Judiciary(Philippine courts)now is the punishment of Reclusion
Perpetua or Life Imprisonment. Thus, no person, even if guilty of any of the most heinous crimes, can
ever be put to death or be killed legally upon order of the court which would result in a "Judicial killing".
That being said, the only killings now recognized under Philippine law are those stated under Special
laws and under the Revised Penal Code such as Parricide, Death or Serious Physical Injury Under
Exceptional Circumstances, Murder, Homicide, Death Caused In A Tumultuous Affray, Giving Assistance to
Suicide, Infanticide, and Abortion, under Article 246 -249, 251, 253, 255, 256 - 259, respectively. Thus, in
view of the foregoing, all killings will fall under those terms and laws. To perform "Extrajudicial Killings"
is tantamount to committing a crime pursuant to the above-mentioned Articles of the Revised Penal
Code, and as a Citizen of this Nation, we cannot condone the performance of any crime, be it for any
purpose.

Also, it would be beneficial to the question raised to point out that Philippine Criminal Law is not
consistent with mere vengeance or punishment. The same recognizes that Criminals are still citizens of
this Nation and as such still enjoy their rights under law. Philippine Criminal Law is also built around the
premise that citizens are to be rehabilitated for the purpose of making them persons who may once
again be of no threat to any other person, society or government, and may contribute to the welfare of
the Philippines as a nation. Thus, to kill a person for his commission of a crime would not be an end
sought after by law for it ends the possibility of rehabilitation or re-entry of a convict into society and for
him or her to be a productive member of the same.

In view of the above-mentioned facts, laws, rights and obligations of a Filipino citizen and all
other points discussed in furtherance of an answer as to whether I am in favor of Extrajudicial Killings, it
can then be derived that my answer is as clear as day: as a responsible and morally intrinsic citizen of this
Nation, No, I am not in favor of extrajudicial killings.
II. Do you think Extrajudicial killings should apply to Drug Lords, Pushers, and Drug dependents?

No, extrajudicial killings should never be applied to anyone. Beyond the question of morality that
no one shall take the life of another for any purpose, the law also answers this question. Pursuant to
Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution," No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws". This
provision in the 1987 Constitution bestows upon all persons a constitutional protection of all their legal
rights, putting the right to life as first among others. This sequence is not a mere coincidence as in
construing the above-mentioned provision, putting life before all sets it to be the most important right to
be protected before liberty and property. Thus, no person, under all legal circumstances, shall lose his
right to live due to this legal provision under the most important and powerful law of the land, the
Constitution.

Second point to take cognizance of in the said provision is the line "..nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws" which is also known as "The Equal Protection Clause". This is
very relevant to the inquiry at hand since it sheds light on the question as to whether criminals,
specifically Drug Lords, Pushers or Drug Dependents, may be stripped of their right to live due to acts
that are deemed detrimental to the welfare of other persons and the nation itself. The answer to the
same is no. The Equal Protection Clause ensures that good citizens as well as the worst of the worst are
afforded the same rights to life, liberty, property, legal due process and other rights bestowed by law.
This may be believed by some to be inconsistent with the concept of retribution or the persecution of
those persons who have acted against others unlawfully, but there is the legal maxim "Dura Lex Sed Lex,
The Law May Be Harsh But It Is The Law". To act in contravention of this is tantamount to non-
observance of one's duty as a citizen to uphold the law, which in short is Illegal.

Thus my answer is No, for the law is the law, be it that you concur with it or not. But it is all that
stands between this hopeful life and a dog-eat-dog world.

by: Cecil Apolinar D. Fojas