War On Drugs And The Issues On Extraudicial Killing

On May 9, 2016, The Philippines elected an iron willed President (Rodrigo Duterte), won a
landslide victory in the may 2016 presidential election, he promised to free the society from
drugs and crime in six months by killing tens of thousands of criminals. President Rodrigo
Duterte has lunched a war on drugs that has resulted in the extrajudicial killing death of
thousands of alleged drug dealers and users across the country. The president sees drug dealing
and addiction as major obstacles to the country’s economic and social progress. The drug war is
a cornerstone of President Duterte’s domestic policy and represents the extension of policies had
implemented earlier in his political career as the mayor of the City of Davao.

As the dominant drug in the Philippines is a variant of methamphetamine called shabu. Among
all coountries in East Asia our country had the highest rate of methamphetamine abuse.
Estimates showed that about 2.2 percent of the countries population between the ages of sixteen
and sixty-four were using methamphetamines,and that methamphetamines were the primary
drugs of choice.
In the year have pass, nearly tens of thousands had been killed 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 authorities and thousands of people have been arrested. As many
Pilipinos already surrendered and rehab themselves just the start of campaign because of the
strong words of the President not to tolerate anyone who do evil and promised to put behind bars
all the Drug Lords. As the Goverment focus on neutralizing the illegal drugs and criminals their
operations are getting harder and harder and on different operations across the country there are
suspects that are killed by the police authorities. Still there are no trials, so there is no evidence
that the people being killed are in fact drug dealers or drug addicts and Extra judicial killings is a
the result of a campaign on war on drugs.

Human Rights Watch examined the police reports in nearly all of the cases investigated. The
accounts contrasted markedly with those provided by the relatives interviewed, yet they were
similar to each other, virtually all claiming to involve buy bust anti-drug operations, differing
little besides the names, places, and dates. While the Philippine National Police have publicly
sought to distinguish between suspects killed while resisting arrest and killings by unknown
gunmen or vigilantes, Human Rights Watch found no such distinction in the cases investigated.
In several cases, the police dismissed allegations of involvement and instead classified such
killings as found bodies or deaths under investigation when only hours before the suspects had
been in police custody. Such cases call into question government assertions that the majority of
killings were carried out by vigilantes or rival drug gangs.

Whether or not the unidentified assailants doing the actual killing were police officers or agents
of the police, the similar tactics used in the cases documented by Human Rights Watch showed
planning and coordination by the police and in some cases local civilian officials. These killings
were not carried out by rogue officers or by vigilantes operating separately from the authorities.
It indicates that police involvement in the killings of drug suspects extends far beyond the
officially acknowledged cases of police killings in buy bust operations. Furthermore, the
government’s failure to arrest let alone prosecute a single police officer for their role in any of

Page 1 of 4
the war on drugs killings that President Duterte has encouraged sends a message that those
involved need not fear being held to account, and that future killings can be carried out with
impunity.
President Duterte has frequently characterized his war on drugs as targeting drug lords and drug
pushers. However, in all but one of the cases investigated by Human Rights Watch, the victims
of drug-related killings by the police or unidentified gunmen were poor the exception was a
middle-class victim who appears to have been killed as a result of mistaken identity, and many
were suspected drug users, not dealers at all. Almost all of the victims were either unemployed or
worked menial jobs, including as drivers or porters, and lived in slum neighbourhoods or
informal settlements.

No evidence thus far shows that Duterte planned or ordered specific extrajudicial killings. But
the President repeated calls for killings as part of his anti-drug campaign could constitute acts
instigating law enforcement to commit the crime of murder. His statements encouraging
vigilantes among the general population to commit violence against suspected drug users could
constitute incitement to violence.

Furthermore, the doctrine of command or superior responsibility imposes criminal liability on

officials for the unlawful acts of subordinates, where the superior knew or had reason to know of
the unlawful acts, and failed to prevent or punish those acts. The unlawful killings being carried
out by police forces ultimately under President Duterte’s command have repeatedly been brought
to his attention by the media, the United Nations, foreign governments, and domestic and
international nongovernmental organizations, including Human Rights Watch. His public
comments in response to those allegations are evidence that he knows about them. As their
continuing public statements make clear, the President and his top subordinates have denied or
downplayed the illegality of police actions, showing no inclination or intent to investigate
alleged crimes.

The president, senior officials, and others implicated in unlawful killings could be held liable for
crimes against humanity, which are serious offenses committed as part of a widespread or
systematic attack on a civilian population. The numerous and seemingly organized deadly
attacks on the publicly targeted group of drug suspects could amount to crimes against humanity
as defined by the International Criminal Court, to which the Philippines is a party.

Somewhere between the fear of crime and the longing for decisive leadership, there is a zone of
vulnerability, and President Duterte has targeted it with deadly aim. The President is telling
Filipinos their safety comes at a price.

As the Human Rights organizations and political leaders and activists have spoken out againts
the “War on Drugs and the Issues on Extrajudicial Killings”, the President has been relatively
succesful at not having the legislature engaged in any serious oversight of or investigation into
this war. Moreover, in the face of a corrupt, elite-dominated political system and a slow,
ineffective, and equally corrupt juditial system, people are willing to tolerate this public servant
who promised something and is now delivering.

Page 2 of 4
It 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 defence of their rights.

Although Philippine law mandates criminal penalties for corruption by public officials,
corruption remains endemic troughout the country. Media and law enforcement officials
continued to allege that same local politicians and other goverment officials received support
from drug traffickers, though no criminal cases were filled. As a matter of policy, the goverment
of our country does not facilitate drug trafficking or laundering of proceeds of drug trafficking,
and no senior goverment officials has been convicted for conducting such activities.

President Duterte has a legal responsibility to publicly direct the Philippine National Police to
end their campaign of extrajudicial executions of suspected drug dealers and users. The National
Bureau of Investigation and Ombudsman’s Office should impartially investigate the killings and
seek prosecutions of all those responsible. Congress should hold extensive hearings on the issue
and adopt measures to prevent further such killings. Donor countries to the Philippines should
end all assistance to the Philippine National Police until the killings cease and meaningful
investigations are undertaken and consider redirecting that assistance to community-based harm
reduction programs that are appropriate and effective.

Mutiarin, D., Tomaro, Q. Almarez, D. (2019) The War on Drugs of Philippines and Indonesia:

http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/jpag/article/view/14355/pdf-Journalof-Public
Administration-and-Governance-ISSN-2161-7104

There are still so much scepticism surround Philippine Drug War. It is, however notable that
there is widespread domestic support from Filipinos toward their respective drug campaigns.
Several caveats regarding the drug wars have been mentioned. In the case of Philippines, the
controversial allegations of Extra Judicial Killings and the bloody approach. On a lighter
perspective, it is worth noting that drug operations have truly intensified and the massive support
from the domestic public is what fuels the drug campaigns of both governments. There are
however several improvements that the government of Philippines must look into. Firstly, it is
the interesting to explore alternative approaches. The lack of political will to engage into
alternative approaches in Anti-drugs campaign is a common obstacle in all South East Asian
countries (Baldwin, 2013). Incarceration only denies dependents from the treatment they need
while compulsory rehabilitation also have high records of relapse. Tanguay et al. (2015)
recommends voluntary drug treatment and support services and policies that are shifting from
criminalization and punishment of drug dependents. Prior to that, a societal acceptance must be
established wherein the stigma of drug users being seen as less than humans, as criminals, and
other negative labels must be eradicated. The promotion of a drug-free community must begin
with the recognition that drug users are in need of treatment and the community must be
supportive in the re-integration process of the reformed citizens. Strang (2012) also argue that
this effort must be enforced by environmental intervention wherein the availability of illegal
drugs in the streets is dealt with, and the educational system integrates awareness drive, and

Page 3 of 4
knowledge dissemination of the adverse (Journal of Public Administration and Governance ISSN
2161-7104 2019, Vol. 9, No. 1 55 http://jpag.macrothink.org) effects of illegal drug use.
Interventions must be implemented with prudence wherein responses must be tailored on the
cultural context of respective countries and that allocation of technical and financial support
must be prioritized (Tanguay et al., 2015). The move from stricter law enforcement, punitive,
and bloody drug policies towards a more community-based treatment approach would result to
positive health and social outcomes (Tanguay et al., 2018). Also, as revealed, the great societal
danger lies on the fact that the younger generation are more involved and engaged in illicit drug
use.
This calls for more preventive mechanisms. Strang (2012) supports this emphasizing the need
that focused drug prevention efforts must be intensified in schools, media, communities, and
health care establishments. Young people of the society are proved to be important targets of
drug abuse. Strang (2012) how crucial the period of youth is and how drug prevention must be
centered on this particular stage of human development. The young adult stage of human life is
when individuals are exposed to illegal drugs, and initiation of use of drugs. Efforts must be
focused on drug prevention or if not then delay initiation of drug use, argued Strang (2012).
Linchia et al., (2017) highlighted the importance of the socialization of the law to increase the
awareness of the youth about the danger that narcotic abuse pose. Furthermore, with the
surrounding controversies of the drug wars, it is important that enforcement agencies must
function with transparency, accountability, and complete regard to human rights. This is why it is
important for the police officers to rebuild the trust of society towards them. Bevrer (2012), as
cited by Lasco (2018), stated that the role of law enforcement must be re-envisioned into one that
is supportive of harm reduction, treatment, and protection of human rights. An understanding of
the drug wars and how it may differ from the other drugs wars becomes vital. It is difficult to
determine as to whether the drug war has effectively reduced the supply and demand for illicit
drugs as numbers are inconsistent and ‗manipulated (Coca, 2018). But the, 82 percent of the
Filipino people who feel safer because of the effects of the War on Drugs (Pulse Asia, March
2017). This must account for something.

Submitted and prepared by:

Student, II-R

Page 4 of 4