Extrajudicial killing

An extrajudicial killing (also known as extrajudicial execution) is the killing of a person by

governmental authorities or individuals without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal
process. Extrajudicial punishments are mostly seen by humanity to be unethical, since they bypass
the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur.[citation needed] Extrajudicial killings often target
leading political, trade union, dissident, religious, and social figures and are only those carried out by
the state government or other state authorities like the armed forces or police, as extra-legal
fulfillment of their prescribed role.

Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines are illegal executions –
unlawful or felonious killings – and forced disappearances in the Philippines.[1] These are forms
of extrajudicial punishment, and include extrajudicial executions, summary executions, arbitrary
arrest and detentions, and failed prosecutions due to political activities of leading political, trade
union members, dissident and/or social figures, left-wing political parties, non-governmental
organizations, political journalists, outspoken clergy, anti-mining activists, agricultural reform
activists, members of organizations that are allied or legal fronts of the communist movement like
"Bayan group" or suspected supporters of the NPA and its political wing, the Communist Party of the
Philippines (CPP)

Extrajudicial killings are most commonly referred to as "salvaging" in Philippine English.[4][5][6] The
word is believed to be a direct Anglicization of Tagalog salbahe ("cruel", "barbaric"),
from Spanish salvaje ("wild", "savage").[7]
Extrajudicial killings (EJKs) is also synonymous with the term "extralegal killings" (ELKs).
Extrajudicial/ extralegal killings (EJKs/ ELKs) and enforced disappearances (EDs) are unique in the
Philippines in as much as it is publicly and commonly known to be committed also by non-state
armed groups (NAGs) such as the New Peoples Army (NPA) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front
(MILF). Although cases have been well documented with conservative estimates of EJKs/ ELKs and
EDs committed by the NPAs numbering to about 900-1,000 victims based on the discovery of
numerous mass grave sites all over country, legal mechanisms for accountability of non-state actors
have been weak if not wholly non-existen

On August 26, 2016, the official death total reached 2,000. Official records from
thePhilippine Drug Enforcement Agency give the number of deaths from July 2016 to
November 2018 from the anti-drug campaign as 5,050. Human rights groups have put
the number of killings at 20,000, including vigilante-style killings.
Let’s define “extra-judicial murder” first.

Extra-judicial: not made in court; not legally authorized (Google Dictionary)

Since murder implicates a specific slanderous crime, it’s better to replace that term with
“killing” as it has been called by the Media and our institutions.

Killing: an act of causing death (Google Dictionary)

Combining the terms and the definitions together, extra-judicial killing means illegally
killing a person. The State, the government, and especially the Supreme Court should relay
full authorization to the police, military or any State officials so that this extra-judicial
killing can be a judicial one.

Despite the fact that the President Duterte himself condones the killings, although not
publicly admitting such, the killings of drug dealers shall remain illegal unless agreed upon
by the whole of legislative, executive, and judicial departments.

What are the pros and cons of the extra-judicial murder of thousands of drug dealers in the
Philippines?

Pros:

 Fast (and probably efficient) way to eliminate these illegal drugs and eradicate
matrices of syndicates that produce, buy, and sell said harmful substances,
considering our justice system is slow as fuck (it has been recently reported that
piles atop piles of criminal cases remain unsolved)[1]
 An effective alternative to the lacking number of prisons and rehabilitation areas
in the country, considering a lot of factors causal to unwanted consequences such
as government officials that misappropriate funds leading to discontinued building
projects leading to populated prisons and rehab centers.
 Respects the majority lot of right to life. No more illegal drugs → no more
possible normalization of consuming said substances → less people harmed →
productive society → maximization of quality of life.
 Deterrence. “Oh no, someone got killed for consuming illegal drugs! OHH
NOOO!!! I WILL NOT DO THAT! I DON’T WANT TO GET KILLED! I LOVE MY
LIFEEEE!!!”
Cons:
  Abuse of authority. Just weeks ago, we have witnessed the killings of students
Kian delos Santos and Carl Arnaiz[2]. There could be one truth to what really
happened, but as of now, we couldn’t ascertain, unfortunately. We could guess. We
could assume. But see, Duterte has given shoot-to-kill orders to police and would
defend them[3].
 Threat of fascism, mainly caused by the abuse of authority. Look back at history
and the grave consequences the fascist ideology has brought.
 DOES NOT respect right to life. I mean, you’re not given a chance to defend
yourself, to be free and start a new life — all that are permanently alienated from
you once you get a shot in the back either because you’re suspected of being
involved in drugs or on the “watch list”[4] or actually involved but still wasn’t able to
undergo due process as one of our rights according to the Constitution. [5]
 DOES NOT respect other human rights. If you don’t respect right to life, you
don’t respect the rest of the rights. Kind of illogical at a second glance, yes, but I
based it on the thought that rights is inherent to life.
 Inevitable wrong convictions. Just like in the death penalty, it couldn’t be
avoided that one time, a victim of extra-judicial killings would later be found
innocent after days/weeks/years.
 Giving your country a bad reputation with constant condemnation from rights
groups, United Nations[6], and the former President Barack Obama himself[7]yet
your President still enforces it.
 Where. The. Fuck. Is. Justice.
 What. The. Fuck. Is. Life. Anymore.

Is it morally correct?

I’ll answer this part of the question based on two kinds of morality (I’m not saying there are
only two): utilitarianism and deontology.

1. Utilitarianism — for the common good, basically. When we view the issue at a
wider perspective, with the pros I’ve mentioned, then this does contribute to the
good of the community and prospectively to the nation’s progress politically
(personally, I doubt that), socially, and economically. We, the people of the State,
deserve the optimum quality of life. It’s an obligation, then, by the government
officials we have collectively chosen, to do what is necessary to give us that life.
Thus, the end justifies the means despite the means being “evil”.
2. Deontology — morals-based, rights-based. When I meant morals, I meant the
precepts most people regard and follow. For example, respecting people’s rights to
life. Viewing the issue with this kind of wavelength, extra-judicial killings (or any
killing, judicial or not) are beyond unjustifiable as a good end does not justify evil
means. We, the people of the state, might deserve what we deserve but should this
be attained at the expense of culture of life?