Law Enforcement, Killings and Human Rights in the Philippines

 1,553 total views

“Reign of terror”

President Duterte was visibly irked by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) stinging rebuke of the killings under his administration. In a pastoral letter written last January, the Bishops described the killings as a “reign of terror’’ that victimized mostly the poor. Though, not actually a denunciation of the President as it is a description of factual events, the president went on a cursing spree, calling once again the Bishops as hypocrites and even accused one of maintaining two “wives”.

The President’s rant isn’t a hyperbole but an angry retort to the Bishops’ harsh description of law enforcement and human rights under his watch.

Regardless of claims to the contrary, this “reign of terror” is proof of the country’s criminally unsafe environment. The Philippine National Police (PNP) and operators of fake news who boast of people’s safety in the streets cannot say the same about the safety of those in their houses. Many were killed while sleeping in the “comfort” of their homes. The blood of suspected criminals becomes an agonizing proof of the poor’s vulnerability and hopelessness in our society. While we do not accuse the police as perpetrators of these crimes, there have been cases where policemen were involved.

Let’s admit that crimes of passion committed usually under the influence of drugs are plenty. In anger, the demand for outright execution of these criminals is loudly heard. Many cheer the carnage in the streets and homes without realizing that one day, they can be victims, too, of extrajudicial killings.

Such is the cruelty of our time. But the Bishops, guided by prudence and noble intention, see drug dependents as victims, too, of a harsh and unjust social system. They are deprived of education, they are often unemployed, they don’t have humane existence and they are languishing in poverty. The enormous amount of money to be spent for them is repeatedly lost to corruption. Sad reality, but these should not justify their commission of criminal acts.

So, while the Bishops do not tolerate these criminals, their view of the problem is much more extensive compared to a narrow-minded assessment that drug dependents are irredeemable scums of society. Killing these “undesirables’’ won’t make our society prosperous and peaceful. It will only perpetuate a cycle of violence, strengthen a culture of impunity, and create a misguided sense of accountability. For as long as the real scumbags, who author these harsh, unjust and corrupt system, are in positions of power, we, Filipinos will always be losers in the fight for just, humane, prosperous and peaceful society.

This pervasive killing is certainly a crime against the poor and it is a testament to the government’s irresponsible and abusive law enforcement measures.

Human rights vs. Right to defend society

​
President Duterte is being heroic and clever every time he says, “I will not let drugs destroy my country”. He sees his critics as idiots for opposing his drug policies and brands them as not caring enough for the future of the country. For pundits, it’s a plain braggadocio that earns a lot of points from his unsuspecting supporters.

The State of the Nation Address (SONA) is a showcase of this mindset. He said “human rights groups trivialize heinous crimes with human rights and due process. If you add human rights and due process, you stink and your mouth smells”.

Thankfully, the President spared the Church from his own stinking derision of the institution but not Sen. De lima who was badmouthed and subjected to the President’s double-standard of morality. He asked, “is she a credible woman? Can she be a moral person? You’re all drama”.

But, Isn’t the President also trivializing the laws, institutions and persons who call for the protection of human rights? Is he not imposing his peculiar value system?

The Philosopher Nietzche spoke of “transvaluation of values” which means that long held values become wrong and the wrong ones become right. Duterte’s notion of defending society at the expense of human rights is an example of Nietzche’s philosophy of values. Isn’t the right and proper way to address the drug problem is thru defense of rights and society? Defending human rights, after all, is not about letting the criminal go scot free but making him accountable under the lens of society’s legal processes. To kill him without these processes makes our laws unstable. And the instability of laws can lead to society’s destruction.

To those who defend human rights, it is about challenging the government to be the protector of the people and the guardian of rights. At any rate, men, under the egalitarian principle and regardless of their status in life, are regarded as equal in terms of rights before the law. (Atty. Michael Jhon Tamayao, Bill of Rights, Preliminaries) It is, therefore, unfair to call human rights advocates coddlers of criminals when they express howls of protest against extrajudicial killings.

Every democratic constitution should include provisions guaranteeing the rights of individuals and those restricting the powers of the government. This is to prevent the tragedy that the government created by the people will in turn be the instrument to enslave and abuse them. (Tamayao, Bill of Rights, Preliminaries)

Some idiots are quick to point out the silence or seeming indifference of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) every time there’s killing or rape of innocent people. Their pitiful ignorance is exposed for taking to task the CHR to solve such crimes or at least to make some noise about them. However, the country’s law enforcement agencies like the PNP, NBI, CIDG, etc. are the ones mandated to solve cases of such nature. And the CHR’s proper mandate is to see to it that the government and its personnel would not abuse their vested power by committing crimes against ordinary citizens.

Law enforcement under this administration is, therefore, torn between two ideologies, those of respect for human rights versus the right to defend society. Sadly, under Duterte’s helm, to defend society means to obliterate “alleged” criminals without the usual legal processes.

Profession vs. Bureaucracy conflict

​ Respect for human rights is one of the professional requirements for the Philippine National Police (PNP) in the performance of their duty. In chapter 3 of the agency’s Ethical Doctrine, it is emphasized that, “PNP members shall respect and protect human dignity and uphold the human rights of all persons. No member shall inflict, instigate or tolerate extra-judicial killings, arbitrary arrests, any act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment…” (Chapter 3 #3.9 Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards, PNP Ethical Doctrine)

​Despite these very clear professional standards, cases of arbitrary arrests, inhuman treatment and extra-judicial killings abound. There’s the secret cell in a Police station in Tondo; the killing of a Korean national whose pulverized remains were flushed in the toilet; the salvaging of a pedicab driver who suddenly resurrected from the dead and testified against the police; the dawn raid that killed the Albuera mayor; and another dawn raid that “massacred” the Parojinogs of Ozamis. How these can possibly happen say a lot about the culture within the Police organization.

​There’s clearly a conflict between professional standards and an emerging pattern of killings. Quite oddly, this became more noticeable after the President has publicly pronounced that those involved in drugs will be swiftly annihilated. Each pronouncement has given rise to suspicions that he has suddenly created a new norm for police operations.

This begs the question: What should law enforcers follow to be effective in their job? While there is a sworn duty to protect life and uphold human dignity, there’s also a looming shadow that orders kill, kill, kill!

Conclusion

​Law enforcers should be credited for being passionate and zealous in the performance of their duty, but to whom and for what are they passionate about?

Cases of death thru police operations should be investigated. There’s a need for just and swift solution to these. If allowed to go on, it makes our government institutions inutile and public safety in question.

Lastly, our government should not mock our legal systems for it will erode public trust. It should rather strengthen and increase accountability thru strict application of laws. As one human rights advocate said, “the war on drugs is a war against our legal systems”.

Our State institutions and government systems must operate within the bounds of our legal and moral norms, otherwise the Filipino psyche will thoroughly be haunted by the ghost of the past when human rights were not given their due. And then many more Kians would meet their senseless death!

Achieving justice, equality and fairness in an era of Globalization

 1,530 total views

Globalization is a relatively new concept that has taken the world by storm. It has far-reaching implications not only in the area of business or economy but in the political, cultural and social spheres as well. It is a term generally used to describe the ever growing interdependence of people and countries or the worldwide integration of peoples, their economies, their politics and their culture.

The process of interaction and integration between peoples and countries is not actually new to humanity. Trade across tribes and nations has taken place from pre-historic times and was an incipient form of globalization. Colonialism followed it, allowing for more contact across the globe on terms dictated by colonial masters, where the subjects became sources of raw materials and cheap labor for the former’s needs (Ledivinia V. Cariño, The Concept of Governance, p.72). The independence movements of the 19th and 20th centuries won political sovereignty for the colonies but as new states, their growth still depended on the trade and exchange policies of their erstwhile masters and other economically developed countries of the West. Concessions have to be made to Third World or less developed nations and these gave rise to mutual defense organizations, treaties, common markets, and other political and economic agreements that provided room for the new states to grow and develop and to seek new partners outside of the old colonial trading network (Cariño, 73).

In recent years this process of interaction and integration has witnessed an intensification and acceleration that is unprecedented in human history. Thanks to advances in science and technology and the founding of world leaders of the United Nations Organization and its various agencies, people across countries felt all the more interconnected to each other. A process that breaks barriers between peoples and connects them more intensely is surely a blessing to humanity and must be applauded and supported. But this is not the full story of globalization.

Years after the whirlwind of globalization gathered momentum, the economies of most of the rich industrialized nations have grown to unexpected proportions. They produced more billionaires and on account of trade and investment liberalization, which has opened up local markets, their big multinational corporations have made huge profits and have become major power brokers in the world community. But for the overwhelmingly poor and developing countries, the story is totally different. After adopting the prescriptions of agents of globalization, they’re hopes faded in the doldrums. Soon they realized that globalization is a “one-sided” affair. It greatly benefits the already rich, but is extremely disadvantageous to the poor. They saw their local industries being crushed by a deluge of cheaper goods from abroad; their citizens are experiencing widespread unemployment; their social infrastructure is collapsing; “brain drain” is on the rise as their worsening economy coupled with the booming economies of rich industrialized nations forced their qualified professional and experts to leave their homes in search of greener pastures from the latter countries.

Along with these unstable economic realities, the poor developing countries are also undergoing major social and cultural upheaval brought about by the incursion of foreign cultures, values and lifestyles that may soon result in a loss of identity. American and other foreign films are easily available and are even greater in number than local films. Fast food chains like McDonalds, KFC and others can easily be found. The same goes with clothing, music, household needs, etc. On the whole, traditional societies are losing their cultural identity, peculiar values and ethos. They are also losing their corporate identity and communal cohesion to the so called globalization of materialism and consumerism. In short, there is heightened social instability and political turmoil. In the Philippines, we may one day see the “igorots” and “ibanags” shunning their traditional clothing in favor of Lacoste or Ralp Lauren brands.

Thus, while globalization and the liberalization of trade and investment have exponentially benefitted the rich nations, they appear to have brought poverty, unemployment, the destruction of infrastructure and social dislocation to poor developing nations (George Ehusani, Towards the Globalization of Human Solidarity: The Challenge of Social Responsibility, 2006). We continue to live in a world full of flagrant inequalities, and despite the production and the wealth, the latter is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. Actually, a world is being created where the greediness of a few is leaving the majority on the margin of history.

We could not probably reverse this integration called globalization. No one, I think, can afford to remain in primitive isolation in a world continuously made smaller by knowledge and technology. The consequences of transforming the world into one enormous market have to be faced, and for this a new world has to be built, a world in which there is room for all the worlds. Hence, Globalization has to be moderated through some deliberate policy choices by stakeholders. Governments should re-acquire its police powers which are generally weakened under this scheme. There must me restraint on how market, rather than people, determines how the world’s resources will be used and distributed. The introduction of certain ethical norms and values, – of justice, fair play, mutual respect and respect for human dignity must be done. I propose a conceptual framework on how ethical values may be important in the scheme of things under globalization by taking on the teaching of the Catholic Church on solidarity.

Solidarity makes it necessary to put oneself in another’s place in order to discover his/her needs and try to satisfy them according to the possibilities of each situation. It encourages giving the greatest possible service to each interdependent group: making efforts to maintain jobs, making investments to create new jobs; improving the quality of service to clients and users; helping the local community; improving the environment; contributing to social and educational initiatives, etc. The practice of solidarity needs to respect the initiative, creativity and sense of responsibility of others without absorbing or depriving them of what they are capable of doing. Solidarity is achieved by seeing to it that all human beings share in the available goods as a whole. These goods have to be divided up and shared without excluding anyone in the distribution, without some hoarding them at the cost of depriving others, and without introducing discriminatory measures in the distribution. Human sharing implies that the goods are scarce with respect to the needs to be satisfied. The fair way of sharing scarce goods is governed by the law of solidarity: the goods are “of” all and “for” all. In turn, solidarity culminates in fair human sharing.

Globalization has its own inherent goodness, but some unintended negative consequences emanating from it are too glaring and too serious to be ignored. If its goal is to find markets for the goods of world communities, then all nations must adhere to a sense of justice, equality and fairness. Globalization should never be about beneficiaries and victims, winners and losers or conquerors and conquered! It shouldn’t be about profits and markets. It should rather be about reaching out to other nations and people to help them rise from their misery. Oliva Blanchett is right after all to move for humanization of globalization. And this, I think, is made possible through global SOLIDARITY!