EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS

In the hierarchy of presidential priorities, the Philippines' President Duterte has said his top concern is social peace and security through eradicating what he claims is the primary driver of the country's crime: drug use. Duterte, the highest elected official in the country, is so committed to his war on drugs that he has allowed the use of extralegal measures to achieve his goals. That much is clear from his brash, controversial, and repeated death threats to the Filipino public, “If they [drug pushers and drug users] resist, kill them all.”

The president’s speech endorsed police brutality and state-sanctioned extrajudicial killings as part of law enforcement’s push to carry out Duterte’s anti-drug policy. That has given police impunity as they kill alleged drug pushers and drug users in the streets and in their homes by falsifying police evidence that suspects resisted arrest. Since Duterte took office in 2016, official figures have attributed at least 86,000 deaths have to the war on drugs “with some estimates putting the real toll at more than triple that number”.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Not immune to criticism, the Philippines’ rising death toll has attracted the attention of several international bodies where the Philippines is currently or was recently a state signatory. The United Nations has condemned the “apparent endorsement of extrajudicial killings” and characterised Duterte’s instructions to police and public as an "incitement to violence and killing, a crime under international law". Similarly, the International Criminal Court, where the Philippines is no longer a party signatory, categorises Duterte’s war on drugs as a crime against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998.

These criticisms were met with petty rebukes and crass statements from the president, who publicly proclaimed, “I don’t care about human rights.” This exemplifies how 'success' in the war on drugs comes at the cost of complete dismissal and utter disregard of human rights, where loss of lives is seen as necessary “collateral damage”. It also demonstrates the limitations of international bodies and their prosecutorial powers. Their criticisms are seen as mere suggestions, implying that, although the international community is making an effort at interconnection, they are often merely an audience for other states’ controversies and policies. Efforts to maintain an international minimum standard of human rights are therefore often ineffective and there are few practical consequences for violating human right guidelines.

Amnesty International and other humanitarian groups have vocal in their condemnation of Duterte’s drug agenda. ” Amnesty places responsibility and blame on Duterte’s political machinery and his failure as a state actor to fulfil his public duty to protect citizens’ human rights, describing it as a “large-scale murdering enterprise".

The willingness of police and vigilantes to take part in the war on drugs is deliberate, as obedience to instructions articulated by the most powerful man in the country. By framing the war on drugs as an appropriate method for addressing the root of most crime and an essential step in the country’s development, the government has legitimised excessive human rights violations and framed them as the result of changes made by the administration in achieving peace and order. This allows the state to deny complicity in extrajudicial killings and instead shift the blame and consequences to the victims, the alleged drug pushers and users.

DUE PROCESS AND THE WAR AGAINST THE POOR

The punitive measures in the brutal street killings of suspected narcotics users generate fear-mongering among citizens, especially minorities and the poor. Freedom from fear is the sole preserve of the more comfortable economic classes, who can afford additional protection and good legal representation, whereas the poor and underprivileged suffer from the structural barriers and biases of poverty.

Although designed to decrease criminality and deter law-breaking, the war on drugs is not divorced from violence, as extrajudicial killings are on the rise. This new form of instant street justice perpetuates the threat of bloodshed in what appears to be state-sanctioned social cleansing.

Disillusioned by the ineffective and sluggish Philippine Justice System, executioners in extrajudicial killings have taken matters into their own hands, meting out punishment they believe the suspect deserves, without due process to determine actual guilt in court. The abolition of the right to due process greatly undermines the judiciary – violating both the Philippine Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that both safeguard the presumption of innocence – and makes justice inaccessible to many and unequally applied between the poor and the powerful.

The war on drugs disproportionately targets the poor. This disregard for human life, when not assessed in relation to other socio-economic factors such as poverty and education, turns the war on drugs into a war against the poor.

LEGAL MARGINALISATION AND THE RULE OF LAW

Legal expert Peter Kreuzer suggests that Duterte is positioning himself as a supreme sovereign who is above the law. The lack of consequences and loss of life in the war on drugs demonstrate that the government has little to no respect for the rule of law and has abandoned their duty to protect citizens' human rights, especially those of the poor and minorities.

This suggests that the government is discriminating against, excluding, and legally disempowering those in lower socio-economic tiers by making justice less accessible, and their rights less feasible and tangible in their everyday lives.

Security is then constructed as a comfort promised to the powerful sectors in the economy, and remains an unavailable option to the masses in the Philippines with less economic clout.

STRUCTURAL CHANGE

The war on drugs in the Philippines is a power play that serves not the Filipino people’s interests, not the country’s development, but the political narratives and interests of those in power. The cost of promised development is too high and is given too little significance when it has such a significant impact on individual life and safety, the Filipino people’s legal rights, and compliance with the international guidelines that Philippines pledged to uphold.

As the Philippines continues to develop, more institutionalised, structural change is needed to address failures in the judiciary, boost legal empowerment for the poor, raise the poverty line, improve quality of education, and guarantee that human rights are protected. This results-oriented administration is sacrificing their constituents' individual welfare in the pursuit of shallow, short-term targets that are not linked to other socio-economic factors when crafting developmental objectives and strategies.