AN UNWINNABLE WAR: LOCATING THE VALUE OF LIFE

IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PHILIPPINES’ CAMPAIGN

AGAINST ILLEGAL DRUGS*

Ruby Rosselle L. Tugade **

I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………..…………………. 86
II. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE PHILIPPINES AND SOCIAL
ISSUES……………………………………………………………………….. 87
III. THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST ILLEGAL DRUGS FROM THE LENS OF HUMAN
RIGHTS ………………………………………………………………………. 89
A. ARBITRARY DEPRIVATION OF LIFE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW ……… 89
B. THE PHILIPPINE HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK ON THE RIGHT TO
LIFE…………………………………………………………………..…. 92
IV. TOWARDS DIGNITY: INTERSECTIONS OF CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING
AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS REGIME………………………………………… 95
A. CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING AND HUMAN
DIGNITY…………………………………………………………...…….. 95
B. ENFORCING HUMAN DIGNITY: PROSPECTS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE ANTI-ILLEGAL DRUGS CAMPAIGN…………….. 97

ABSTRACT

The anti-illegal drug campaign of the Philippine government under

President Rodrigo Duterte has exacted heavy social costs in the
Philippines. It has also placed the institutions for accountability and
democratic rule of law at a precarious situation. With the collective moral
ethos of Philippine society heavily strained by the consequences of the
anti-illegal drug campaign, the conceptually parallel ideas forwarded by
Catholic social teaching on the one hand and human rights law on the
other can potentially provide an oasis for making sense out of the so-called
war on drugs. This paper presents the prospects of the intersection
between the teachings of the Catholic Church—an institution held in high
regard in Philippine society—and the different ideas underpinning human
rights law as a potent counterpart to the war on drugs.

* Cite as Ruby Rosselle S. Tugade, An Unwinnable War: Locating the Value of Life in
the Middle of the Philippine’s Campaign Against Illegal Drugs, 2 U. ASIA & PAC. L.J. 85,
(page cited) (2019).
** Member, Philippine Bar; Juris Doctor, University of the Philippines (2016); Vice
Chair, Philippine Law Journal (Volume 88); A.B. Political Science, cum laude, Ateneo de
Manila University (2010).
86 UA&P LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 2

I. INTRODUCTION

Rodrigo Roa Duterte won the Philippine presidency last May

2016, propelled by an election campaign that promised the eradication of
illegal drugs in the country. At the launch of the campaign against illegal
drugs, President Duterte made a pledge to kill a hundred thousand
criminals, and even encouraged law enforcement to heed his command
with the promise of protection and reward.1

At the close of 2018, the Human Rights Watch report on the

Philippines projected an estimate of more than 22,000 deaths during
President Duterte’s anti-illegal drugs campaign, with the casualties,
alleged drug peddlers, mostly coming from the poorest sectors of society.2
The Roman Catholic Church—one of the most dominant blocs in
Philippine society—has pushed back in resistance against the bloody
anti-illegal drugs campaign. On January 30 2017, half a year after the
start of the Duterte administration, Archbishop Socrates Villegas,
president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP),
issued a strongly-worded statement condemning the violence unleashed
by the campaign.3

On the legal front, there are two petitions for the writ of amparo
pending before the Supreme Court of the Philippines that challenge the
anti-drug policy of the Duterte administration and seek protective reliefs
for its petitioners.4 Additionally, a petition for mandamus has been filed
to compel the government to investigate violations of the constitutional
right to life perpetrated under the auspices of the anti-illegal drugs
campaign. 5 Finally, a communication was transmitted before the
International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging the president’s direct
responsibility in the commission of thousands of extrajudicial
executions.6

The campaign against illegal drugs has placed a heavy strain on

the state of the rule of law and the collective social fiber of the
predominantly Catholic Philippines. The (normalization) of drug-related
killings, simply known as “EJKs” (extra-judicial killings) in the everyday
parlance of Filipinos, is the net effect of a drug war that is in the brink of
entropy. This paper focuses on the human rights aspect and social

1 Rishi Iyengar, The Killing Time: Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War on
Drugs, TIME.COM, available at <http://time.com/4462352/rodrigo-duterte-drug-war-drugs-
philippines-killing/ (last visited December 10, 2018).
2 Human Rights Watch, Philippines: Events of 2018, https://www.hrw.org/world-
report/2019/country-chapters/philippines# (last visited January 20, 2019).
3 CBCP, For I find no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies – oracle of the Lord
God, http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=91162 (last visited January 20, 2019).
4 Daño vs. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 234484 and Almora vs. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 234359.
5 Baquirin vs. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 233930.
6 Ellis-Petersen, ICC launches crimes against humanity inquiry into Duterte's war on
drugs, THEGUARDIAN.COM, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/08/icc-claims-
crimes-against-humanity-duterte-philippines (last visited January 20, 2019).
2019] AN UNWINNABLE WAR 87

dimensions of the Duterte administration’s campaign against illegal

drugs, guided by the pronouncements of secular and ecclesiastical
authorities on the value and dignity of human life. The campaign against
illegal drugs is a wager for the Philippines: at risk is the collective
sensitivity to the core principles of the rule of law and the sanctity of life.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the concepts of “human

rights” and “human dignity” as understood in a context where both are
challenged in a systematic manner. In President Duterte’s Philippines
where the value of human life—who gets to live or die—becomes a matter
of contention, we turn to the social pillar of religious teaching to evoke
the immutability of human dignity.

II. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE PHILIPPINES AND

SOCIAL ISSUES

The Philippines is Asia’s most Catholic country. 7 As an

institution, the Catholic Church in the Philippines is far from passive—it
has emerged as a key political player with an activist stance towards
social issues. The Church, a lasting legacy of the Spanish conquest of the
islands more or less five hundred years ago, has transformed itself from
being a symbol of colonial rule to a leading institutional actor for reform
and social change.

The leadership of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI during the crucial
years of the Cold War was felt in the United States-allied Philippines.
Both consecrated and lay persons alike became active in social issues.8
The Church’s involvement in political matters became most apparent
during the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

Members of the Church hierarchy became visibly involved in

rallies and were vocal in their sermons against the worsening social
conditions under Martial Law.9 The Church is recognized to be among
the main players of the People Power Revolution of 1986 that toppled the
Marcos regime. Then Archbishop of Manila Jaime Cardinal Sin, a
staunch critic of the Marcos dictatorship, withdrew support from the
regime and rallied the people to the streets in 1986 to what would be the
largest display of peaceful civil disobedience in the country.10 To this day,
Church iconography persists in connection to the commemoration of
People Power.

Given the Church’s long history with social involvement, its

7 PATRICIO N. ABINALES AND DONNA J. AMOROSO, STATE AND SOCIETY IN THE PHILIPPINES,
3 (2005).
8 Id., at 198-99.
9 Id., at 223.
10 Kurt Schock, “People Power and Political Opportunities: Social Movement
Mobilization and Outcomes in the Philippines and Burma”, SOCIAL PROBLEMS 46, 365.
88 UA&P LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 2

strong stance towards the campaign against illegal drugs comes as no

surprise. The CBCP, through Archbishop Villegas, emphatically made
this statement:

“We are concerned not only for those who have been
killed. The situation of the families of those killed is also cause
for concern. Their lives have only become worse. An Additional
cause of concern is the reign of terror in many places of the poor.
Many are killed not because of drugs. Those who kill them are
not brought to account. An even greater cause of concern is the
indifference of many to this kind of wrong.”11

The CBCP’s vocal opposition to how the anti-illegal drugs

campaign is implemented sends a strong message, even at a symbolic
level, to the religious faithful in the Philippines. There is little room for
debate within the Church hierarchy in the Philippines, often projecting a
united front on social and political issues through statements issued by
the CBCP.12

Aside from the CBCP, Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal

Tagle issued a pastoral letter regarding the campaign against illegal
drugs, read in all masses last September of 2017. While condemning the
scourge brought about by illegal drugs on the one hand, Cardinal Tagle
addressed the faithful: “We knock on the consciences of those who kill
even the helpless, especially those who cover their faces with bonnets, to
stop wasting human lives.”13 Cardinal Tagle’s pastoral letter, more than
an admonition, presents a concrete alternative to the killings, that is, to
rehabilitate those caught in the web of illegal drug use. Two diametrically
opposed notions of justice are apparent here: the retributive nature let
loose in the killing fields and the restorative and redemptionist objective
of the Church.

The Catholic Church’s staunch opposition to the manner of

conduct of the anti-illegal drugs campaign has caused friction between
the institution and the Presidency. President Duterte, in a speech
delivered last December 2018, stated that bishops of the Catholic Church
should be killed for their criticism against his administration. 14 At the
close of 2018, three priests were slain in a six-month period by unknown
assailants.15

11 CBCP, supra note 3.

12 Julius Bautista, “Church and State in the Philippines Tackling Life Issues in a
‘Culture Of Death’”, JOURN. OF SOCIAL ISSUES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA, 25, 30.
13 CBCP, Cardinal Tagle’s statement on drug-related killings,
http://cbcpnews.net/cbcpnews/cardinal-tagles-statement-on-drug-related-killings/ (last
visited January 20, 2019).
14 Pia Ranada, 'Kill bishops, all they do is criticize,' says Duterte, RAPPLER.COM,
https://www.rappler.com/nation/218312-duterte-says-kill-bishops-all-they-do-is-criticize
(last visited January 20, 2019).
15 Robin Gomes, Third priest killed in the Philippines in 6 months,
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2018-06/philippines-priest-killed-nilo-
valles-bancud.html (last visited January 20, 2019).
2019] AN UNWINNABLE WAR 89

Whether as means towards an end or serving its fundamental

purpose as an institution, the Catholic Church in the Philippines has
heavily immersed itself from the grassroots towards the top in order to
ensure the integrity of the Philippine’s democratic structures. 16 The
Church anchoring the moral discourse against the so-called drug war
coupled with the human rights-oriented constitutional framework of the
Philippines provides a fertile ground for critical analysis. Specifically, the
critical human rights situation under President Duterte’s administration
could lend an avenue to revisit the intersection between human rights
law and Catholic social teaching, the latter having a strong doctrinal
sway over Philippine society and its dynamics.

III. THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST ILLEGAL DRUGS FROM THE LENS

OF HUMAN RIGHTS

A. ARBITRARY DEPRIVATION OF LIFE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights (ICCPR) states that “Every human being has the inherent right to
life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his life.” While the right to life inheres in and is enjoyed by
everyone, it is submitted that this right is not absolute. 17 There is a
recognition that there can be non-arbitrary deprivations of life. Under the
latest General Comment on Article 6 of the ICCPR, arbitrary deprivation
of life “involves a deliberate or otherwise foreseeable and preventable life-
terminating harm or injury, caused by an act or omission,” as opposed to
non-arbitrary deprivation.

Meanwhile, Art. 2 of the ICCPR provides the general obligation of

States to uphold civil and political rights, to wit:

Article 2. (1) Each State Party to the present Covenant

undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within
its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any
kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status.

(2) Where not already provided for by existing legislative

or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant
undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with
its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the
present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as
may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in

16 Bautista, supra note 12, at 34.

17 See ¶ 16 of General Comment No. 36 on article 6 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, (October 30, 2018),
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/GCArticle6_EN.pdf.
90 UA&P LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 2

the present Covenant.

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms

as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective
remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy

shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial,
administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other
competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State,
and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall

enforce such remedies when granted.18 (Emphasis supplied)

There are several components, then, to the obligation to uphold

the right to life, based on the ICCPR: 1) the duty of the State to protect
its citizens’ right to life; 2) the duty of the State to not commit any
arbitrary and summary taking of life; and 3) the duty of the State to
provide an effective remedy.

Killings perpetrated by State actors would fall squarely under the

term arbitrary deprivation of life. However, this does not preclude the
possibility that killings by non-State actors may amount to State
responsibility. After all, the take care clause (Art. 2) of the ICCPR imposes
certain positive State obligations. Therefore, the failure of States to
exercise due diligence to prevent or mitigate killings done by non-State
actors may result in the State being responsible and liable.19 This legal
argument is supported by the international law concept of State
responsibility as a breach of an international obligation.20

While the denomination for arbitrary deprivations of life are often

used interchangeably, several documents categorize the killings into
different types. There are several sources of definitions for extrajudicial or
extralegal killings from international documents. It is important to note,
however, that there is “no international instrument that expressly defines
an extrajudicial killing as a State act.” 21 References to
extrajudicial/extralegal killings and summary or arbitrary executions are

18 Also known as the “take care clause” of the ICCPR.

19 Christian Pangilinan, “The Dispute Over Extrajudicial Killings: The Need to Define
Extrajudicial Killings as State-Sponsored Acts”, PHIL. L. J., 86, 851.
20 See, for instance, Affaire relative à l'usine de Chorzów (Chorzów Factory Case),
Judgment, 1927, P.C.I.J., (July 26): “It is a principle of international law that the breach of
an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form.” Note also the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 17, July 17, 1998, which considers
unwillingness or inability to investigate or prosecute in the issue of admissibility of a matter
before the ICC.
21 Pangilinan, supra note 19, at 315.
2019] AN UNWINNABLE WAR 91

found in reports or manuals published by the United Nations.

The Report of the first Special Rapporteur on Summary and

Arbitrary Executions Mr. Amos Wako contained the following definitions:

“Summary execution” is the arbitrary deprivation of life

as a result of a sentence imposed by the means of summary
procedure in which the due process of law and in particular the
minimum procedural guarantees as set out in Article 14 of the
Covenant are either curtailed, distorted or not followed.

“Arbitrary execution” is the arbitrary deprivation of life

as a result of the killing of persons carried out by the order of a
government of with its complicity or tolerance or acquiescence
without any judicial or legal process.

“Extra legal execution” refers to killings committed

outside the judicial or legal process, and at the same time, illegal
under relevant national and international laws. Accordingly, in
certain circumstances ‘arbitrary execution’ as defined above can
be an ‘extra legal execution’.22

The Revised United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention

and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, also
known as the Minnesota Protocol 23 , published by the UN Office of the
High Commissioner on Human Rights in 2017, gives the following
parameters for potentially unlawful deaths:

(a) The death may have been caused by acts or

omissions of the State, its organs or agents, or may
otherwise be attributable to the State, in violation of its
duty to respect the right to life. This includes, for example, all
deaths possibly caused by law enforcement personnel or other
agents of the state; deaths caused by paramilitary groups,
militias or “death squads” suspected of acting under the
direction or with the permission or acquiescence of the State;
and deaths caused by private military or security forces
exercising State functions.

(b) The death occurred when a person was detained

by, or was in the custody of, the State, its organs, or agents.
This includes, for example, all deaths of persons detained in
prisons, in other places of detention (official and otherwise) and
in other facilities where the State exercises heightened control
over their life.

(c) The death occurred where the State may have

failed to meet its obligations to protect life. This includes, for

22 Report by the Special Rapporteur Mr. Amos S. Wako, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1983/16,

¶ 66 (1983).
23 The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016)
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/MinnesotaProtocol.pdf.
92 UA&P LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 2

example, any situation where a state fails to exercise due

diligence to protect an individual or individuals from foreseeable
external threats or violence by non-State actors. There is also a
general duty on the state to investigate any suspicious death,
even where it is not alleged or suspected that the state caused
the death or unlawfully failed to prevent it.

Thus, even without a hard law definition of extrajudicial killings

in international law, the right to life is squarely guaranteed by custom
and the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. The
right to life cannot be derogated from, even in instances when the life of
the nation is under threat. 24 While current government policy is to
eradicate illegal drugs that is perceived to be the “number one threat to
national security”,25 the right of life must be consistently upheld.

B. THE PHILIPPINE HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK ON THE RIGHT TO LIFE

Ratified in 1987, the present Constitution of the Republic of the

Philippines enshrines a strong human rights framework. Among its State
Policies is to value the dignity of the human person and to guarantee full
respect for human rights. 26 The 1987 Constitution has a textually
demonstrable commitment to human rights, with twenty-two sections
enshrined in its Bill of Rights. It is also a State Policy that the dignity of
every human person shall be valued and that full respect for human
rights be guaranteed.

Being a hybrid common law and civil law jurisdiction,27 decisions

of the Philippine Supreme Court likewise form part of the law of the land.
Jurisprudential pronouncements by the Supreme Court are
unambiguous with regard to human rights. The Supreme Court has
emphatically ruled that “The Philippines, along with the other members
of the family of nations, committed to uphold the fundamental human
rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person.”28

With respect to the right to life, the Supreme Court made the
following pronouncement in Imbong vs. Ochoa: “It is a universally
accepted principle that every human being enjoys the right to life. Even if
not formally established, the right to life, being grounded on natural law,
is inherent and, therefore, not a creation of, or dependent upon a
particular law, custom, or belief. It precedes and transcends any

24 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 4, December 16, 1966
25 Genalyn Kabiling, Drug menace is No. 1 nat’l security threat – Duterte, MB.COM.PH,
https://news.mb.com.ph/2018/11/07/drug-menace-is-no-1-natl-security-threat-duterte/
(last visited January 20, 2019).
26 1987 CONST., Art. II, Sec. 12
27 Cesar L. Villanueva, “Comparative Study of the Judicial Role and its Effect on the
Theory on Judicial Precedents in the Philippine hybrid Legal System”, PHIL. L. J. 65, 43.
28 Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia, G.R. No.
153675, April 19, 2007
2019] AN UNWINNABLE WAR 93

authority or the laws of men.” 29 The Imbong case sends out a potent
message across institutions—that the right to life is recognized by the
Philippine State as a right that exceeds any parameter.

The Philippine’s commitment to the right to life can be seen in its

ratification of different international instruments, as well as the
municipal law promulgated and enforced by State authorities. For
instance, with the Philippines’ ratification of the Second Optional
Protocol to the ICCPR30, there can no longer be any judicial taking of life.
Likewise, the Revised Penal Code has an entire Title on Crimes Against
Persons, prohibiting the taking of life through different types of acts.

Specific to the taking of life through arbitrary deprivation, they

are mostly prosecuted under our laws as common crimes. There is no
law in the Philippines specifically criminalizing “extrajudicial killings”. In
Razon vs. Tagitis,31 the Supreme Court conceded that “as the law now
stands, extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this
jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component
criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced
disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised Penal Code and
special laws.”

The most accessible definition of extralegal killings can be found

in jurisprudence. Secretary of Defense vs. Manalo defines such killings as
those “committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal
safeguards or judicial proceedings.”32 The same citation for this definition
can be seen in House Resolution No. 242 of the 17th Congress. The
Resolution defines EJKs as “killings committed without due process of
law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings, which include
the illegal taking of life, regardless of the motive, summary and arbitrary
executions, and ‘salvagings’ even of suspected criminals.”33

Meanwhile, in Senate Bill No. 1197, filed in the 17th Congress,

proposes this definition: “the unlawful, and deliberate killing of targeted
individuals or groups thereof, carried out by agents of the State and
under its order or acquiescence in lieu of arrest, investigation and
prosecution. Extrajudicial killing includes summary killing perpetrated
by private individuals for purposes of carrying out on their own or in the
context of vigilantism, a campaign or policy of the State.” 34 The
definitions above are derived from the Annotation to the Writ of Amparo,
released by the Supreme Court in 2007.

29 G.R. No. 20481, April 8, 2014

30 On the abolition of the death penalty.
31 G.R. No. 182498, December 03, 2009.
32 G.R. No. 180906, October 07, 2008.
33 http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HR00242.pdf (last visited
January 21, 2019).
34 https://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/2499321495!.pdf (last visited January 21,
2019).
94 UA&P LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 2

By virtue of Administrative Order No. 35, the government of

former President Benigno S. Aquino III pursued investigations into
“political violence and abuses of power by agents or elements of the State
or non-state forces.” The Operational Guidelines of AO No. 35 breaks
down EJKs/ELKs into the following elements:

a. The victim was:

i. a member of, or affiliated with an organization, to
include political, environmental, agrarian, labor, or
similar causes; or
ii. an advocate of above-named causes; or
iii. a media practitioner or
iv. person(s) apparently mistaken or identified to be so.
b. The victim was targeted and killed because of the actual or
perceived membership, advocacy, or profession;

c. The person/s responsible for the killing is a state agent or

non-state agent;

d. The method and circumstances of attack reveal a deliberate

intent to kill.

Several things that have to be noted from AO No. 35 and its

operational guidelines. First, the policy of the government is to look into
incidents regardless if they have been committed by elements of the State
or non-state agents. Second, the Administrative Order is limited in its
scope in that it only considers as victims those individuals who meet the
qualifications in the enumeration. Supreme Court Administrative Order
No. 25-2007 gives a similar definition to AO No. 35.35

The writ of amparo and writ of habeas data, both protecting the
right to life, support the view that even killings committed by non-State
actors may be taken cognizance of as extrajudicial killings. The said
rules include as possible respondents private individuals.36 The Supreme
Court seems to support the view that arbitrary killings comprise both
State and non-State acts.37

However, not all killings committed by non-State actors can be

considered as arbitrary deprivations of life if they are already crimes
already defined by special penal laws. For instance, killings committed by
non-State actors in the context of non-international armed conflict is
already penalized by R.A. No. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against
International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against
Humanity).38 Deaths resulting from torture are already covered by R.A.

35 As cited in AL PARREÑO, REPORT ON THE PHILIPPINE EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS 2001-

2010 (2011), fn. 2.
36 Writ of Amparo, sec. 1; Writ of Habeas Data, sec. 1.
37 Pangilinan, supra note 19, at 814.
38 Secs. 4-6.
2019] AN UNWINNABLE WAR 95

No. 9745 (Anti-Torture Act).39

Parenthetically, the deaths that have occurred under the

umbrella of President Duterte’s staunch anti-illegal drugs messaging are
not exclusive to operations undertaken by law enforcement. Some of the
deaths resulted from vigilante-style killings from non-state actors. 40 A
pattern emerges, however, from these killings: more often than not, the
targets are names included in drug watch lists prepared by the
authorities.41

In the context of the anti-illegal drugs campaign of the

government under President Duterte’s administration, the implementing
agencies involved have recognized that there are deaths that have
occurred during the course of police operations. As of November 2018,
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency have put up the statistics of
5,050 deaths connected to anti-illegal drug operations.42 The UN Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions have
observed that “deaths due to the use of force by law enforcement officials
or persons acting in direct or indirect compliance with the State, when
the use of force is inconsistent with the criteria of absolute necessity and
proportionality”43 are violations of human rights.

IV. TOWARDS DIGNITY: INTERSECTIONS OF CATHOLIC SOCIAL

TEACHING AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS REGIME

A. CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING AND HUMAN DIGNITY

Catholic social teaching is replete with exhortations about the

dignity of man, being a pillar of the Church’s theology. In Evangelium
Vitae, Pope John Paul II examines the various threats to human life and
its dignity in the contemporary world. “Every murder is a violation of the
spiritual kinship uniting mankind in one great family, in which all share
the same fundamental good: equal personal dignity”, the 1995 encyclical
states. 44 The belief that man was created in God’s image has
foundationally set the tone of the Church’s social teachings. Being a core
element in the theology of the Church, it gives ministry a distinct social
complexion—man and the community of men must be always exalted

39 Sec. 14.
40 Danilo Andres Reyes, “The Spectacle of Violence in Duterte’s “War on Drugs”, JOURN.
ON CURRENT SOUTHEAST ASIAN AFFAIRS, 35, 116.
41 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, “If you are poor, you are killed”: Extrajudicial Executions in
the Philippines’ ‘War on Drugs’, https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2017-
04/ASA3555172017ENGLISH.PDF?9_73DdFTpveG_iJgeK0U13KUVFHKSL_X= (last visited
January 26, 2019).
42 Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, http://pdea.gov.ph/2-uncategorised/279-
realnumbersph (last visited January 22, 2019).
43 Rep. of the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Asma Jahangir, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/74
(2002), ¶ 8.
44 Evangelium Vitae, 8.
96 UA&P LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 2

and preserved in dignity. Specific to the right to life, every nation must
respect such right “at every stage of its existence.”45

Church teaching in the span of the last century has adopted an

unequivocal social bent. With Rerum Novarum laying down the structure
of what Church is and ought to be in the middle of a rapidly changing
world, its teachings are to be viewed as against the backdrop of both
ancient and emerging threats to the integrity of the human person. The
rise and fall of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes in the 20th century
infused a sense of urgency to the prescriptions of the Church.

In all turns, what remains is a clear idea articulated time and

again since Rerum Novarum—that man is the vessel by which the Church
realizes its ministry. The Church takes both a theological and historical
approach in the appreciation of the role of mankind:

“We are not dealing here with man in the ‘abstract’, but
with the real, ‘concrete’, ‘historical’ man. We are dealing with
each individual, since each one is included in the mystery of
Redemption, and through this mystery Christ has united himself
with each one forever. It follows that the Church cannot abandon
man, and that ‘this man is the primary route that the Church
must travel in fulfilling her mission ... the way traced out by
Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery
of the Incarnation and the Redemption.’”46

Neither purely individual nor communal values are acclaimed

over the other, which are the pitfalls of liberal capitalism and Marxist
totalitarianism, respectively. A recognition that each individual possesses
inherent dignity and that each individual strives for the good communal
life where his integrity is kept intact is the ideal springboard for the
discussion of the universality of human rights. An acknowledgment that
man possesses these innate, non-negotiable characteristics and
capacities must cascade into worldly institutions.

Human rights are the conceptual analog of the theological idea of

human dignity in political terms. As Maritain articulates, the “good
human life of the multitude” always implies and requires “recognition of
the fundamental rights of persons and those of the domestic society in
which the persons are more primitively engaged than in the political
society.”47 It must be necessary to point out, however, that the Catholic
Church’s notion on human rights differs in its appreciation of the human
person with that of liberalism. Liberalism treats human rights as claims
or entitlements of the individual against the State, hinged on the belief
that every man is a self-sustaining ecosystem of rationality. On the other

45 Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 34.

46 Centisimus Annus, 53.
47 Jacques Maritain, “The Person and the Common Good”, THE REVIEW OF POLITICS, 8,
437.
2019] AN UNWINNABLE WAR 97

hand, the Catholic Church, while supporting the institutions which

promote human rights, does not necessarily endorse the atomistic view
of humanity.48 Instead, the Church founds its support for human rights
in the personhood of each individual—a personhood material, spiritual,
and historical all at once.

The intrinsic dignity of every human person directly interlocks

with his social existence. The development of the human person signifies
a commitment to the enrichment of the community to which he belongs
to as a whole. Human rights elevate man’s existence in the material
world as they act as a binding agent that touches on the core of what it
means to be human moving within societies, cultures, and institutions.

The principles of the common good and solidarity are at the core
of Catholic social teaching. It is only with the united pursuit for the
common good that every member of society will be able to realize
themselves in a fuller manner. The task of the political community in
pursuing the common good is to ensure the unity and organization of
civil society.49 On the other hand, solidarity is “one of the fundamental
principles of the Christian view of social and political organization.”50 It is
a virtue closely linked with the recognition that with the dignity of man,
there is a necessity to address the inequalities produced by political
structures and institutions.

Human rights squarely interface with the theological aspect of the

anti-illegal drugs campaign when the latter is viewed as an affront to the
integrity of human life itself, which is imbued with intrinsic dignity.

B. ENFORCING HUMAN DIGNITY: PROSPECTS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE

MIDDLE OF THE ANTI-ILLEGAL DRUGS CAMPAIGN

An anti-illegal drugs campaign waged mostly against the poorest

sectors of society is a reflection of the disregard for the notions of
solidarity and the common good of human society. This greatly
endangers the fabric of society and the institutions ensuring the rule of
law. Rights are hinged on the ontological notion of the inherent dignity of
man.51 When dovetailed with the notion that man must be in the pursuit
of common good and must come together in solidarity, it is then that one
will see that an attack on the most vulnerable members of society
compromises the structures that guarantee a stable polity.

48 Gregory R. Beabout and Mary Catherine Hodes, “John Paul II on the Relationship
between Civil Law and the Moral Law: Understanding Evangelium Vitae in the Light of the
Principle of Subsidiarity and the Moral Grammar of John Paul II”, Notre Dame Journ. of Law,
Ethics & Public Policy, 21, 92.
49 MARTIN SCHLAG (ED.), HANDBOOK OF CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING, 42 (2017).
50 Centisimus Annus, 10
51 Jean Bethke Elshtain, “The Dignity of the Human Person and the Idea of Human
Rights: Four Inquiries”, JOURN. OF LAW AND RELIGION, 14, 57.
98 UA&P LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 2

Human rights have been greatly undermined in so called-wars on

drugs in both high- and low-income countries. 52 It has been observed
that there is a dearth in policy guidelines that take into account human
rights during the implementation of anti-illegal drugs policies.53

The Philippine National Police (PNP), the body tasked with law
enforcement and the main implementing body of the anti-illegal drugs
campaign, has adopted a set of standards for human rights-based
policing. Police officers are mandated in police operations to not use
excessive force “except when strictly unavoidable” in order to protect the
life of the officer and the life of others.54 However, the necessity of the use
of force in such anti-illegal drugs operations have been consistently
criticized. The killing of minor Kian Loyd Delos Santos last August of
2017 has sparked public outrage, with the police officers charged with
the killing being sentenced by the lower court. Part of the judgment has
called into question the excessiveness of the force employed during the
police operation.55 This points to the idea that under the auspices of the
anti-illegal drug campaign of the Duterte administration, there have been
deaths that can be classified as violations of the fundamental right to life.

The Duterte administration has couched its anti-illegal drug

campaign in an anti-corruption language. However, as Hapal et. al note,
the campaign “has transformed the parameters of violent exchange in
ways that made the system even more expensive, expansive, and
unstable.”56 With the promise of reward allegedly a motivating element
behind the killings, 57 the extent of political and moral corruption has
possibly spread throughout the institutions of law enforcement, together
with the normalization of violence in the day-to-day life of Philippine
society.

With the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in the Philippines

strongly opposing the manner and method of the Duterte

52 The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, Recalibrating the Regime: The
Need for a Human Rights-Based Approach in International Drug Policy, part II,
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/beckley0308exec.pdf (last visited
January 22, 2019).
53 Id.
54 PNP Guidebook on Human Rights-Based Policing, 47,
http://www.pnp.gov.ph/images/Manuals_and_Guides/PNP-Guide-on-Human-based-
Policing.pdf (last visited January 22, 2019).
55 Jason Gutierrez, 3 Philippine Police Officers Are Convicted in a Drug War Killing,
NYTIMES.COM, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/world/asia/philippines-duterte-
drug-killings-police.html
56 Jensen, Steffen, and Karl Hapal, “Police Violence and Corruption in the Philippines:
Violent Exchange and the War on Drugs”, JOURN. OF CURRENT SOUTHEAST ASIAN AFFAIRS, 37,
42.
57 Manuel Mogato and Claire Baldwin, Special Report: Police describe kill rewards,
staged crime scenes in Duterte's drug war, REUTERS.COM,
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-duterte-police-specialrep/special-report-
police-describe-kill-rewards-staged-crime-scenes-in-dutertes-drug-war-idUSKBN17K1F4
(last visited January 23, 2019).
2019] AN UNWINNABLE WAR 99

administration’s anti-illegal drugs campaign, an opportunity emerges to

look at the net effect of the government’s program on the moral ethos of
present-day Philippines. Fear of being tagged by the police has generated
a culture of terror in the urban pockets of Metro Manila, for instance.58
The Catholic Church’s visible resistance to the campaign signals a crisis
from the institution’s perspective. Such resistance, when viewed against
the history of social involvement of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines, flags a political moment that merits critical engagement.

The Catholic Church occupies a unique position in the

Philippines: its pronouncements on social issues can help legitimize
social mobilization on different societal concerns. Given the historical
inadequacy of the Philippine State to provide social cohesion, institutions
like the Catholic Church have filled in the gaps in the provision of social
services, as well as helped popularize particular political discourse.59 As
an emblematic example in the context of the anti-illegal drugs campaign,
some dioceses in Metro Manila have opted to provide sanctuary to those
living in fear of being targeted.60

The anti-drug messaging of the administration has carved parallel

paths and consequences for defenders of human rights and those
advocating the Church’s mission. During his 2018 State of the Nation
Address, President Duterte admonished both human rights defenders
and church leaders for being allegedly silent on the issues of “drug-
lordism, drug dealing and drug pushing”. In the same Address, the
President seemingly put at odds “human rights” with “human lives”, in
opposition to the idea that human life and dignity implies the right to life.

Moving forward, establishing a conceptual link between the

human rights idea of the right to life and the Catholic Church’s mission
to promote human dignity could help consolidate effective strategies in
dealing with the cracks opened up by the anti-illegal drugs campaign in
the Philippines. The right to life must remain an essential component in
any diametrically oppositional messaging to the culture of fear and death
seemingly propagated by the anti-illegal drug campaign of the
government. In this vein, references to human rights must be the secular
counterpart to the Church’s pro-life mission. A strong strategic bent for
lay human rights defenders and Church leaders alike will come out from
a united front—one that clearly defends human dignity and the right to
life.

58 Anna Bræmer Warburg and Steffen Jensen, “Policing the war on drugs and the
transformation of urban space in Manila”, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING D: SOCIETY AND SPACE,
0, 10.
59 Anna Grzymala-Busse and Dan Slater, “Making Godly Nations: Church-State
Pathways in Poland and the Philippines”, COMPARATIVE POLITICS, 50, 558.
60 Poppy McPherson, 'Open the doors': the Catholic churches hiding targets of
Duterte’s drug war, THEGUARDIAN.COM,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/catholic-churches-hiding-targets-of-
dutertes-drug-war (last visited January 26, 2018).