PHILIPPINES: Extrajudicial killings and attacks against

human rights defenders surge under Duterte



08/09/2017
Press release
Human Rights Defenders
 Philippines

Paris-Geneva, September 8, 2017 - Authorities in the Philippines must ensure greater protection
of human rights defenders amid a recent surge of killings and attacks against them, the
Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (FIDH-OMCT) said today.

In recent days, at least four representatives from different communities, - peasant and small-scale
miner groups - have been shot dead. More than 50 human rights defenders - mostly peasants or
indigenous persons - have been killed since President Duterte assumed office in June 2016,
according to human rights NGO Karapatan (a member of OMCT’s SOS-Torture Network).
Karapatan has documented the killing of more than 660 human rights defenders in the last 16
years in the Philippines.

“While human rights defenders in the Philippines have been traditionally vulnerable to
killings, threats, and attacks [1], President Duterte’s anti-human rights rhetoric and blatant
disregard for human life have created a more hostile environment for defenders”, said FIDH
President Dimitris Christopoulos.

President Duterte has repeatedly threatened to kill human rights defenders. The latest such
instance was on August 16, when he suggested that human rights activists were “obstructing
justice” and urged police to “shoot them”.

“President Duterte’s Government, like any other Philippine Government, has a legal
obligation to protect human rights and human rights defenders. His discourse that literally
encourages violence against defenders - the very people who stand up for human rights, social
justice, and an inclusive society - must stop”, said OMCT Secretary General Gerald Staberock.

On August 23, 2017, Mr. Roger Timboco, a member of the peasant group KAMMAO
(Kahugpungan sa mga Maguuma sa Maco ComVal), was shot dead in Mawab, Compostela
Valley. Four days later, a member of “Abante”, a local organisation of small-scale miners,
Mr. Lomer Gerodias, was shot dead in Maragusan, also in Compostela Valley. Both killings were
believed to have been carried out by Philippine soldiers. Two others, Mr. Jezreel Arrabis and his
wife Ms. Dalia Arrabis, both members of the Farmers Association in Davao City (FADC), were
gunned down in Davao City on September 2, 2017.

In addition to extrajudicial killings, human rights defenders operating in the Philippines continue
to be the target of harassment, death threats, and verbal abuse. On August 22, police raided the
houses of peasant activists Mr. Rolando Gumban, his son Jeremy Gumban, and son-in-law Jun
Roy Diane - all members of farmers group Pamanggas-KMP, which works to promote land rights
in Sitio Lubigan, Barangay Pananawan, Masbate Province. Police arrested the three and detained
them at Sara police station, Iloilo Province. The charges against them are still unknown. In July
and August, several members of Karapatan, including Secretary Generals Ms. Cristina Palabay
and Mr. Reylan Vergara, received death threats. On August 20, 2017, Dr. Darby Santiago,
Chairperson of the Health Alliance for Democracy (HEAD) - a member organisation of
Karapatan, also received death threats.

A fact-finding mission to the Philippines, carried out by the Observatory from August 7 to 16,
2017, observed an increasingly hostile environment for human rights defenders in the country.
Interlocutors reported having experienced increased difficulties in carrying out their human
rights activities under President Duterte, particularly in relation to investigations surrounding
extrajudicial killings allegedly committed by police and vigilantes as part of Duterte’s ‘war on
drugs’.

House Bill 1617, which is currently under consideration before the House of Representatives and
aims at strengthening the protection of human rights defenders, could help improve the situation
for defenders. The draft legislation reaffirms the rights of human rights defenders when carrying
out their peaceful and legitimate activities. It also imposes an obligation on the Government to
take all precautionary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders against any
violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other
arbitrary action as a consequence of their legitimate activities.

The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (the Observatory) was created in
1997 by FIDH and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT). The objective of this
programme is to prevent or remedy situations of repression against human rights defenders.
FIDH and OMCT are both members of ProtectDefenders.eu, the European Union Human Rights
Defenders Mechanism implemented by international civil society.

For more information, please contact:

• FIDH: Samuel Hanryon: +33 6 72 28 42 94 / Audrey Couprie: +33 6 48 05 91 57
• OMCT: Delphine Reculeau: +41 22 809 49 39

Footnotes
[1] For more background information, see in particular Observatory Mission Report, The
Philippines: Human rights defenders at the forefront despite an ongoing culture of violence and
impunity, February 2015.

Inquirer
A TOTAL of 3,257 extrajudicial killings (EJKs) were committed during the Marcos dictatorship.
In contrast, there were 805 drug-related fatalities from May 10 (when Rodrigo Duterte emerged
winner of the presidential election) to Aug. 12, per the Inquirer count.

If the current rate continues, the total number of EJKs for the six years of the Duterte
administration will end up about 700 percent more than the killings committed during the 14
years of the Marcos dictatorship.

President Duterte is either ill-advised or terribly underestimating the risk that he can be held
liable at the International Criminal Court, given the circumstances of the killings.

ADVERTISEMENT

In 2011, the Philippines ratified the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal
Court. Under this treaty, every Filipino, including the President, can be tried by this Court which
has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity. The treaty provides that when murder is
“committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population,
with knowledge of the attack,” it becomes a crime against humanity.

The possibility that the current EJKs will be considered by the International Criminal Court as
amounting to a crime against humanity is a liability risk that our President is miscalculating.

Ruben Carranza, director of the New-York-based International Center for Transitional Justice,
points out that “[w]hen over 500 civilians have been killed by both police and vigilantes with the
clear goal of targeting them in a ‘war against drugs,’ with their impunity explicitly guaranteed by
the president, then the elements of EJKs as a ‘crime against humanity of murder’ are already
there—(a) widespread or systematic killings, (b) civilians are targeted, and (c) the perpetrators
know or intended their conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack.”

On Aug. 11, Kabayan party-list Rep. Harry Roque delivered a privilege speech in which he said:
“It is clear that the civilian population is being attacked—news reports all around us
overwhelmingly establish that hundreds of Filipinos have been killed either directly by
governmental forces or with their support or tolerance.”

Roque likewise said: “It is also clear that the President is aware that these acts are ongoing. Even
without proof of a directive on his part, he has, in many instances, spoken about the use of
violence against drug syndicates.”

Roque cited the decisions of international criminal tribunals which prosecuted political and
military officials for crimes against humanity committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
These tribunals declared that “it is not necessary to show that [the crimes committed] were the
result of the existence of a policy or plan” and that the plan “need not be declared expressly or
even stated clearly and precisely. It may be surmised from the occurrence of a series of events.”
The party-list representative cautioned the President to be careful: “While it would be imprudent
for me to say with certainty that President Duterte has already committed a crime against
humanity, it would be a disservice to this entire nation if I did not warn him to be careful. Neither
the Rome Statute nor general international law prescribes a minimum number of victims for an
indictment. So long as the [International Criminal Court] believes that the war on drugs is
‘widespread’ and ‘systematic,’ [it is] likely to investigate.”

The President enjoys immunity under Philippine law, but he has no similar immunity for crimes
under the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction. Carranza says “the presidents of Sudan and
Kenya were charged” in the court even during their incumbency. And there is no expiration of
liability for ICC crimes, so he can be charged even long after he leaves Malacañang.

ADVERTISEMENT

The determination of Mr. Duterte to cleanse the country of the drug menace and his willingness
to risk his “life, honor, and the presidency” to achieve this goal are praiseworthy.

However, we are at that stage of our civilization where we have long abandoned the ancient
practice of relying on operatives to dispense justice through the smoking barrel of their guns. We
have advanced our civilization by relying on gun-wielding men to apprehend criminals, but have
separately assigned the task of listening to accusations of guilt and protestations of innocence to
men and women who mete out penalties.

It is true that our current justice system is notoriously imperfect and graft-prone. But we do not
improve our way of life by marching back to the Dark Ages where justice is made synonymous
with violence. We improve our defective justice system by fixing it, not by abandoning it.

It is true that the proliferation of drugs is partly due to corrupt judges. But it is also true that
illegal drugs proliferate because of a corrupt police force and a corrupt prosecution service, both
of which are executive agencies within the President’s control to reform.

It is also true that before our children become drug dependents who clog police and court
dockets, there are the education, health, and social welfare departments which are executive
agencies within the President’s control to tap for instructive, reformative, and curative solutions
to the drug menace.

We want our President to succeed in his fight against illegal drugs. But in his haste and zeal, he
may end up accused of a crime more serious than the ones perpetrated by his archenemies. The
last thing our country needs is a President facing trial at the International Criminal Court.

***
Posted: 19 April 2013

On April 18, 2013, Thursday, the Inter-Agency Committee (IAC) on Extra-Legal Killings,
Enforced Disappearances, Torture and Other Grave Violations of the Right to Life, Liberty and
Security of Persons, chaired by the Department of Justice (DOJ), held its third regular meeting at
the GHQ Conference Room, Camp Aguinaldo. The IAC composed of the DOJ, Department of
the Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of National Defense (DND), Office of
the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), Office of the Presidential Adviser for
Political Affairs (OPAPA), Presidential Human Rights Committee (PHRC), Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), Philippine National Police (PNP) and the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI), adopted the Operational Guidelines or the implementing rules and regulations of
Administrative Order No. 35 which was signed by President Benigno S. Aquino III last 22
November 2012.

The Operational Guidelines is an important step towards engendering an investigative

environment that will benefit greatly from the legal knowledge, experience and leadership of a
prosecutor to ensure an airtight investigation and successful prosecution of a greater number of
cases. The Guidelines call for the creation of special investigation teams which are composite
teams of investigators and prosecutors that will undertake case build-up of human rights
violations covered by the administrative order. Their efforts to secure a successful prosecution
will be monitored closely by special oversight teams composed of seasoned prosecutors and
investigators who are mandated to provide guidance to the investigators and prosecutors on the
ground and also submit recommendations to the JAC. Special tracker teams may also be
created to secure the apprehension of perpetrators who continue to successfully elude the
enforcement of their warrants of arrest.

In an interview, DOJ Secretary Leila M. Dc Lima shared her observations that, "these Guidelines
will be the important tools to train the composite teams of investigators and prosecutors all over
the country, not only to secure the paradigm shift in our ranks that will encourage our
prosecutors to take a more pro-active approach at the investigation level, but indubitably to
ensure a higher conviction rate on cases involving grave human rights violations." De Lima
observed, "our main challenge is make sure we have the full support of the PNP, NBI and the
National Prosecution Service to see the spirit of A.O. No. 35 through which is to secure the
arrests and eventual convictions of perpetrators of these human rights violations and to address,
through these institutional mechanisms, the perceived continuing culture of impunity."

The IAC has also undertaken the inventory of cases of extra-legal killings (ELK), enforced
disappearances (ED), torture and other grave human rights violations from lists of all
government sources. De Lima confirmed that the Technical Working Group (TWG) assisting the
IAC has initially submitted a recommended list of priority ELK and ED cases which will be
validated by the IAC members within the week. These cases will thereafter be assigned to the
various A.O. No. 35 teams for investigation, prosecution or monitoring, as the case maybe.

Present in the said meeting were Sec. Voltaire Gazmin of DND, Sec. Teresita Quintos Deles of
OPAPP, Gen. Emmanuel Bautista, Chief of Staff of AFP, Usec. Rafael Santos of DILG, Usec.
Luis Martin Gascon, Usec. Pio Lorenzo Batino of DND, Gen. Nestor Fajura of PNP and Atty.
Ferdinand Lavin of NBJ. Also present as resource persons and observers, were Commission on
Human Rights (CHR) Chairperson Loretta Ann Morales, CHR Commissioner Ma. Victoria
Cardona and Assistant Ombudsman Evelyn Baliton, who signed as witnesses to the Operational
Guidelines. The Office of the Ombudsman and the CHR also contributed to the list of A.O. No.
35 cases being processed by the TWG.

The next meeting of the IAC will be on the second week of June.

Enclosed: Operational Guidelines of A.O. No. 35

OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 35

WHEREAS, Article II, Section ii of the 1987 Constitution declares that the State values the
dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights;

WHEREAS, Article III, Section i of the 1987 Constitution provides that no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law;

WHEREAS, Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable;

WHEREAS, Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution provides that any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of the right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice;
WHEREAS, Article III, Sedtidn 12(2) of the 1987 Constitution provides that no torture, force,
violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against
any person, and that secret detention places, solitary incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited;

WHEREAS, Article III, Section 14(1) of the 1987 Constitution provides that no person shall be
held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law;

WHEREAS, Article III, Section 18(1) of the 1987 Constitution provides that no person shall be
detained solely by reason of political beliefs and aspirations;

WHEREAS, the Philippines is a state party to key international human rights instruments,
among which are: (a) the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and (b) the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;

WHEREAS, in becoming a State Party to these international human rights conventions, the
Philippines undertook to harmonize and reflect in its laws, policies and practices the provisions
of such conventions;

WHEREAS, being such a State Party, the Philippine Government passed Republic Act No.
9745, entitled, "An Act Penalizing Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or
Punishment and Presctibing Penalties Therefor" penalizing torture and other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment;

WHEREAS, to further institutionalize the commitment of the Philippines to improve its human
rights record, the Philippine Government enacted Republic Act No. 9851, entitled, "Philippine
Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against
Humanity;

WHEREAS, to fully adhere to the principles and standards of absolute condemnation and
prohibition of enforced or involuntary disappearance, the President signed into law Republic Act
No. 10353, "An Act Defining and Penalizing Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance," a first of
its kind in Asia and another major legislative milestone on the protection and promotion of
human rights;

WHEREAS, commitment to resolve cases of political violence in various forms of human rights
violations caused President Aquino to establish an institutional legacy through Administrative
Order No. 35, entitled, "Creating the Inter-Agency Committee on Extra-Legal killings, Enforced
Disappearances, Torture and Other Grave Violations of the Right to Life, Liberty and Security of
Persons," a comprehensive government machinery mandated to monitor cases of extrajudicial
killings, enforced disappearances, torture and other human rights violations;

WHEREAS, in order to ensure that political activist and media killings are effectively
investigated and successfully prosecuted, the Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of the
Department of Interior and Local Government jointly formulated and issued through a Joint
Department Order No. 003-2012, which outlines the Operational Guidelines for Prosecutors and
Law Enforcement Investigators in Evidence-Gathering, Investigation and Case Build-Up;
Inquest and Preliminary Investigation; and Trial of Cases of Political-Activist and Media
Killings;

WHEREAS, there have been reported and validated violations of human rights of the
individuals throughout the years, which have served to create an impression of a culture of
impunity, wherein State and non state forces have been accused of silencing, through violence
and intimidation, legitimate dissent and opposition raised by members of the civil society, cause-
oriented groups, political movements, people's and non-government organizations, and by
ordinary citizens;

WHEREAS, most of these violations remain uninvestigated and unsolved, with the perpetrators
unidentified or unprosecuted, giving rise to more impunity;

WHEREAS, there is a need to revisit these unsolved cases of grave violations of the right to life,
liberty, and security of persons, whether committed as part of an apparent government policy in
the past or as recurring cases of unsanctioned individual abuse of power and authority by State
and non-state forces under the present;

WHEREAS, it is important to establish a respectable and validated databank of all specific

allegations of human rights violations in the form of extra-legal killings, enforced
disappearances, torture, and other grave violations of the right to life, liberty, and security of
persons in order to ensure the comprehensive, coherent, well-coordinated and quick response of
the Philippine Government; and

WHEREAS, the present Administration declares as a matter of paramount policy that there is no
room for all these forms of political violence and abuses of power by agents or elements of the
State or non- state forces, and towards this end commits to establish an institutional legacy of an
efficient, coherent, and comprehensive government machinery dedicated to the resolution of
unsolved cases of political violence in the form of extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances,
torture, and other grave violations of the right to life, liberty, and security of persons;

NOW THEREFORE, in order to carry out the implementation of Administrative Order No. 35,
the following Operational Guidelines are hereby prescribed and promulgated.

Statement on Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines

Human Rights Watch commends the work of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary
or arbitrary executions.

In addition to persistent politically motivated killings, Human Rights Watch remains concerned
by killings carried out with the knowledge or direct participation and support of local authorities
against so-called “undesirables” in the Philippines. Human Rights Watch documented many of
these killings in recent years, particularly on the southern island of Mindanao.
In our May 2014 report “One Shot to the Head: Death Squad Killings in Tagum City,
Philippines” we detailed the involvement of local government officials and police officers witha
“death squad” responsible for the extrajudicial killings of alleged drug dealers, petty criminals,
street children, and others over the past decade. This death squad also committed guns-for-hire
operations, targeting a journalist, a judge, and a tribal leader as well as local politicians and
businessmen. Particularly disturbing is the failure of the Philippine government to seriously
investigate the death squad and bring those responsible to justice.

Madame President, our findings of hundreds of extrajudicial killings in Tagum City reflects
broader problems of law enforcement and a dysfunctional criminal justice system in the
Philippines. The Tagum Death Squad, for instance, is an offshoot of similar death squad activity
in nearby Davao City. Past Human Rights Watch research indicate the spread of these abusive
“anti-crime” campaigns to several other cities in the country.

Extrajudicial executions, including politically motivated killings, by state security forces have
been a longstanding problem in the Philippines. Although the number of killings has decreased
dramatically in recent years compared to a decade ago, they continue largely with impunity.
There has been an uptick the past year in attacks on journalists and environmental activists.
Leftist activists, politicians and labor organizers also remain at risk.

We welcome in this regard the Congressional resolution N°. 1222 adopted directs the
Congressional Committee on Human Rights to conduct an immediate investigation into
extrajudicial killings perpetrated by the Tagum Death Squad. This resolution is a much-needed
signal that the country’s culture of impunity for extrajudicial killings needs to come to an end.
We urge the Government of the Philippines to take all necessary steps to bring an end to
extrajudicial killings and ensure that respect for international human rights and humanitarian law
prevails in the Philippines, and encourage the Special Rapporteur to give particular attention to
these cases

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

At our regular village Sunday mass last week, I was listening intently to the parish priest’s
homily as he discussed the importance of being vigilant about what was happening in the
Philippines. He kept talking about the importance of the Fifth Commandant ‘Thou shall not kill’
and how it is relevant to what is happening on a large scale these past few months. I think he was
trying to remind us not to turn a blind eye to the rising numbers of deaths in just the past two
months.

Obviously, many knew that a rise in death toll might come to pass. Those who voted for
President Rodrigo Duterte counted on him and his hard stance against crime and drugs to “clean
the streets,” as it were, of drug pushers, syndicates, and would-be criminals. And just two months
into office he appears to have kept his word. As they say, “change has come indeed.” However,
we also have to stop and ask ourselves at what cost?
I have supported President Duterte’s stand against criminals. I understand where he is coming
from and we most definitely have to start making sure Filipinos feel safe in the Philippines again.
After all, for too long those who break the law would go by unpunished and as a result more and
more criminals are emboldened to do as they please because they don’t fear the repercussions.
There are many aspects of the president’s solution to violence and crime that I can understand
and even support. Placing curfews on teenagers, alcohol consumption, and more are smart
preventive measures.

However, having said all that, I don’t believe that “shoot to kill” is the best way to achieve the
goal of a safer country. When did fighting fire with fire ever actually work in the long run? There
has to be a better middle ground. If the president’s mandate of shoot to kill is followed what we
would end up with are even more vigilantes walking the streets with a convoluted sense of ‘wild
wild west’ justice. This is not the way to make things safe again. In fact, things might get even
more dangerous.

I understand wanting to clean the streets for our families, but turning a blind eye to what is
happening right now just because we it feel it doesn’t apply to us is wrong. It might seem that
way now, but in the end it will come back to haunt us. What happens when one day it’s someone
we love being wrongly accused and gunned out without a proper trial? Or worse, what if we, or
someone we love, become collateral damage in a random shoot-out? It’s not far-fetched
considering the way people are reacting to the president’s mandate.

Just last week, a Party-list congressman in the House called on law enforcers to investigate the
alarming growing rate of extra-judicial killings and prosecute the killers in the government’s
ongoing campaign against illegal drugs. After all, killing is just as punishable an offense as drug
use right? One will not stomp out the other. The representative reiterates that the government
can’t just stand idly by while unidentified gunman posing as police roam the streets and kill
people with impunity. If we let that go, it will only be a matter of time before it gets completely
out of hand.

Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

In fact, the “bloody war on drugs” in the country has already made headlines all over the world
on news sites like Time, The New York Times, Daily Mail, and so many more. In the short span
of time that the Duterte administration has proclaimed their war on drugs, over 500 people have
been killed. These “pushers” or “addicts” were executed in the name of the war on drugs but
were never given due process or any chance to prove their innocence. In many instances a simple
cardboard sign was placed by the victim with the world “Pusher” written on it.

Is this what our country has come to? Killing someone and making a claim of their guilt on
cardboard is enough to make it okay? We can’t allow this to become the norm. What’s to stop
someone from killing an enemy that may or may not have had anything to do with drugs and just
claiming they are a pusher or an addict after the fact? At that point they won’t be able to defend
themselves and it will be too late.
I’m sure we all remember the case of pedicab driver Michael Siaron who was shot while looking
for a final fare for the evening on the streets of Manila. After pausing to grab an apple, Siaron
was targeted by gunmen on motorcycles who pumped him full of bullets before riding off. His
wife, who heard the shots, ran to the scene and pushed past the police to cradle her husband’s
lifeless body on the asphalt. The photo has been circulating traditional and social media and has
since become “a modern day Pietà of the Manila slums” as eloquently put by The New York
Times.

These people, many of whom are the ones who put Duterte in power because they were
desperate for change, don’t always have a voice. We need to help be their voice. We all deserve
justice. I believe that those who are guilty should be punished, however, due process has to be
observed. We need to live in a world governed by law. In fact, over the weekend, Vice President
Leni Robredo also made it clear which side of the fence she is on when it comes to summary
executions. She is grateful that the President has made several statements saying the rule of law
and due process would be honored but she insists that the killings have to stop and enjoins both
the public and the media to help drive this message home.

We all want to live in a safe society. We want to be able to raise our children in a safer world. I
commend the president on his mission to stamp our crime, drugs and violence in the Philippines.
On that note, we are all aligned in wanting a better country. However, there has to be a way to do
this while letting due process and the rule of law prevail. I remember the Latin legal phrase –
“Fiat iustitia ruat cælum,” which translates into “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
Fair justice should always prevail, especially when lives are at stake.

Philippines' war vs drugs: It has been bloody

From social media to the streets, President Duterte’s first month in office has been bloody

Nicole Curato
Published 2:15 PM, July 25, 2016

Updated 1:46 PM, December 27, 2016

“I told you to avoid me,” reluctant presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte warned the nation last
year. “It’s going to be bloody.” From the beginning of his candidacy until his first weeks in office
as President of the Republic, Mr Duterte has been consistent in using tough language in his war
against crime and drugs.

True enough, it has been bloody.

Less than a month into his presidency, over 300 drug-related killings have been recorded. Most
have been shot during police operations. Others were killed by unidentified gunmen and
vigilantes.
The profile of the victims varies. Some are known drug pushers – those who have been on the
city’s drug watch list and ruined the lives of many poor families. There are possible instances of
mistaken identity, like the young scholar sleeping over a friend’s place killed in a drug bust
operation. Many are nameless victims, the “unidentified suspects” whose cadavers remain
unclaimed in funeral parlors.

The story we tell

Whether we like it or not, killings have now become integral to the narrative of the Philippines’
war against drugs. Our President’s remarks have a lot to do with building this narrative, but it is
unfair to lay blame squarely on the President for promoting this kind of discourse.

This narrative is much bigger than Mr Duterte. Underpinning the President’s tough talk on drugs
is a deeply worrying public sentiment that affirms, legitimizes and even celebrates the spike on
drug-related killings. Carlos Bodoni calls this the Titanic Syndrome: A contagious euphoria
while country is sinking.

A cursory observation of comments in online forums and everyday talk is revealing of the kind
of society in which we now live.

First, it tells a story of a society that has cast doubt on what were once considered inalienable
principles of human rights. It turns out that this discussion is far from settled, that there are vocal
segments of society who continue to think that some are less human than others, that human
rights are particular, not universal and that suspicion is enough to shoot someone dead.

Today, what we see is a renegotiation of these universal principles. We hear citizens

unapologetically arguing that there are lives worth protecting and lives worth sacrificing for the
sake of a political project. Some, if not many, have given up on the ideal of building a nation
based on principles of social justice and compassion. We are living in times of crisis, where
rights and liberties are suspended to save the nation from itself.

Penal populism

Second, it seems like the discussion of crime and punishment today is overwhelmingly driven by
emotions than evidence. Even though there is no compelling scientific evidence that death
penalty is a deterrent to crime and no “war against drugs” has ever succeeded, none of these facts
matter to an anxious public bent on punishing people they perceive to be scum of society.

Penal populism is the term sociologists use to describe this phenomenon. It is driven by feelings
of anger and disillusionment with the slow procedures of the criminal justice system. Toughness
and immediate gratification are prioritised while the long-term and tedious strategy of reforming
the criminal justice system is viewed as a policy supported by politicians with no balls and
citizens who are biased and out of touch.

The killings have driven a wedge into our society. Instead of cultivating a sense that we are
responsible for each other, it has only served to make others feel better about themselves. It
perpetuates an individualistic thinking that we do not end up as cadavers wrapped in a garbage
bag and packing tape because we are much better people than those degenerates who do not
deserve a fair trial.

What we conveniently forget is how easy it is to fall into the cracks. Alice Goffman’s book On
the Run brilliantly documents this in the case of Philadelphia although the insights put forward
applies to the Philippines. Communities with limited life choices can easily be enveloped in the
web of criminality, as in the case of too familiar stories of desperate youths ending up as drug
mules and children running away from an abusive home only to land in the hands of drug
syndicates.

Anyone can end up as a drug pusher, young sociologistAdrienne Onday has rightfully pointed
out. And often, misfortune, rather than deliberate life choices, creates the conditions that makes
one vulnerable to summary executions.

Changing the narrative

DAILY SCENE. In this picture taken on July 8, 2016, police officers investigate the body of an
alleged drug dealer, his face covered with packing tape and a placard reading "I'm a pusher", on a
street in Manila. File photo by Noel Celis/AFP

So what is it that you want, I am often asked. I think there are two ways to move forward.

First is to hold our officials accountable. Philippine National Police Chief Ronald dela Rosa
provides hope for his clear commitment to the rule of law and rejection of summary killings. It is
good news that our police force has gained morale in performing their duties, as they are now
emboldened to go after drug syndicates who used to be untouchable because they are protected
by narco-politicians. I want our law enforcers to succeed. I want them to succeed in arresting,
filing cases, trying and convicting guilty drug offenders.

It would be tragic if what we consider as virtuous cops today evolve to be the butchers of the
future. The best assurance that our law enforcement agencies do not spiral into the use of
excessive force is to secure the integrity of our checks and balances even if this means subjecting
themselves to the investigation of the administration’s political opponents. “There is nothing to
fear if you did nothing wrong,” the police officers often tell us. This must also apply to them
when there are calls for congressional inquiries, probes and investigations.

Second, we need to hold ourselves, as citizens, accountable. I, personally, have been thoroughly
impressed with what the Duterte administration has achieved in the past few weeks. These
achievements, however, can easily be overshadowed by failing to bring in the voices of the
victims of extra-judicial killings in our nation’s quest for change. There is blood in our hands if
we fail to speak up and condone the troubling spike of summary killings. It is not unsupportive
of this government to say we can do better than this.

Citizens can still change the narrative of the Duterte administration. It can still be an
administration that is competent, efficient and trustworthy while shifting its gears to a firm yet
humane and creative but evidence-based approach to crime. My ideal society is one where
citizens look after each other, one where we turn others’ misfortune, and even bad decisions, into
redemption.

From social media to the streets, the first month of President Duterte has been bloody. But the
next six years do not have to end this way. – Rappler.com

Nicole Curato is a sociologist. She is a research fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy
and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Follow her on Twitter @NicoleCurato

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Since becoming president of the Philippines in June 2016, Rodrigo Duterte has launched a war
on drugs that has resulted in the extrajudicial deaths of thousands of alleged drug dealers and
users across the country. The Philippine president sees drug dealing and addiction as “major
obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress,” says John Gershman, an expert on
Philippine politics. The drug war is a cornerstone of Duterte’s domestic policy and represents the
extension of policies he’d implemented earlier in his political career as the mayor of the city of
Davao. In December 2016, the United States withheld poverty aid to the Philippines after
declaring concern over Duterte’s war on drugs.

Philippine Pesident Rodrigo Duterte speaks during the change of command for the new Armed
Forces chief at a military camp in Quezon city, Metro Manila, December 7, 2016. (Photo: Erik
De Castro/Reuters)

How did the Philippines’ war on drugs start?

When Rodrigo Duterte campaigned for president, he claimed that drug dealing and drug
addiction were major obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress. He promised a
large-scale crackdown on dealers and addicts, similar to the crackdown that he engaged in when
he was mayor of Davao, one of the Philippines’ largest cities on the southern island of Mindanao.
When Duterte became president in June, he encouraged the public to “go ahead and kill” drug
addicts. His rhetoric has been widely understood as an endorsement of extrajudicial killings, as it
has created conditions for people to feel that it’s appropriate to kill drug users and dealers. What
have followed seem to be vigilante attacks against alleged or suspected drug dealers and drug
addicts. The police are engaged in large-scale sweeps. The Philippine National Police also
revealed a list of high-level political officials and other influential people who were allegedly
involved in the drug trade.

“When Rodrigo Duterte campaigned for president, he claimed that drug dealing and drug
addiction were major obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress.”
The dominant drug in the Philippines is a variant of methamphetamine called shabu. According
to a 2012 United Nations report, among all the countries in East Asia, the Philippines had the
highest rate of methamphetamine abuse. Estimates showed that about 2.2 percent of Filipinos
between the ages of sixteen and sixty-four were using methamphetamines, and that
methamphetamines and marijuana were the primary drugs of choice. In 2015, the national drug
enforcement agency reported that one fifth of the barangays, the smallest administrative division
in the Philippines, had evidence of drug use, drug trafficking, or drug manufacturing; in Manila,
the capital, 92 percent of the barangays had yielded such evidence.

How would you describe Duterte’s leadership as the mayor of Davao?

After the collapse of the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship, there were high levels of crime in Davao
and Duterte cracked down on crime associated with drugs and criminality more generally. There
was early criticism of his time as mayor by Philippine and international human rights groups
because of his de facto endorsement of extrajudicial killings, under the auspices of the “Davao
Death Squad.”

Duterte was also successful at negotiating with the Philippine Communist Party. He was seen
broadly as sympathetic to their concerns about poverty, inequality, and housing, and pursued a
reasonably robust anti-poverty agenda while he was mayor. He was also interested in public
health issues, launching the first legislation against public smoking in the Philippines, which he
has claimed he will launch nationally.

What have been the outcomes of the drug war?

By early December, nearly 6,000 people had been killed: about 2,100 have died in police
operations and the remainder in what are called “deaths under investigation,” which is shorthand
for vigilante killings. There are also claims that half a million to seven hundred thousand people
have surrendered themselves to the police. More than 40,000 people have been arrested.

Although human rights organizations and political leaders have spoken out against the
crackdown, Duterte has been relatively successful at not having the legislature engaged in any
serious oversight of or investigation into this war. Philippine Senator Leila de Lima, former
chairperson of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights and a former secretary of justice
under the previous administration, had condemned the war on drugs and held hearings on human
rights violations associated with these extrajudicial killings. However, in August, Duterte alleged
that he had evidence of de Lima having an affair with her driver, who had been using drugs and
collecting drug protection money when de Lima was the justice secretary. De Lima was later
removed from her position chairing the investigative committee in a 16-4 vote by elected
members of the Senate committee.

What is the public reaction to the drug war?

The war on drugs has received a high level of popular support from across the class spectrum in
the Philippines. The most recent nationwide survey on presidential performance and trust ratings
conducted from September 25 to October 1 by Pulse Asia Research showed that Duterte’s
approval rating was around 86 percent. Even through some people are concerned about these
deaths, they support him as a president for his position on other issues. For example, he has a
relatively progressive economic agenda, with a focus on economic inequality.

Duterte is also supporting a range of anti-poverty programs and policies. The most recent World
Bank quarterly report speaks positively about Duterte’s economic plans. The fact that he wants to
work on issues of social inequality and economic inequality makes people not perceive the drug
war as a war on the poor.

How is Duterte succeeding in carrying out this war on drugs?

The Philippine judicial system is very slow and perceived as corrupt, enabling Duterte to act
proactively and address the issue of drugs in a non-constructive way with widespread violations
of human rights. Moreover, in the face of a corrupt, elite-dominated political system and a slow,
ineffective, and equally corrupt judicial system, people are willing to tolerate this politician who
promised something and is now delivering.

“Drug dealers and drug addicts are a stigmatized group, and stigmatized groups always have
difficulty gaining political support for the defense of their rights.”

There are no trials, so there is no evidence that the people being killed are in fact drug dealers or
drug addicts. [This situation] shows the weakness of human rights institutions and discourse in
the face of a popular and skilled populist leader. It is different from college students being
arrested under the Marcos regime or activists being targeted under the first Aquino
administration, when popular outcry was aroused. Drug dealers and drug addicts are a
stigmatized group, and stigmatized groups always have difficulty gaining political support for the
defense of their rights.

How has the United States reacted to the drug war and why is Duterte challenging U.S.-
Philippines relations?

It’s never been a genuine partnership. It’s always been a relationship dominated by U.S. interests.
Growing up in the 1960s, Duterte lived through a period when the United States firmly supported
a regime that was even more brutal than this particular regime and was willing to not criticize
that particular government. He noticed that the United States was willing to overlook human
rights violations when these violations served their geopolitical interests. He was unhappy about
the double standards. [Editor’s Note: The Obama administration has expressed concern over
reports of extrajudicial killings and encouraged Manila to abide by its international human rights
obligations.] For the first time, the United States is facing someone who is willing to challenge
this historically imbalanced relationship. It is unclear what might happen to the relationship
under the administration of Donald J. Trump, but initial indications are that it may not focus on
human rights in the Philippines. President-Elect Trump has reportedly endorsed the Philippine
president’s effort, allegedly saying that the country is going about the drug war "the right way,"
according to Duterte.

The interview has been edited and condensed.