Since its establishment in the late 70s to monitor the Helsinki Accords, which focused on violations of human rights in the Soviet Union and bloc, Human Rights Watch has been at the forefront in the fight against injustice and human rights violations throughout the world. I have followed its work in the last 40 years and, as a scholar and professor of human rights, I can say that HRW is an exceptional and exemplary organization that has been fair, credible, independent, objective, impartial, and consistent in implementing its mandate. It does not come then as a surprise that it decided to look at Duterte’s controversial war on drugs.
In the excellently documented and written report entitled License to Kill, the Human Rights Watch investigated, from October 2016 to January 2017, 24 incidents of killings of alleged drug dealers and users, involving 32 victims, that occurred in Metro Manila, the National Capital Region of the Philippines, and nearby provinces since President Rodrigo Duterte took office on June 30, 2016. However, the report made clear that this is but a small percentage of the more than 7,080 such killings that the latest statistics from the Philippine National Police indicate have occurred between July 1, 2016 and Jan. 31, 2017.
Following below are excerpts from the report.
On the profile of most of the victims:
“. . . the victims of drug-related killings by the police or unidentified gunmen were poor (the exception was a middle-class victim who appears to have been killed as a result of mistaken identity), and many were suspected drug users, not dealers at all.”
I have personally validated this by reaching out to victims and their families, including media people covering the killings and Church people and other individuals helping loved ones of those who have been murdered. There is no doubt in my mind that what we are seeing going on in the Philippines is a massacre of the poor.
On holding the president and his men accountable:
“No evidence thus far shows that Duterte planned or ordered specific extrajudicial killings. But Duterte’s repeated calls for killings as part of his anti-drug campaign could constitute acts instigating law enforcement to commit the crime of murder. His statements encouraging vigilantes among the general population to commit violence against suspected drug users could constitute incitement to violence.”
“Furthermore, the doctrine of command or superior responsibility imposes criminal liability on officials for the unlawful acts of subordinates, where the superior knew or had reason to know of the unlawful acts, and failed to prevent or punish those acts.”
“Finally, the president, senior officials, and others implicated in unlawful killings could be held liable for crimes against humanity, which are serious offenses committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population. The numerous and seemingly organized deadly attacks on the publicly targeted group of drug suspects could amount to crimes against humanity as defined by the International Criminal Court, to which the Philippines is a party.”
I withhold judgement on who will be held accountable for the massacre of the poor, pending evidence and proof of complicity. I am with Human Rights Commissioner Gwen Pimentel-Gana that so far there is no finding that President Duterte and his administration are responsible for the killings. HRW in fact affirms this. But definitely, what are going on in our country today are crimes against humanity. For sure, also the language of the President can be interpreted to both incite and condone the killings as well as encourage impunity to police officials by promising to support and pardon their illegal actions.
The propagandists of this illegal campaign, using both social and traditional media, that targets the poor can be held accountable for inciting the crimes against humanity.
Some recommendations by HRW:
“President Duterte has a legal responsibility to publicly direct the Philippine National Police to end their campaign of extrajudicial executions of suspected drug dealers and users. The National Bureau of Investigation and Ombudsman’s Office should impartially investigate the killings and seek prosecutions of all those responsible. Congress should hold extensive hearings on the issue and adopt measures to prevent further such killings. Donor countries to the Philippines should end all assistance to the Philippine National Police until the killings cease and meaningful investigations are undertaken and consider redirecting that assistance to community-based harm reduction programs that are appropriate and effective.”
These recommendations should be quickly implemented. There will be consequences to individuals and to the country if it turns a blind eye to this obligation under our Constitution and under international law.
Meanwhile, as I write this column in The Netherlands where the International Criminal Court is located (I am here for lectures to OFWs on leadership), events are unfolding nearby which also have a major impact on the future of human rights in the Philippines.
In the Dutch city of Noordwijk, representatives from the Philippine government and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines are meeting to advance the negotiations for a political settlement of this long-standing civil conflict that has killed thousands of Filipinos for the last five decades. In this round of the peace talks, the agenda is the crafting of the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms, aimed at addressing the root causes of the conflict and the forging of a bilateral ceasefire between the protagonists.
I am with President Duterte on the urgency of a bilateral ceasefire agreement. Without this, the atmosphere of and progress in the peace negotiations will always be held hostage to events on the ground which the negotiators and leaders on both sides have no control of. But while supporting a ceasefire agreement, it is not helpful for the government to impose other conditions except to design formal mechanisms for a ceasefire to work.
There is already a blood feud, a rido in Mindanawon terms, between the New People’s Army and the Armed Forces of the Philippines. I personally know individuals in both camps, having taught a number of rebels and military officials through the years, and they are all good people, definitely patriots, and committed to the poor and the country. A ceasefire would begin the healing our country needs.
I do not think that the release of political prisoners should be a condition for a ceasefire agreement. I support such release for both humanitarian and legal reasons but this is not directly relevant to the ceasefire agreement and is more related to progress in the substance of the negotiations where early release of political prisoners can be a low hanging fruit that can accompany progress in the process.
As for the CASER talks, I am optimistic about the possibility of agreement on the fundamental reforms needed by our society. I have reviewed the drafts of both parties and am convinced that the government and the NFDP are not very far from each other and that only language, based on ideology, remains an obstacle to a CASER agreement. I urge the negotiators to accelerate the process and to conclude this phase of the negotiations in two to three months.
The Philippines is on a crossroads. Let’s choose human rights and peace.
Facebook: tonylavs Twitter: tonylavs