Statement of CHR spokesperson, Atty.

Jacqueline Ann de Guia, on the recent SWS survey reflecting

The recent SWS survey results validate the questions that continue to confront the government’s
campaign against illegal drugs, particularly on the truth behind the deaths of suspects who allegedly
fought back (“nanlaban”), planting evidence, and, worse, allegations of the police themselves being
involved in the illegal drug trade. Such allegations are causes of grave concerns, especially that the death
count continues to rise and drug operations are in full throttle. These results also come at a time when
the Philippine National Police (PNP) claims to have no objective count of the number of drug users in the
Philippines.

We then urge the government to appropriate urgent, concrete actions that address perceptions of the
police being involved in the violation of laws and rights. The Commission on Human Rights has already
extended our offer for partnership to lessen incidences of alleged human rights violations, as well as our
request for case files of these cases in the interest of finding the truth and even helping the PNP clarify
circumstances based on evidence. In the end, the Commission seeks to pursue its mandate for the
protection of the rights and dignity of all Filipinos.

As lawyers, we make a public stand against the bloodbath involving the extrajudicial killing of suspected
drug criminals.

Since President Rodrigo Duterte won the elections in May during which he made an electoral promise
that 100,000 would die in his war on drugs, more than 300 suspected drug pushers have so far been
reported killed by police and death squads. The extrajudicial killings are likely to continue to intensify
after President Duterte promised during his SONA that there would be no let up to the campaign to kill
drug pushers.

As lawyers with a duty to uphold the law, we assert that extrajudicial killings have no place in a
democracy like ours that is founded on the rule of law and not of men. Extrajudicial killings have no
place in a democracy that constitutionally guarantees against the deprivation of life, liberty or property
without due process of law, and the presumption of innocence. Extrajudicial killings have no place in a
democracy that gives to the courts the sole power to adjudge guilt and mete out punishment.
Extrajudicial killings have no place in a democracy founded on the principle of legality that requires that
the government act only according to law.

As lawyers against extrajudicial killings and for the rule of law, we support the call of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines for the government to “give due attention to the serious and credible investigation
and resolution of these incidents and the prosecution of the wrongdoers to the full extent of the law”.
We also call on other lawyers’ groups, lawyers, educators and other concerned members of society to
take a public stand for the rule of law and against extrajudicial killings. The bloodbath must stop. The
extrajudicial killings must stop.

If you support this statement, please sign this Petition.

That was how I stumbled on Republic Act No. 9851 entitled “An Act defining and penalizing crimes
against international humanitarian law, genocide and other crimes against humanity, organizing
jurisdiction, designating special courts, and for related purposes”.

While it makes no mention of extra-judicial killings, it has an interesting section (6) which aims to punish
“other crimes against humanity.”

RA 9851 states that “Other crimes against humanity” are committed, for instance, when “willful killing”
is done “as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with
knowledge of the attack.”

Aren’t suspected drug addicts part of the civilian population and aren’t they being willfully killed right
now?

Googling further, I found it highly interesting that the hitman-turned-whistleblower Edgardo Matobato
has used, among other laws, RA 9851 to charge President Rodrigo Duterte, Davao City Vice Mayor Paolo
Duterte and Philippine National Police Director General Ronald Dela Rosa and 25 others with.

Recall that Duterte always refers to anti-illegal drugs operations as a “drug war”. Can relatives of
innocent victims of this drug war, therefore, file charges using Section 4 entitled “War Crimes”?

Interestingly, RA 9851 was signed into law by Duterte’s political ally, former President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo. And among the signatories to the law was no less than dictator Ferdinand Marcos’ Martial law
administrator, Juan Ponce Enrile.

I would like to stress that I am all for a vigorous and anti-illegal drugs campaign. But not like this “war”
that Duterte is waging, where innocent victims such as children, bystanders or passengers are airily
dismissed as “collateral” damage because it’s a “war”. The government has not laid out any protocols
that the police should follow if suspects are accompanied by relatives or children or happen to be in a
vehicle with other passengers.

Killing innocents (whether by accident or otherwise) during drug operations and not doing anything
about it is called “impunity”.

The police know that others are taking advantage of the “drug war” in order to settle scores or cover up
their participation but they have not taken visible steps to prevent such “deaths under investigations” –
nor have they brought perpetrators to justice. This, too, is called “impunity”.

I am appalled by the thought of friends applauding Duterte’s murderous war. If you are one of them,
please unfriend me. Or listen to my arguments. Because once you support vigilantes – and that includes
law enforcers – you also allow innocent people to be killed. Collateral damage is never ever acceptable
in a just and humane society.
Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines are illegal executions – unlawful or
felonious killings – and forced disappearances in the Philippines.[1] These are forms of extrajudicial
punishment, and include extrajudicial executions, summary executions, arbitrary arrest and detentions,
and failed prosecutions due to political activities of leading political, trade union members, dissident
and/or social figures, left-wing political parties, non-governmental organizations, political journalists,
outspoken clergy, anti-mining activists, agricultural reform activists, members of organizations that are
allied or legal fronts of the communist movement like "Bayan group" or suspected supporters of the
NPA and its political wing, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP).[2][3]

Extrajudicial killings are most commonly referred to as "salvaging" in Philippine English.[4][5][6] The
word is believed to be a direct Anglicization of Tagalog salbahe ("cruel", "barbaric"), from Spanish
salvaje ("wild", "savage").[7]

Extrajudicial killings (EJKs) is also synonymous with the term "extralegal killings" (ELKs). Extrajudicial/
extralegal killings (EJKs/ ELKs) and enforced disappearances (EDs) are unique in the Philippines in as
much as it is publicly and commonly known to be committed also by non-state armed groups (NAGs)
such as the New Peoples Army (NPA) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Although cases have
been well documented with conservative estimates of EJKs/ ELKs and EDs committed by the NPAs
numbering to about 900-1,000 victims based on the discovery of numerous mass grave sites all over
country, legal mechanisms for accountability of non-state actors have been weak if not wholly non-
existent

Extrajudicial killing by definition is: “killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction
of any judicial proceeding or legal process.” (see: Extrajudicial killing - Wikipedia).

As a civil law lawyer I cannot, do not and will not agree with such a practice. But for the sake of the
argument you could say that extrajudicial killing is relatively good if we take into account that due
process is long and arduous. Even the most honorable judges can be leveraged and thus no court of law
is free from corruption. Ergo, due process cannot always be the answer to execute a person.

There is a lot of red tape involved in killing a person using the law. There are international laws, like
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR in short) that says that:

Well, if it’s a debate that is pre-planned then I would definitely do my research.

First of all, make sure you fully understand what is meant by the term, ‘extra judicial killings’. Then see
what it means in different jurisdictions and countries. Learn the legal rights and wrongs of it. Then your
next step is to research the legal and moral arguments for and against. Ask yourself what it is that you
agree with and then think about all the things that an opponent might bring up to argue against your
points and learn the responses to those too. You should also be able to quote references and examples,
at least 3, for each point that agree with and each point you disagree with. Also be able to quote sources
that support your arguments against the arguments that you anticipate being presented with.
Under extraordinary circumstances, keeping the peace may take precedence to ensuring due process.
War is a good example of a circumstance that has, historically, often led to personal rights and privileges
being waived, including the right to life. Such actions are regrettable, but often justified as necessary.

Extrajudicial execution is an effective way to demonstrate that justice will not be thwarted by
technicalities. This cements the perception that wrongdoing will be punished, regardless of the
perpetrators cunning.

Due process is intended to protect the innocent; when the procurement of evidence is trivial and a trial
would simply delay the inevitable, extrajudicial killing is acceptable as a means of expediting
proceedings.

Interesting question that reminds me of a similar question we used to ask candidates when conducting
interviews. The question was: Would you sacrifice one person to save the lives of many? This questions
is very to the one you posted, as it embodies a moral dilemma. Legally, the question enters the grey
zone. Morally, the questions creates ambiguity amongst those trying to answer. I am assuming that the
extrajudicial killing question operates within the context of drone warfare, fighting terrorism.
Henceforth, I think the following insights might be helpful:

Purpose of the question:

There is no right or wrong answer to this question. Most important is that you are able to justify
whatever decision you make and lay out your reasoning behind the provided answer.

Possible answers:

There are various approaches one can take tackling the moral dilemma put forth. Here are two
examples:

Humanitarian approach:

Every human life has the same value and should be treated as such. Should the death sentence be legal
in the country in question, then first the guilt of the particular person first needs to be proven through
the judicial processes. “Not guilty unless proven otherwise”.

Utilitarian approach:

Weighing off one human life against hundreds, one would opt for killing that one person in order to save
numerous others’.

Further complications:
As we played around with various versions of the moral dilemma, we noticed that interviewees started
to struggle when

Interviewees (in theory) would actually have to kill that one person themselves

Providing more details to the case, e.g. the person to be killed in order to save hundreds, was pregnant/
a child

Getting back to your original question:

So as you can see, there are various ways of arguing your case. Of course it always depends on the
context curtailing the question and the additional details provided.

Further reading:

Closely related discussions are currently being held due to autonomous driving. How are we supposed to
program an autonomous system when ultimately having to choose between one and many lives.

Countless philosophers have put some substantial thought into this issue as well already. Just google
around a bit and find yourself some nice summaries of their lines of arguments.
Mine

All of Duterte’s critics try to pin the EJKs on him, but could not give any evidence that would hold water
in any court. The only basis are accusations from oppositionists supported by statements from
disgruntled criminals (Matobato and Lascanas). But no bank trace or documentary or any hard evidence
that would pin down Duterte other than his verbal threats on TV.

I had a close friend who works at the police force. In 2010, after some bottles of beer, he started
revealing to me that whatever drugs they got from buybust operations, they would “recycle” it by
ordering the prisoned drug pushers to resell these and the sales of course were shared by the whole
police station. He just validated to me all the hearsays going around that policemen were heavily
involved in drugs.

Fast forward to Duterte’s presidency…when he ordered that drugs must stop, imagine all these police
lowlifes jostling to clean their names of any connection to drugs. Everytime a news of a drug pusher or
addict is announced at the police station, the policemen would just reticently look at each other as if
they tacitly knew already it was one of them who took the poor victim out. Incidentally, in more than
one news where the drug pusher was able to remove the mask covering the face his assailant, it turned
out that the assailant was one bemedalled police officer.

Should Duterte be actually blamed for all these EJKs? Or the policemen involved in drugs trying their
best not to lose their jobs and stay out of jail? Or the corrupt mayor/councilor/congressman trying to
remove any trace of his involvement? Or the rich druglord masking his drug business with legitimate
restaurant business who wants to ensure that no fingers would point to him. FYI, the drug industry in
the Philippines is rumored (or discussed in the open) to involve the police, lawyers, judges, local city
politicians going up to high courts and even Senate.

So….is it really “Duterte’s EJK”? If anything, he just exposed a rathole into light and all rats are now out
scrambling for their lives.

These are what we have in Davao, which I believed, never been done in any other cities in the
Philippines.

A clean and green city. No litters, no garbage anywhere on the streets.

Highly disciplined, honest citizens, especially the taxi drivers.

Absolutely so smoking in all public places, no one dares to do.

No fire crackers during Christmas and New year

No loud music on public utility vehicles

72 hours policy for processing of business permit.

Proliferation of local businesses, such as SPAs, night restaurants, fruit stands and etc.

Major streets, ports, airports and other public places are monitored 24/7 via hi-tech CCTV.

FREE emergency and rescue services via 911.

Responsible and friendly police officers roaming around the city especially at night.

Liquor ban in all night establishments at 1:00 am to 8:00 am

Zero bill hospitalization via “Lingap Para sa Mahirap Program” for public hospitals.

The above list shows only a few of what Mayor Duterte has done to the city of Davao, which make all
Dabawenyos loved him. To know more about this, I would suggest you to do some research. If possible,
visit the place even in a week and experience life Duterte brought to his people.

Yes. Our country faces many catastrophes and drug use is one of it. The only solution our forces see is
extrajudicial killing. If drug addicts can't be calmed down the easy way, our president has no choice but
to do it the hard way. Brace yourselves, for our president might declare Martial Law. Sorry guys, I only
see extrajudicial killing a solution to a drug-free country.