Since becoming president of the Philippines in June 2016, Rodrigo Duterte

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

MANILA, Philippines — Thirty-eight members of the United Nations Human Rights

Council have urged the Philippine government to put an end to alleged rights abuses
in its bloody war on drugs and bow to strong calls for an external investigation into
the deadly campaign.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte—who has defied international pressure and

vehemently rejected criticisms of his human rights record—stoked alarm for
unleashing his signature anti-narcotic drive, which has killed thousands of mostly
urban, poor Filipinos.

Human rights monitors and western countries say most of the fatalities in Duterte’s
brutal public safety project are extrajudicial killings committed by cops taking a
frontline role in the lethal campaign and unknown assailants.

The Philippines is a part of the 47-nation global rights body, which has repeatedly
condemned the recent spate of killings and called on Philippine authorities to allow
the UN to probe the country’s human rights situation without preconditions or
limitations.
Rights defenders
In the same joint statement, the group of 38 countries reminded the Philippine
government that member-states “should lead by example and are expected to uphold
the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.”

They also expressed concern over the reported harassment of persons exercising their
rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the Philippines, including human rights
defenders and journalists.

“If needed, the Council may take further steps, including a more formal Council
initiative to try and ensure that member states meet their human rights obligations,”
they added.

The following countries signed the joint statement: Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Macedonia, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine,
United Kingdom and the United States.

Early this year, Iceland’s foreign minister welcomed the International Criminal
Court's announcement that it will conduct a preliminary examination into the killings
linked to the Philippines' drug war.

Read more at https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/06/23/1827213/38-un-

rights-council-members-urge-philippines-stop-drug-war-
deaths#91RT0CjlMWb0SF0c.99

Since taking office on June 30, 2016, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has carried
out a “war on drugs” that has led to the deaths of over 12,000 Filipinos to date, mostly
urban poor. At least 2,555 of the killings have been attributed to the Philippine National
Police. Duterte and other senior officials have instigated and incited the killings in a
campaign that could amount to crimes against humanity.

Human Rights Watch research has found that police are falsifying evidence to justify the
unlawful killings. Despite growing calls for an investigation, Duterte has vowed to
continue the campaign.
Large-scale extrajudicial violence as a crime solution was a marker of Duterte’s 22-
year tenure as mayor of Davao City and the cornerstone of his presidential campaign. On
the eve of his May 9, 2016 election victory, Duterte told a crowd of more than 300,000:
“If I make it to the presidential palace I will do just what I did as mayor. You drug
pushers, holdup men, and do-nothings, you better get out because I'll kill you.”

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

How did the Philippines’ war on drugs start?

More From Our Experts

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

“When Rodrigo Duterte campaigned for

president, he claimed that drug dealing
and drug addiction were major obstacles
to the Philippines’ economic and social
progress.”
More on:

Philippines

Rodrigo Duterte
Drug Policy

Human Rights
The dominant drug in the Philippines is a variant of methamphetamine
called shabu. According to a 2012 United Nations report, among all the
countries in East Asia, the Philippines had the highest rate of
methamphetamine abuse. Estimates showed that about 2.2 percent of
Filipinos between the ages of sixteen and sixty-four were using
methamphetamines, and that methamphetamines and marijuana were the
primary drugs of choice. In 2015, the national drug enforcement agency
reported that one fifth of the barangays, the smallest administrative
division in the Philippines, had evidence of drug use, drug trafficking, or
drug manufacturing; in Manila, the capital, 92 percent of the barangays had
yielded such evidence.

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

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

Duterte was also successful at negotiating with the Philippine Communist

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

What have been the outcomes of the drug war?

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

Daily News Brief

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

What is the public reaction to the drug war?

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

Duterte is also supporting a range of anti-poverty programs and policies.

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

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

The Philippine judicial system is very slow and perceived as corrupt,

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

“Drug dealers and drug addicts are a

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

It’s never been a genuine partnership. It’s always been a relationship

dominated by U.S. interests. Growing up in the 1960s, Duterte lived
through a period when the United States firmly supported a regime that
was even more brutal than this particular regime and was willing to not
criticize that particular government. He noticed that the United States was
willing to overlook human rights violations when these violations served
their geopolitical interests. He was unhappy about the double standards.
[Editor’s Note: The Obama administration has expressed concern over
reports of extrajudicial killings and encouraged Manila to abide by its
international human rights obligations.] For the first time, the United
States is facing someone who is willing to challenge this historically
imbalanced relationship. It is unclear what might happen to the relationship
under the administration of Donald J. Trump, but initial indications are that
it may not focus on human rights in the Philippines. President-Elect Trump
has reportedly endorsed the Philippine president’s effort, allegedly saying
that the country is going about the drug war "the right way," according to
Duterte.

When Rodrigo Duterte took to office as President of the Philippines on June 30 2016, he sought to fulfil,
among his many other deadly campaign promises, his promise to cleanse the country of drugs users and
dealers, explicitly by extra-judicial means. On August 8, 2016, he declared: “I don’t care for human
rights, believe me.” Recent Human Rights Watch research has estimated the victims of his ‘war on
drugs’ to be over 12,000 Filipinos. As if he hadn’t been clearer on his intentions before, he even went to
the extent of likening himself to Hitler in his campaign against drug users. He had been following this
populist policy ever since his tenure as the Mayor of Davao City, where the Davao Death Squad (DDS) is
widely feared and has claimed multiple innocent lives. There was a deep institutional involvement in
these crimes with the executive and the law enforcement working together in ensuring that people die.

In history, such campaigns have seldom ‘won’ the war on drugs. America’s ‘war on drugs’, which
started with the Nixon administration decades ago and which is always subject to intermittent
Republican party revivals, has been highly criticised. A report from the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention published last month showed that the rate of death from overdose over the last quarter of
2016 in the United States had exploded to 20.6 per 100,000 people, topping the previous record of
19.1 per 100,000 people seen during the preceding quarter, and a full 20 percent increase over the
16 per 100,000 overdose rate Americans experienced during the fourth quarter of 2015. John
Elrlichman, Nixon’s close aide, even confessed in 1994 that the war on drugs was a war against Nixon’s
political opposition, meaning black people and critics of the Vietnam War.
But while the goal of America’s war on drugs had to be deciphered by political sceptics, Duterte’s
goals are completely overt. He is openly and confessedly committing a crime against humanity by
persecuting such a large number of individuals unjustifiably and extra-judicially. The international
response to this has not been adequate, with President Trump giving full support and validation to
Duterte. However, in contradiction to Trump’s stance, Senators Ben Cardin, Marco Rubio and Ed
Markey introduced the “Philippines Human Rights Accountability and Counternarcotics Act of 2017,” a bill
that places restrictions on defence aid to the country, provides additional funding for the Philippine
human rights community, and supports a public health approach to drug use.
Jude Josue Sabio, a lawyer representing a former hitman of the DDS, has filed a suit against these
killings at the International Criminal Court. The suit claims that Duterte has been responsible for the
death of 9,400 people over three decades. There has however been no action on this suit yet. There
was even an impeachment complaint filed against Duterte for the killings which was dismissed by the
Congress, citing Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which bars the initiation of impeachment
proceedings against Duterte until May 8 2018.
These rights violations represent a failure of the constitutional machinery of Philippines: the state
has failed to respect and protect human rights, which are provided for under Article III, Section 1 of
the 1987 Constitution. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, asked for
an investigation to be initiated against Duterte, saying that “such acts directly contravene the rights enshrined
in Article III of the Philippine Constitution. The killings described by President Duterte also violate
international law, including the right to life, freedom from violence and force, due process and fair trial, equal
protection before the law, and innocence until proven guilty. As a government official, if he encouraged others
to follow his example, he may also have committed incitement to violence.” However, such statements
seem to have been in vain: nothing has come of them. The international community needs to act,
and needs to act very soon, as the greatest peril Philippines faces is inaction. The first and foremost
step is to get Duterte to end his “war on drugs” and subsequently get the UN to conduct an inquiry
into the allegations of human rights violations. The situation cannot get any worse.
 FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInShare

(OXFORD HUMAN RIGHTS HUB)

‘War on drugs’ becomes a war on

human rights
BY FRANCISCO S. TATAD
SEPTEMBER 15, 2017

 HOME
 /
 OPINION
 /
 OP-ED COLUMNS
 /
 OPINION ON PAGE ONE
 /
 ‘WAR ON DRUGS’ BECOMES A WAR ON HUMAN RIGHTS

FRANCISCO S. TATAD
THIS is what happened when the House of Representatives voted to
defund the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), by reducing its
proposed P678 million appropriation for the next fiscal year to a mere
P1,000, the average price of a congressman’s two-course meal in any
of their favorite casino-restaurants, all because of the commission’s
critical stand against the extra-judicial killings in President Rodrigo
Duterte’s murderous war on drugs. It is by far the boldest and most
shameless show of blind support for DU30’s contempt of any
criticism of his naked violations of human rights.

The game is not yet over, for the Senate appears determined to restore
sanity and reason into the legislative process, and insist on giving the
CHR the amount originally proposed. But this act of madness on the
part of the House has made it indisputably clear that this present
assembly of power-mad politicians, who no longer represent anything
other than their own whimsies and proclivities, has become a clear and
present danger to the Republic.

And how they gloated

Like cats that had just swallowed their canaries, they posed for
pictures after their ignominious act, smiling and gloating and flashing
DU30’s symbol of a clenched fist. But they had absolutely nothing to
gloat about. They had become a total shame to public office, and are
clearly no help to a morally and politically wounded President,
wounded not only by the latest developments in the extra-judicial drug
killings, but also by the unverified allegations about his eldest son
Paolo’s involvement in illegal drug smuggling and with the Chinese
Triad.

DU30 needs measures that will encourage and inspire people to have
more confidence in him and his government, not anything like this.
The original CHR budget had been proposed by the Office of the
President, who obviously had wanted it passed. In reducing it to
virtually zero, the House, led by the indecorously arrogant Speaker
Pantaleon Alvarez, outdid the President himself. But the President did
not appear displeased with his lackey’s overzealousness. Did he
actually have nothing to do with it? We want to give him the benefit
of the doubt, but there has been so much duplicity and double-talk
from this government.

Before this, DU30 showered then-US Ambassador to the Philippines

Philip Goldberg, US President Barack Obama, UN Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon, the leaders of the European Union, and UN Special
Rapporteur on extra-judicial killings, Agnes Callamard, among others,
with sexual curses for expressing their concern about the extra-judicial
killings carried out by the Philippine National Police and so-called
“vigilantes”. Then, for the same reason, he threatened to “separate”
economically and militarily from the US and align himself with China
and Russia “against the world”. He also renounced all grants and
assistance from the EU because of alleged conditionalities related to
human rights.

Shooting human rights workers

In recent days, DU30 told the police to shoot human rights workers
who would “interfere” in their “work.” “Work” usually involved
killing alleged drug suspects while reportedly “resisting arrest”.
Before the National Bureau of Investigation called it a “rubout,” this
was the initial police narrative about Albuera Mayor Rolando
Espinosa who was gunned down inside his detention cell at the
Baybay, Leyte sub-provincial jail at 4 a.m. while allegedly resisting
the service of a search warrant. This, too, was the same story about the
17-year-old Caloocan student Kian Loyd de los Santos, who was shot
once in the back and twice in the head, despite his pleas to be freed
because he had to prepare for his next day’s exams. In so many cases,
the victim was unarmed, but ended holding a gun, which he was
supposed to have fired before he ended as a corpse.

From May 23 onward, there was a brief lull in the killings because of
the Maute Islamic State-influenced attack on Marawi City, which
created a new front. But the war on drugs resumed with new kill
quotas for the police, and an increased bounty of P20,000 per kill,
according to highly informed police sources. A new point system for
the police has also been reportedly put in place—-5 percent credit if
no drug pushers or users are reported in a barangay; 8 percent credit if
some pushers and users are arrested (a rare thing); and 25 percent if
some pushers and users are killed.

In just 13 months of the DU30 presidency, some 14,100 human rights

incidents were reported to have occurred. In all of Ferdinand Marcos’
21 years, nine of which came under Martial Law, fighting bloody
communist and Moro rebellions, some 9,400 incidents were reported
to have occurred. In the Sineloa cartel, there were supposed to have
been 100,000 incidents in eight years.

DU30’s staggering number is of course open to dispute. In his drug

war, there has been no scrupulous documentation, nor due process,
and the law that holds a policeman answerable in court for every fatal
encounter with a suspect has been totally set aside. DU30’s command,
often bathed in a torrent of cuss words, has replaced every law,
regulation or manual on law enforcement.

Where the war begins

But not until the House decided to defund the CHR could anyone say
with some certainty that the DU30 government has declared total war
on human rights. It has become the undeniable reality. Unless the
Senate succeeds in convincing the House to restore the CHR
appropriation during the bicameral conference, DU30’s war on human
rights will move to a higher level, and the brave effort of the
constitutional fathers to create an in-house agency that looks after the
promotion and protection of human rights within the government will
wither on the vine.
This is not what DU30 needs. Not now, not ever. What DU30 needs
most is a strong CHR, not an enfeebled or shriveled one. Instead of
wishing the CHR out of existence, DU30 should exert every effort to
make sure that the agency is able to perform all its functions under the
Constitution and serve as a primary resource in making sure he
remains constitutionally alert, as far as his human rights obligations
are concerned.

As mandated by the Constitution, DU30 should help to enable the

CHR to:

*Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any party, all forms of

human rights violations involving civil and political rights;

*Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights

of all persons within the Philippines as well as Filipinos residing
abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to
the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need
protection;

*Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;

*Establish a continuing program of research, education, and

information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;

*Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human

rights and to provide for compensation of victims of violations of
human rights, or their families;

*Monitor the government’s compliance with international treaty

obligations on human rights;
*Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or
possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient
to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its
authority;

*Request the assistance of any department, bureau or office or agency

in the performance of its functions.

A glaring legal defect

Above all, DU30 must make sure the CHR operates on solid legal
foundation. For although the CHR is a creation of the Constitution, it
appears to lack the enabling legislation that defines “the term of office
and other qualifications of the Members of the Commission.”

According to Section 17 (2) Article XIII of the Constitution, this

“shall be provided by law.” Executive Order 163, issued by President
Cory Aquino on May 5, 1987, does not have the power and authority
of law, since her power to legislate as revolutionary president expired
upon the promulgation of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987
when she ceased to be revolutionary president.

Remedial action

No one has raised this legal issue before. But it is a glaring misreading
of the Constitution, which has allowed the CHR to be funded regularly
year after year until this unfortunate House incident. Without a ruling
from the Supreme Court, the House cannot possibly unilaterally
decide to withhold funding now, just because there is no law defining
“the term of office and other qualifications of the Members of the
Commission.” Perhaps the best course of action is some remedial
legislation that cures the existing defect and further strengthens the
commission.
It would be a mistake for DU30 or Congress to exploit this legal
defect and throw out the CHR altogether. The constitutional mandate
stands, and kicking the CHR in the butt is the last thing DU30 needs at
this time. He is now under international attack precisely for his human
rights record, the latest being the statement of UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, Prince of Jordan, at the
36th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Zeid said that “in the Philippines, I continue to be gravely concerned

by the President’s open support for a shoot-to-kill policy regarding
suspects as well as by the apparent absence of credible investigations
into reports of thousands of extra-judicial killings and the failure to
prosecute any perpetrator”. DU30 needs to build his case against this.

Instead of simply allowing Ernesto Abella, the presidential

spokesman, to argue foolishly that Zeid’s statement is “without factual
basis,” DU30 could probably do better by showing the Geneva-based
council that an independent constitutional body in his own country is
making its own assessment of his human rights performance.

This means supporting the CHR’s continued existence, despite initial

problems that may have arisen between him and CHR Chairman Jose
Luis Martin Gascon. He has to decide that having a potentially critical
CHR before him presents a greater opportunity to demonstrate his
statesmanship and courage than simply getting rid of it because he
cannot stand criticism.

FRANCISCO TATAD – MANILA TIMES