Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/329305010
CITATIONS READS
0 5,469
1 author:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Patricia Eunice Miraflores on 01 December 2018.
Ho-king Tam
The ongoing drug war in the Philippines is a controversial policy spearheaded by incumbent
involved in illegal drug cartel networks. 1 He justified the policy by claiming that the Philippines was
widely vulnerable to becoming a narco-state, indicating a pressing need to address this phenomenon
at the grassroots level. Although the Philippine National Police (PNP) has been carrying out its
formal operations, the president has also been quoted during multiple occasions to encourage the
general public to actively kill suspected individuals on the spot. Upon inciting uproar from both
international bodies and domestic human rights activists, the Duterte administration has since
redacted these claims, implying that the president is only meant to humor the people with his crass
remarks. 2 The PNP has also clarified the implications of “neutralizing” alleged drug suspects,
guaranteeing that it entails nothing more than warranted arrests of suspects with due legal processes
Despite these claims, a robust body of evidence shows that the drug war operations carried
out by the PNP alone has led to an estimated 12,000 to 20,000 extrajudicial killings, a significant
portion of which are “collateral damage” killings of innocent civilians for reasons such as mistaken
identity, witness to execution of actual alleged suspects, and family member of suspected dealers. 3
Amnesty International reports that the killings were carried out via direct orders and pressures from a
top-down chain of command with the Duterte administration at the source, an “informal economy of
death” driven by the financial incentives allegedly received by the PNP taskforce and the drug cartel
1
Robert Muggah, "Duterte's drug war in the Philippines is out of control, he needs to be stopped." T
he
Guardian, January 5, 2017, t heguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/05/
rodrigo-dutertes-drug-war-in-the-philippines-is-out-of-control-he-needs-to-be-stopped.
2
Ibid.
3
Clare Baldwin and Andrew R.C. Marshall, “As death toll rises, Duterte deploys dubious data in ‘war on
drugs’”, Reuters, October 18, 2016, www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/philippines-duterte-data/
4
“Philippines: The police’s murderous war on the poor,” Amnesty International, last modified January 13,
2017, www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/01/philippines-the-police-murderous-war-on-the-poor.
2
Compounded by the president’s other controversial remarks and actions violating basic
human rights and rule of law (i.e. rape jokes; impeaching local political figures who oppose him
including the previous chief justice herself; the intense budget cuts on the Commission on Human
Rights), the breadth and violence of these drug war killings have received intense international
backlash. For instance, thirty-eight United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) members have
been actively denouncing his administration 5 and domestic human rights groups have successfully
escalated the issue to the International Criminal Court (ICC) itself. The ICC has been conducting
thorough preliminary investigation of the Duterte administration since 2016. While these attempts are
in place, the drug war persists largely due to local politics and the United Nations Security Council’s
In this paper, we argue that by several customary international laws on human rights, the
Philippine extrajudicial killings are indeed condemnable. However, we also realize that the
phenomenon does not take place in a legal vacuum exempt from the complexities of national politics.
Thus, we argue that framing the killings as a violation of a peremptory norm condemnable by an
independent, international court would be the most efficient method of prosecution – an approach the
ICC itself has initiated. In the first two sections, we discuss perspectives of customary international
law and domestic obligations the Philippine state has failed to meet by carrying out the drug war. In
the second and third sections, we discuss the prerequisites and legal powers of the ICC to prosecute
the Duterte administration, overriding the presidential immunity that protects Pres. Duterte from
legal accountability. We also discuss how the ICC can prove the Philippine drug war as a crime
against humanity which is prosecutable by peremptory norm. Finally, we discuss the case study of
5
Neil Jerome Morales, “Philippines Duterte tells U.N. human rights expert: ‘Go to hell’,” Reuters, June 3,
2018, www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-duterte-un/philippines-duterte-tells-u-n-human-rights-expert-
go-to-hell-idUSKCN1IZ063.
3
extrajudicial killings in the Philippines are a clear violation of civil and political rights, specifically
(1) the right to be presumed innocent and (2) the right to fair trial. Articles 11 and 10 in the UDHR
enshrine the guiding principles behind these rights, respectively. Article 11 posits that a person
charged with a penal offence is innocent until proven guilty;6 in which case a person proven guilty
should have been subject to a fair public trial in an independent, impartial tribunal.7
Since its ratification by the United Nations General Assembly, the UDHR has been a source
of customary international laws on human rights. For instance, the right to presumption of innocence
and the right to free trial have been acknowledged as customary laws by renowned treaties (i.e. the
European Convention on Human Rights), domestic military manuals (i.e. Argentina’s Law of War
Manual), national legislations (i.e. China’s Criminal Procedure Code), and now, the UNHRC itself. 8
As Robinson argues, these two rights were derived from core values of natural law and their
widespread practice in states indicates and reinforces opinio juris, making them undisputedly
customary international laws. 9 However, the real point of contention is whether or no t these two
Arguments against the jus cogens of the right to presumption of innocence and the right to
free trial have cited incidences of national emergencies in which these rights were forgone. 10 That is,
when states derogate from these two human rights, they usually do so by justifying that they were
6
UN General Assembly. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (217 [III] A). Paris: para. 20-21.
7
Ibid., para. 19.
8
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “Section C. Presumption of Innocence” In Practice
Relating to Rule 100 Fair Trial Guarantees, Customary International Humanitarian Law (2013),
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter32_rule100_sectionc
9
Patrick L. Robinson, “The Right to a Fair Trial in International Law, with Specific Reference to the Work
of the ICTY”, Berkeley Journal of International Law 3, no. 1 (2009): 5, bjil.typepad.com/Robinson_macro
10
Ibid., 6.
4
fairly done in a context of “exceptional circumstances”.11 The discourse surrounding whether or not
these two rights are jus cogens i s especially relevant to the Philippine case study because the Duterte
administration frames the problem as a national emergency in which the drug war is an exercise of
the state’s right to security. 12 As foreign secretary Peter Cayetano put it:
“As a sovereign and democratic country led by our duly-elected President, we are on track in
salvaging our deteriorating country from becoming a narco-state, or a state held hostage by the rich
& powerful who ignore the plight of the poor, powerless & marginalized, or both.” 13
The Duterte administration argues that the Philippines is quickly escalating into a narco-state,
characterized by robust underground drug cartels pervading megacities, and the judiciary branch is
failing to expedite the trial processes of these drug personalities. Following this logic, the
“neutralization” policy is a legitimate response to a state of emergency -- one in which the rights to
innocence and free trial, although considered customary international laws, can be forgone. However,
as findings of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have uncovered, Duterte’s
claims that the drug problem has escalated into a national emergency are mostly inaccurate
propaganda. For instance, his flagship anti-drug law enforcement department, the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA), claims to have found 6.7 million Filipino drug addicts as opposed to
the significantly lower count of 1.8 million, based on actual data collected by the Philippine
Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB), the official illegal drug policy-making body since 1971. 14 The
UNODC itself indicated that the Philippines has below global average, low-prevalence rate of drug
users and that the anti-drug operations have actually exacerbated the problem instead of prevent it. 15
11
Ibid., 7.
12
Eric Posner, “The case against human rights”, The Guardian, December 4, 2014,
www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights.
13
Mara Cepeda, “PH 'salvaging' self through drug war, Cayetano tells U.N.”, Rappler, September 30,
2018, rappler.com/nation/213170-cayetano-speech-united-nations-general-assembly-2018-philippines
14
Baldwin and R.C. Marshall, “As death toll rises’”, Reuters.
15
“Philippines: Duterte’s 100 Days of carnage,” Amnesty International, last modified October 7, 2016,
www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/10/philippines-dutertes-hundred-days-of-carnage/
5
Specifically, the drug cartel kingpins are now killing off their own dealers in fear they would
testify against them to the police. Most of these dealers live in the slums, making them susceptible to
crime as well as the extrajudicial killings carried out by the police and their own employers. Thus,
the drug war policy encourages not only the killings carried out by the official task force but also
those by the drug cartel kingpins, the masterminds, themselves to avoid facing the consequences to
their crimes. All these findings undermine the claim that there exists a national emergency with
regards to illegal drug usage, let alone that the drug war policy is a legitimate response to it. If
anything, it’s the implementation of the drug war policy that instigated a national emergency by
Since the jus cogens s tatus of the rights to innocence and fair trial are still debated, a more
direct approach involves another relevant thread of legal argument on something more widely and
easily accepted as a peremptory norm: prohibition of genocides and crimes against humanity. Some
argue that the damage accrued from the Philippine war on drugs can already be categorized as the
equivalent of genocidal activity, which holds jus cogens status. Since the prohibition against
genocide is openly cited as a peremptory norm by multiple sources wherein absolutely no derogation
can be permitted, 16 and if the Philippine drug war is successfully proved to be the equivalent of a
genocide, then the Duterte administration and the perpetrators of the extrajudicial killings can be
legally bound by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. As mentioned earlier,
the ICC has already taken legal action towards the Duterte administration’s role in the Philippine
drug war, and this debate can become the basis of its next approach, especially in convincing the UN
Security Council to step in. This will be discussed in the third segment of this paper.
16
Jan Wouters and Sten Verhoueven, “The Prohibition of Genocide as a Norm of Jus Cogens and Its
Implications for the Enforcement of the Law of Genocide,” International Criminal Law Review 5, no. 1
(2005): 401-416, accessed November 11, 2018, heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals
6
As demonstrated above, the Philippine drug war violates crucial aspects of customary
international law related to human rights. By default, states are expected to uphold their
constituencies’ human rights and to protect them by obeying the international guidelines of human
rights laws. As the UDHR provides, states are responsible for preserving, respecting and satisfying
human rights in three ways: (1) by preventing from or diminishing the enjoyment of human rights;
(2) by deterring individuals and groups from harm to fight against human rights abuses and; (3) by
Therefore, it is the obligation of states to protect their constituencies’ human rights, especially when
Human rights are composed by several aspects of life and society, enabling people to enjoy
rights protecting human dignity, freedom, equality, justice and peace, regardless of race, gender,
language, religion, and political affiliation. 18 The United Nations also upholds that states ought to
“ensure that a human being will be able to fully develop and use human qualities such as intelligence,
talent, and conscience and satisfy his or her spiritual and other needs.” 19 Similar to the rights to
presumption of innocence and fair trial, these principles have greatly informed international and
domestic laws alike. That is, it is customary law that human rights ought to be protected by states
The Philippine drug war is an example of blatant disregard for human rights amidst the
fulfillment of administrative orders carried out by the Philippine state, indicating a clear violation of
its legal obligations as a United Nations member. In this section, we will discuss the Philippine
17
"Human Rights Law," United Nations, accessed November 2, 2018. un.org/en/sections/universal-
declaration/human-rights-law/index.html
18
"Human Rights Basis," The Advocates for Human Rights, accessed November 2, 2018.
theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/human_rights_basics#Why%20are%20HR%20Important
19
Ibid., para. 5.
7
state’s obligations in protecting human rights, as illustrated by the conflicts between the Duterte
administration and the international human rights organizations that have attempted to intervene.
As a state party of the United Nations since its conception in 1942, the Philippines has a long
history of commitment to upholding human rights. As a result, domestic laws have been written and
ratified by the encouragement of the International Bill of Human Rights, further consolidated by the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
For instance, the Philippine Bill of Rights, as enshrined in Article III of the 1987 Philippine
domestic laws itself hold that in the context of the Philippine drug war, alleged criminals’ lives ought
to be protected and respected. 21 The Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is the
department at the forefront of upholding the human rights of alleged criminals most vulnerable to the
drug war. The CHR is strongly against the extrajudicial killings on the basis of sections under the
Philippine Constitution, such as Article III of Section 1 and Article II of Section 11, which provide
that (1) “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” and (2) “the State values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees full respect for human rights” respectively, thus forbidding the
Similar to most other international and domestic human rights declarations, the Philippines’
universal guidelines on human rights protection are plagued by the problem of ambiguity and
20
UN General Assembly, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” International Bill of Human Rights
(1948), ohchr.org/documents/publications/compilation1.1en.pdf.
21
Jodesz Gavilan, "Things to know: Human rights in the Philippines," Rappler, last modified September 19,
2017, r appler.com/newsbreak/iq/114698-human-rights-philippines.
22
Ibid., para. 29
23
Ibid., para. 30
8
tendency for inactionable principles susceptible to misuse. 24 However, there also exists more specific
laws tailored to protect accused persons in Philippine domestic laws. For instance, Section 19 of the
Philippine Constitution provides that for prisoners and detainees, there ought to be “no cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment may be inflicted - even death” during emergency situations,
including those that warrant martial laws. 25 As discussed earlier, the drug war was not even
recognized as a real national emergency by international bodies and local departments alike. Thus,
the Philippines has the state responsibility to ensure its administrative orders do not overstep human
rights based on its long practice of protecting and upholding them even under emergency conditions,
as enshrined by the Constitution and consolidated by domestic laws on human rights. Hence, the
Duterte administration’s decision to neglect these basic principles is a violation of the Philippine
state’s deeply ingrained responsibility to uphold its constituencies’ human rights. 26 As Pres. Duterte
has stated about his stance in the issue: “When it comes to human rights, or whoever rapporteur it is,
The Philippine extrajudicial killings have been thoroughly documented from the grassroots
level by human rights organizations, most notably by the Human Rights Watch (HRW). However,
i. Trustworthiness of evidence
First, there’s the issue of subjectivity. The Philippine National Police (PNP) has cited the lack
of trustworthiness of the personal testimonies collected by the HRW, which are the primary basis of
their claims that the police are intentionally carrying out extrajudicial killings. Moreover, the PNP’s
24
Peter Stork, “The Ambiguity of Human Rights in the Face of Escalating Violence” (presentation, ANU
Emeritus Faculty Meeting, Oct 17, 2007)
25
Phil. Constitution art. VI, § 29.
26
"‘Do Not Answer’: Duterte tells police, soldiers not to cooperate in any drug war probe," Interaksyon,
last modified March 2, 2018, accessed November 2, 2018. interaksyon.com/breaking-news/2018/03/02/
121576/do-not-answer-duterte-tells-police-soldiers-not-to-cooperate-in-any-drug-war-probe/
27
Ibid., para. 3.
9
official response is that all the extrajudicial killings that have taken place so far were carried out as
acts of self-defence. 28 That is, all the Filipino policemen who carried out the killings and are now
facing prosecution, they all claim to have acted out of self-defence since the drug suspects who were
ordered to arrest, were armed and threatened to inflict harm, in which case polices have the legal
right to shoot first. Controversially, it exists counterfactual evidences that suggests most of the police
actually plant evidences near the corpses of the suspects they killed “out of self-defence” to
Given that these killings transpire in slums where evidence can be erased or planted, and
corpses are as easy to frame as either the victim or the criminal, it’s increasingly difficult for the
press, local citizens, and international bodies to distinguish and assess the trustworthiness of these
conflicting testimonies, triggering disputes between the two parties. In light of the highly polarized
debates, the Duterte administration continues to operate in this gray area, refusing to entertain
international intervention and consistently repudiating the claims against the illegality of the national
police’s actions. 30 Thus, a consensus towards an actionable human rights goal is hardly ever reached.
Since the launch of the drug war policy, Pres. Duterte opposed interference from international
parties, most notably the UN special human rights rapporteur. The Duterte administration is actively
creating a dangerous, intimidating atmosphere for human rights specialists and advocates to express
their concerns about the drug war. For instance, Pres. Duterte has threatened to initiate the murder of
human rights activists who have negative comments toward his policy, 31 telling them: "I will include
you [human rights activists in the death toll] because you are the reason why [drug suspect] numbers
28
“Philippines’ Duterte tells police, soldiers not to cooperate in any drug war probe,” Arab News, last
modified March 2, 2018, arabnews.com/node/1257526/world
29
“Duterte: Not EJK if killing is in self-defense,” ABS-CBN News, last modified December 27, 2016,
/news.abs-cbn.com/news/12/27/16/duterte-not-ejk-if-killing-is-in-self-defense
30
Tom Miles, "Nothing to see here, Philippines tells U.N. Human Rights Council," R euters, May 8, 2017
reuters.com/article/us-philippines-un/nothing-to-see-here-philippines tells-u-n-human-rights
31
Robert Muggah, "Duterte's drug war." T he Guardian.
10
swell." 32 Other remarkable examples of the Duterte administration successfully shutting down its
biggest critics are discussed in the “ICC Intervention and Local Political Hurdles” segment.
As a response to the widespread violence of the Philippine drug war and the incumbent
political regime’s failure to uphold its state obligations, international human rights laws should be
applied to cease the relentless extrajudicial killings. Last June, the Philippine government was urged
UNHRC-led evaluation of the drug war regarding the state of human rights. The Philippine police
have only declared a total of 4,000 “collateral damage” deaths as of June 2018 which local human
rights groups deemed a gross understatement compared to other reliable statistics and the robust body
of witness accounts. 33 On these grounds, the thirty-eight member-states have urged the Duterte
administration to cooperate with the UN without any prerequisites or obstructions that can impede or
Although the Philippine drug war has been raised to the level of an international human rights
concern, the actualization of the investigation process is full of obstacles. Despite the collective
petitions from domestic human rights organizations, foreign governments, and international parties
alike, the UN and the ICC have suspended their attempts at investigating because of tarrying progress
and burdensome workloads, mostly due to the resistance of a Duterte-ruled Philippine state to be
China have strong international treaty relations with the Duterte administration, and have refused to
participate in urging the Philippines to cooperate with the UNHRC. Thus, the success of using
32
Joseph Hincks, "Human-Rights Defenders Are Now in the Philippine President's Crosshairs," TIME,
November 29, 2016: para. 4 t ime.com/4584478/dutere-threatens-to-kill-human-rights-activists/
33
"3
8 UNHRC member-states urge PH to cooperate in human rights assessment," ABS-CBN News,
accessed November 2, 2018. news.abs-cbn.com/news/06/23/18/38-unhrc-member-states-urge-ph
-to-cooperate-in-human-rights-assessment
34
Ibid.
11
international human rights laws to stop the killings are still largely politicized. A stronger approach is
needed to frame the phenomenon as something that can be escalated to the level of intervention that
warrants the exercise of a peremptory norm - or the creation of one - that can override these
impediments.
The Duterte administration has successfully curbed its local critics’ attempts at domestic
prosecution by claiming presidential immunity. The doctrine was provided in the 1973 Philippine
Constitution (Article VII, Section 7), stating that the president is “immune from suite during his
tenure”. This provision was not retained in the most recent 1987 constitution which was ratified after
the Philippines was freed from dictatorship.35 However, the Duterte administration’s rationale for
claiming presidential immunity today is “to assure the exercise of presidential duties and functions is
free from any hindrance or distraction”, quoting from the 1988 case Soliven v. Makasiar in which
high-profile politicians were allowed to claim immunity given special circumstances.36 For the same
reasons Duterte’s claim to a “national emergency” is regarded as flawed and misinformed, his claim
to presidential immunity is highly criticized. Still, Duterte has successfully avoided prosecution
trial for his crimes. To impeach an incumbent president, at least two-thirds of the lower and upper
legislative chambers should move for the president’s removal from office.
Critics have argued that this prerequisite should only apply to hearings related to basic
presidential duties. They argue that since the drug war and the extrajudicial killings are not part of
Duterte’s official duties as president, he should be immediately prosecutable for them without having
to be impeached first. However, because separation of powers and rule of law are highly imbalanced,
35
“VERA Files Fact Check: ICC can strip off Duterte’s immunity,” VERA Files, last modified March 19,
2017, verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-icc-can-strip-dutertes-immunity.
36
Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393, G.R. No. 82585 (November 14, 1988),
lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988 /nov1988/gr_82585_1988.html.
12
both legislative bodies are dominated by presidential allies, making it nearly impossible for critics to
file an official complaint without receiving threats, let alone to get two-thirds of both chambers to
move for the president’s impeachment. In fact, when Pres. Duterte’s most outspoken critic, former
senator Leila De Lima, publicly criticized his claims to presidential immunity, she was faced with
legal charges based on “collective testimonies” from former drug addicts that she herself was
involved in the drug cartel business. With all local human rights advocates successfully silenced or
imprisoned by the Duterte administration, she called for the international community to intervene,
posing the question: “Is the international community prevented from stopping this smaller but
unraveling Holocaust in a Third World country, until the number of killed reaches 10,000, or 50,000,
The principle of complementarity states that the ICC may only begin investigations and
late 2018, the ICC decided to exercise international jurisdiction over the Philippine state by putting it
on preliminary investigation, deeming it unable to perform fair domestic trials due to deteriorating
rule of law. More importantly, the ICC is investigating multiple claims on grounds of an unfolding
“crime against humanity” under the Duterte administration. The ICC is legally allowed to prosecute
an entity found to be committing any of the four crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war
crimes, crimes of aggression) 39 whose prohibition are broadly acknowledged as jus cogens. 40 The
killings fit the definition of crimes against humanity which by definition are “serious violations
37
Leila De Lima, “Putting a president behind bars,” Rappler, March 11, 2017, rappler.com/thought-
leaders/163870-president-duterte-immunity-suit-behind-bars.
38
International Peace Research Institute, “The principle of complementarity and the exercise of universal
jurisdiction for core international crimes” (seminar, Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian
Law, Oslo, September 4, 2009).
39
“How the Court works,” International Criminal Court (ICC), accessed November 11, 2018.
icc-cpi.int/about/ how-the-court-works
40
Wouters and Verhoueven, “Prohibition of Genocide”, International Criminal Law Review 5,
41
“How the Court works,” ICC, 3.
13
However, there is no guarantee that the ICC investigations will lead to any immediate action
that can prevent the extrajudicial killings from transpiring. One very important distinction to make in
this debate is prohibition versus prevention. While the prohibition of the four crimes are jus cogens,
the prevention of has yet to carry the same breadth of acceptance in international law. Moreover, the
ICC itself does not have its own enforcement body and so it depends on collaborations with other
countries when making arrests and transferring detainees to the ICC detention center in Hague. 42
Thus, as former Sen. De Lima pointed out, without the urgency for actual preventive measures, the
extrajudicial killings would transpire and most likely end in genocide-level human rights violations.
In recent decades, there has been a growing body of research arguing that the prevention of
crimes against humanity has jus cogens s tatus. The Rwandan Genocide of 1994 reopened this
discussion and strengthened the impetus for a new peremptory norm wherein international bodies
ought to intervene to prevent mass murders that have escalated to genocidal activity despite the
recent study found the Philippine drug war already exhibits the characteristics of genocidal activity at
extermination and denial”. 44 While the prevention of crimes against humanity remains highly
debated and urgent action is not guaranteed, the Philippine drug war adds to the growing evidence
that the lack of jus cogens to prevent crimes against humanity often perpetuates them. From this
angle, one can argue that the non-prevention of these crimes conflicts with the jus cogens to prohibit
42
Ibid., 14.
43
Dahlia Simangan, “Is the Philippine “War on Drugs” an Act of Genocide?”, Journal of Genocide
Research 20, no.1 (2018): 68-89, www-tandfonline-com.ccl.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2017.
1379939.
44
Ibid., 88.
14
Lastly, we will briefly discuss the necessity for the Philippines to cease the drug war by
comparing it to an analogous case study: the Mexican drug war. In 2006, the Mexican government
launched an intensive anti-drug campaign, escalating into the homicide of an estimated 130,000
people regardless of their involvement in the drug cartels. The President waged war against the drug
cartels with the assistance of the United States, commanding Mexican military forces to execute only
drug suspects but what transpired were large-scale human rights violations including rape and
torture. 45 Many international analysts have likened the Philippine drug war to Mexico’s, with the
former’s death toll predicted to approach the latter’s by the end of the Duterte administration.
Regardless of the nuances of their respective political contexts and international relations with the
United States and focusing instead on the breadth of human rights violations, we believe there are
similarities between the Philippine and Mexican drug wars based on the prevalence of extrajudicial
killings and the role of enforcers in perpetuating them. Therefore, the failure of deterring the
Philippines drug war could escalate into a larger human rights concern akin to an international armed
conflict.
In Bangladesh, an emerging anti-drug campaign allegedly modeled after the Philippine drug
war is instigating fear of large-scale extrajudicial killings. So far, there have been 50 drug suspects
killed by the police force. 46 The growing trend of drug war extrajudicial killings should be seriously
authoritarianism gains traction even in long-standing liberal democratic states. While the Philippine
drug war has not yet ceased, there is a possibility that international bodies with military powers and
other international agents will interfere with the campaign out of their own political interests,
45
Brianna Lee and Danielle Renwick, "Mexico's Drug War," Council on Foreign Relations, last modified May
25, 2017, accessed November 3, 2018, cfr.org/backgrounder/mexicos-drug-war.
46
Michael Safi and Shaikh Azizur Rahman, "Bangladesh's Philippines-style drugs war creating
'atmosphere of terror'," The Guardian, May 25, 2018,
theguardian.com/world/2018/may/25/bangladeshs-philippines
-style-drugs-war-creating-atmosphere-of-terror.
15
increasing the seriousness of the disputes between the government and drug suspects, escalating the
violation of human rights. Furthermore, the replication of the same trend in other countries should be
a cause for concern for international law, because as extrajudicial killings ensue without preventive
Conclusion
To summarize, we argue that the Philippine drug war has led to large-scale violations of
human rights enshrined by customary international laws and domestic laws alike. As the ICC’s recent
intervention shows, the Philippine drug war can be condemned by international bodies due to the
widely accepted peremptory norm of prohibition. However, a stronger case needs to be made for
urgent preventive action to transpire. Further complicating these legal processes are local and
international political stakeholders, as the case study of Mexico embodies. Moreover, the Philippine
drug war is arguably a product of the more authoritarian, strongman politics introduced by the
rule of law can make societies like the Philippines more susceptible to widespread human rights
Works Cited
-states-urge-ph-to-cooperate-in-human-rights-assessment
Baldwin, Clare and Marshall, Andrew R.C. “As death toll rises, Duterte deploys dubious data in
‘war on drugs’.” Reuters. October 18, 2016. Accessed November 11, 2018.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/ special-report/philippines-duterte-data/.
Cepeda, Mara. “PH 'salvaging' self through drug war, Cayetano tells U.N.” Rappler. September
-cayetano-speech-united-nations-general-assembly-2018-philippines-drug-war.
De Lima, Leila. “Putting a president behind bars.” Rappler. March 11, 2017. Accessed
-immunity-suit-behind-bars.
"‘Do Not Answer’: Duterte tells police, soldiers not to cooperate in any drug war probe."
interaksyon.com/breaking-news/2018/03/02/121576/do-not-answer-duterte-tells-police-soldie
rs-not-to-cooperate-in-any-drug-war-probe/.
“Duterte: Not EJK if killing is in self-defense.” ABS-CBN News. Last modified December 27,
-not-ejk-if-killing-is-in-self-defense.
Gavilan, Jodesz.”Things to know: Human rights in the Philippines.” Rappler. Last modified
8-human-rights-philippines.
Hincks, Joseph. “Human-Rights Defenders Are Now in the Philippine President's Crosshairs.”
17
-threatens-to-kill-human-rights-activists/.
“How the Court works,” International Criminal Court. Accessed November 11, 2018.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works
"Human Rights Basis.” The Advocates for Human Rights. Accessed November 2, 2018. theadvo
catesforhumanrights.org/human_rights_basics#Why%20are%20HR%20Important.
declaration/human-rights-law/index.html.
Practice Relating to Rule 100 Fair Trial Guarantees. Customary International Humanitarian
customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter32_rule100_sectionc.
International Peace Research Institute, “The principle of complementarity and the exercise of
universal jurisdiction for core international crimes” Paper presented at the Forum for
International Criminal and Humanitarian Law, Oslo, Norway, September 4, 2009. Accessed
Seminar_complementarity_and_universal_jurisdiction__Seminar_Concept__as_of_091023.p
df.
Lee, Brianna and Renwick, Danielle. “Mexico's Drug War.” Council on Foreign Relations. Last
-drug-war.
Miles, Tom. "Nothing to see here, Philippines tells U.N. Human Rights Council.” Reuters. May
-to-see-here-philippines-tells-u-n-human-rights-council-idUSKBN184134.
18
Morales, Neil Jerome. “Philippines Duterte tells U.N. human rights expert: ‘Go to hell’.”
philippines-duterte-un/philippines-duterte-tells-u-n-human-rights-expert-go-to-hell-idUSKC
N1IZ063.
Muggah, Robert. ”Duterte's drug war in the Philippines is out of control, he needs to be stopped."
-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/05/rodrigo-dutertes-drug-war-in-the-philippine
s-is-out-of-control-he-needs-to-be-stopped.
“Philippines’ Duterte tells police, soldiers not to cooperate in any drug war probe.” Arab News.
node/1257526/world.
“Philippines: Duterte’s 100 Days of carnage.” Amnesty International. Last modified October 7,
philippines-dutertes-hundred-days -of-carnage/
“Philippines: The police’s murderous war on the poor.” Amnesty International. Last modified
2017/01/philippines-the-police-murderous-war-on-the-poor.
Posner, Eric. “The case against human rights.” The Guardian. December 4, 2014. Accessed
-human-rights.
Robinson, Patrick L. “The Right to a Fair Trial in International Law, with Specific Reference to
the Work of the ICTY.” Berkeley Journal of International Law 3, no. 1 (2009): 1-11.
Safi, Michael and Rahman, Shaikh Azizur. "Bangladesh's Philippines-style drugs war creating
View publication stats
19
'atmosphere of terror’.” The Guardian, May 25, 2018. Accessed November 2, 2018.
theguardian.com/world/2018/may/25/bangladeshs-philippines-style-drugs-war-creating-at
mosphere-of-terror.
Simangan, Dahlia. “Is the Philippine “War on Drugs” an Act of Genocide?” Journal of Genocide
Research 20, no.1 (2018): 68-89. Accessed November 11, 2018. https://www-tandfonline
-com.ccl.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2017.1379939.
Soliven v. Makasiar. 167 SCRA 393, G.R. No. 82585 (November 14, 1988). Accessed
1988.html.
Stork, Peter. “The Ambiguity of Human Rights in the Face of Escalating Violence” Paper
presented at the ANU Emeritus Faculty Meeting, Canberra, Australia, Oct 17, 2007.
_of_Human_Rights.pdf
tion1.1en.pdf
Wouters, Jan and Verhoueven, Sten. “The Prohibition of Genocide as a Norm of Jus Cogens and
Its Implications for the Enforcement of the Law of Genocide.” International Criminal
Law Review 5, no. 1 (2005): 401-416. Accessed November 11, 2018. https://heinonline
.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/intcrimlrb5&div=27
“VERA Files Fact Check: ICC can strip off Duterte’s immunity.” VERA Files. Last modified
-fact-check-icc-can-strip-dutertes-immunity