Chapter 1 WAR ON DRUGS
“The conscience of humanity is the foundation of all law.” - Benjamin Berell Ferencz
“The game of history is usually played by the best and the worst over the heads of the majority in the middle.”― Eric Hoffer in “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements”
POPULIST Rodrigo Duterte sounded as if he had a mission. In his political sorties nationwide before the May 9, 2016 presidential elections, Duterte promised that, if elected, he would launch a brutal and bloody war against illegal drugs.1 Duterte said he would not hesitate to kill people engaged in drug trade - users, pushers and drug lords alike. Duterte was no different from the demagogues of yesteryears, as he promised unequivocally to end drug trafficking and criminality in three to six months. His statement of hope resonated in most parts of the country. Voters took him as a man of destiny, who was to save the Philippines from the drug menace and usher the anticipated tranquility and progress in the country. They elected him president with a plurality of over 16 million votes and a margin of more than five million votes over his nearest rival.2
Duterte told multitudes in various cities that he would deal directly with two issues: drug addiction and drug dealing. There was no in-between. It was the message that defined the centerpiece of his political platform and program of government. His war on drugs hinges on the murder of drug users, pushers, and traders, big and small. He delivered with urgency his campaign promise, which was to kill these people at all cost - without mercy and moral compunction. This was unprecedented in Philippine history. No candidate has made murder a part of his political platform and program of government. Despite their faults and collective inadequacies, which are too numerous to mention, Filipino politicians, as part of their political culture, usually promise to deliver the moon, or bring heaven on earth. Politicians are the prophets of boom and bloom, not doom and gloom. Duterte is a political rascal, an unmitigated fluke, an unrepentant counter-flow to history. His populism is the proverbial bump on the road of democracy.
The campaign promise to launch a bloody war against drug trade, no matter how captivating for people with limited minds, was not only inherently wrong by whichever law or cultural yardstick. It was largely based on plain ignorance. Despite his experience as a lawyer, state prosecutor, and mayor of Davao City, Duterte did not know and understand that an international criminal justice system has been evolving over the years. Its processes and tenets have kept on improving over the last 50 years. International criminal law has emerged as a specialized part of international law. Gone were the days when a tyrant unilaterally kills his people with impunity. The international criminal justice system is put in place to check the abuses of power against the people. In brief, Duterte, although admittedly limited and parochial in his views and perceptions, did not have an iota of knowledge and understanding that he was bound to face complaints and imprisonment if he would fulfill his campaign promise.
WAR AGAINST THE POOR. Duterte’s election as president and ascendancy to power in 2016 is a tragedy of historic and global significance and implications. Duterte is the blind leader elected by the equally blind Filipino people to lead them. After he has taken over, Duterte unleashed the unusual ferocity to kill his own people with impunity and took steps to undermine and weaken the Philippine legal system to bring criminals within the ambit of criminal justice system. His war against drugs is nothing but a war against the poor, the powerless, and the downtrodden.3 Most of the people whom he ordered killed came from the depressed urban communities. They were helpless, as they did not have the capacity to fight back. His order to kill them did not undergo the legal processes enshrined in the Philippine Constitution and existing laws. They were hardly given the chance to defend themselves, reform, and return as useful citizens to society.
Duterte’s bloody antidrug war was alleged to have triggered the death of between 16,000 to 30,000 people from 2016 to 2019, the year of withdrawal by the Philippines from the Rome Statute, the multilateral treaty that has created the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2003. No less than Fatou Bensouda, the now retired ICC Chief Prosecutor, had made the estimates on the basis of the preliminary investigation that she led in 2018 on the drug-related extrajudicial killings (EJKs) under the Duterte government. Bensouda, who was the ICC chief prosecutor when Duterte became president, recommended in 2021 the official formal investigation by the ICC on the charges of crimes against humanity, which a pair of intrepid Filipino lawmakers, Antonio Trillanes IV and Gary Alejano, had built up, filed with, and brought in 2017 to the ICC. It was Trillanes and Alejano, who brought the first information on crimes against humanity charges against Duterte and his cohorts before the ICC. When it was not fashionable to bring any president, prime minister, and chief executive before an international forum, the pair of lawmakers, who belong to the Magdalo Party List, did what could be regarded as the outrageous, unthinkable, and unprecedented.
At that time, no one had the audacity to file the charges against Duterte and his ilk before the ICC or any other international forum. Duterte and his ilk were at the height of their political power, viewing his electoral mandate as sort of a license to kill the people, whom they fancied. Political leaders, even the ones in the democratic political opposition, had kept silent for fear of reprisal from Duterte and his minions. They basically did not know what to do and how to respond to the bloody war on drugs. They did not have the courage, drive, and initiative to go against the flow. They chose the path of least resistance, hoping the issue would solve itself. But Trillanes and Alejano persisted and ignored the threats of retaliation, as Duterte brandished his supposed mandate to kill the people allegedly involved in illegal drug trade.4
COMPLEX FIELD. Incidentally, international criminal law is a field of international law that seeks to regulate the behavior of states, organizations, political leaders, and individuals operating across national boundaries in the commission of international crimes. It deals with securing suspects, witnesses and evidence from other countries to prosecute a crime. International criminal law is a complex field, as it undergoes frequent and continuous changes. Mired in the parochialism and limited viewpoint of provincial politics, Duterte and his ilk did not know that they would fall entrapped in this relatively new branch of international law and would have to pay dearly for their sins against the Filipino people, whom they had sworn to serve and defend under the 1987 Constitution.
***
STATE-SPONSORED CAMPAIGN
EVEN at the start of his presidency, Rodrigo Duterte was bent to pursue the war on drugs. In his June 30, 2016 inaugural address, which he immediately delivered after he was sworn into office, Duterte could not help but deliver conflicting statements. He proclaimed that, as a lawyer and former state prosecutor, he knew the extent of the presidential power and authority and that he knew what was legal and right. It was a statement that was met by thunderous applause. It was a statement that was later used against him by the international community of uncompromising human rights advocates. He said:
“My adherence to due process and the rule of law is uncompromising.”
In the early part of his inaugural address, he indicated that he would pursue a bloody war on drugs, using illegal means, which might include extrajudicial killings, or summary executions devoid of the legal processes. Little did the world know he would resort to the combined use of the Philippine National Police (PNP) as an institution and unnamed vigilante groups in his war on illegal drugs. Duterte had the gall to warn the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), the constitutional body tasked to protect every citizen from every conceivable human rights abuse and ensure the compliance of the Philippines on international pacts on human rights, asking it to get out of his way in his pursuit of the war on drugs. It was a statement that directly contradicted his purported adherence to the rule of law and its flipside – due processes. Sounding defensive but impetuous and imperious, by all means, Duterte declared:
“There are those who do not approve of my methods of fighting criminality, the sale and use of illegal drugs and corruption. They say that my methods are unorthodox and verge on the illegal. In response, let me say this: I have seen how corruption bled the government of funds, which were allocated for the use in uplifting the poor from the mire that they are in. I have seen how illegal drugs destroyed individuals and ruined family relationships. I have seen how criminality, by means all foul, snatched from the innocent and the unsuspecting, the years and years of accumulated savings. Years of toil and then, suddenly, they are back to where they started. Look at this from that perspective and tell me that I am wrong.”
The coup de grace:
“In this fight, I ask Congress and the Commission on Human Rights and all others who are similarly situated to allow us a level of governance that is consistent [with] our mandate. The fight will be relentless and it will be sustained.”5
IMMEDIATE REJOINDER. A few weeks after he had become president, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), a prestigious global organization of prominent magistrates, wrote Duterte, reminding him of the statements that he had made during the inaugural address, i.e. his “adherence to due process” and “the rule of law is uncompromising.” The ICJ said:
“With that pledge in mind, we write to urge you to uphold the obligations of the Philippines under international human rights law to protect and promote the right to life, among other rights. To that end, we would request that your government take immediate and effective measures to counter the recent wave of unlawful killings as well as to address unresolved cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in the country.”6
The ICJ wrote to Rodrigo Duterte, asking him to unequivocally denounce the extrajudicial killings, whether by alleged criminals or by any person in the Philippines. The ICJ urged the Government of the Philippines to conduct prompt and impartial investigations into the police operations that resulted in these deaths. Where there are allegations that persons have been arbitrarily deprived of their life, involving a violation of the right to life, international law requires that there must be a prompt, independent and effective investigation into such allegations and that those responsible be brought to justice, it said.
The ICJ’s letter to Duterte was followed by a briefer, which explained in detail its stand on his war on drugs and the subsequent spate of EJKs. It focused on three major points: first, the right to life and extrajudicial and arbitrary executions; second, the obligation of the State to probe those extrajudicial and arbitrary executions; and third, recommendations on the investigation of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, prosecution of perpetrators, and compensating victims and their families.
***
‘KILLING PEOPLE IS UNLAWFUL’
THE ICJ briefing paper is important because it sought to explain in short, concise, and unequivocal terms that killing people is unlawful and even sinful on ethical grounds and that any person has the right to life. Nobody has the right to kill any person even if the latter is a social deviant and recidivist – criminal, drug addict, rapist, robber, or whatever. Every society has its laws to deal with social offenders. The briefing paper laid down the reasons extrajudicial executions are unacceptable. Citing provisions of the international law, it said:
“The most fundamental and basic of human rights is the right to life. Under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Philippines is a State Party, ‘every human being has the inherent right to life.’ Article 6 of the ICCPR also says that the right to life ‘shall be protected by law’ and that ‘no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.’
“The right to life is the right from which all other human rights spring, the foundational or bedrock human right. The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of life is a peremptory norm of international law, applicable to all States at all times. This means that this right cannot be overridden by other legal norms.”
In what appeared to be a lecture on Duterte’s perverted view and understanding of the law, the ICJ said in its briefing paper:
“Extrajudicial killings and arbitrary executions are methods of arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) defines ‘extralegal, arbitrary or summary executions’ as the ‘deprivation of life without full judicial and legal process, and with the involvement, complicity, tolerance or acquiescence of the Government or its agents.’ It further explains that extralegal, arbitrary or summary executions include ‘death through the excessive use of force by police or security forces.’
“As explained by the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, ‘arbitrary execution’ specifically refers to deaths caused by the ‘excessive, disproportionate and illegitimate use of force by law enforcement officers. If a law enforcement agent uses greater force than is necessary to achieve a legitimate objective and a person is killed,’ that would amount to an ‘arbitrary’ execution.’”
BRASH REMINDER. In what was ICJ’s recognition of Duterte’s shortsighted view of trends in international law, the briefing paper gave an update on the trends, which Duterte hardly knew, on the international criminal justice system. The ICJ said:
“Further defining this focus on law enforcement officials are two key documents concerning the circumstances in which police are able to use lethal force. The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials provides that law enforcement officials may only use force when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.
“The commentary on this provision explains that: ‘In no case should this provision be interpreted to authorize the use of force which is disproportionate to the legitimate objective to be achieved.’ Added to this, the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials prohibits the use of firearms against persons ‘except in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life…’”
The ICJ appeared prescient about the bogus nature of police claims that EJKs victims fought back, ending in deaths. It was its way to say these police claims were unbelievable by any stretch of imagination. For this reason, the ICJ briefing paper reminded Duterte:
“These now well-accepted positions call for very careful examination of any assertions by law enforcement that the killing of a person is in response to threats made to the lives of police officers or others. Any threats of death must be grave and imminent.
“Any action in response to such threats must be proportionate, which means that all other reasonable alternatives in the circumstances, such as the apprehension or non-lethal incapacitation of suspects, must be exhausted before recourse to lethal force can be made. Best practice calls for the adoption of practical measures to ensure that law enforcement officials adhere to these requirements, such as the establishment of protocols, combined with training, the wearing of body cameras and the like.”
***
DUTY TO PROBE EJKS
THE briefing paper, which the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) gave to Rodrigo Duterte seven weeks after he was sworn in as president was pivotal because it has laid down what it considered the duty of the state to probe extrajudicial killings. It said unequivocally:
“Under international law, the Philippines is obliged to investigate extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary killings. This duty arises from the general obligation to respect and guarantee human rights, which is enshrined in Article 2(1) of the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR]. According to the UN Human Rights Committee, the legal obligation under Article 2(1) of the ICCPR is both negative and positive: while States parties must refrain from violating the rights recognized in the Covenant (e.g. they must not arbitrarily deprive persons of their life), States must also adopt legislative, administrative, judicial, educative and other necessary measures to protect these rights (e.g. they must protect against arbitrary deprivation of life, including by holding perpetrators to account).
“If the State fails to investigate allegations of extrajudicial killings, this could in and of itself give rise to a violation of the Covenant.
“The Human Rights Committee has further explained that the duty to investigate arises from the obligation of States Parties to the ICCPR to provide an effective remedy to victims of human rights violations, set out in Article 2(3) of the ICCPR, when read in conjunction with the right to life under Article 6.13 This duty is also an aspect of the obligation to respect, ensure respect for and implement international human rights law within the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.”
The punchline:
“Investigations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary killings must be thorough, prompt, impartial and independent.
“Investigations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary killings should be geared towards establishing the crime committed and prosecuting those responsible for these crimes. Truth commissions or any group organized merely to establish “historical truth”, without intending to establish the facts of the extrajudicial killings and prosecuting those responsible, do not complete or substitute the State’s obligation to investigate under international law.”
RECOMMENDATIONS. The discussions would be incomplete without mentioning the ICJ’s recommendations to serve as the roadmap to the appropriate handling of the spate of EJKs in accordance with international law. Broadly, it asked the government of Rodrigo Duterte to conduct “prompt, independent and effective investigations into allegations of extrajudicial killings in the country.”
It asked the Philippine government to perform the following:
• Direct the prosecutors under the Department of Justice to investigate the EJKs, using what it described “the Department’s established investigative procedures. If such procedures are found to be inadequate because of lack of expertise or impartiality, the Government of the Philippines should convene an independent commission of inquiry to conduct such investigations.7
• Physicians, preferably those with expertise in forensic pathology, should be included in the body tasked to investigate extrajudicial killings.
• The body tasked to investigate extrajudicial killings, whether it is the Department of Justice or an independent commission of inquiry, should investigate all cases, regardless of whether or not a formal complaint has been filed.
• The body tasked to investigate extrajudicial killings should be given all necessary resources for it to be able to adequately undertake its task.
The ICJ further laid down the parameters of future investigations of the EJKs:
• As an immediate priority and noting that many of the victims remain unidentified, the body tasked to conduct the investigation of extrajudicial killings should identify all the victims and the cause and manner of death.
• Family members of all the victims must be informed immediately.
• The body tasked to conduct investigations into extrajudicial killings must provide information to the families of victims and their legal representatives, keeping them up-to-date on the progress and status of the investigations.
• The safety of witnesses and complainants must be guaranteed. They should be protected from any form of reprisal and/or intimidation, as a consequence of their providing information or evidence.
• The body tasked to investigate the extrajudicial killings must submit a written report within a reasonable time on the methods and findings of its investigations. It must make this report public.
• The Government of the Philippines should prosecute and bring to justice, in proceedings in line with international standards of due process and with the guarantee not to impose the death penalty, those persons identified in the written report of the investigations as having participated in the extrajudicial killings.
• Families of victims of extrajudicial killings should be entitled to fair and adequate compensation, rehabilitation, and satisfaction within a reasonable period of time.
• The conduct and outcomes of the investigations and prosecutions should be aimed at establishing guarantees of non-recurrence by drawing necessary lessons for revising practices and policies with a view to avoiding repeated violations.
INTERFERENCE. Duterte violently reacted to the ICJ’s letter, describing it as “interference” into the Philippine internal affairs. Duterte made a series of condemnations on the criticisms lodged against him in several public engagements and fora. He claimed that the ICJ prognosis and its recommendations were outrageously wrong and way out of line. Virtually frothing at the mouth in anger, Duterte rejected without reservations the ICJ recommendations and warned not just the ICJ, but the entire global human rights community that they face arrest and murder too – if its advocates enter the Philippines.
In what appeared to be his way to turn the table against the people in illegal drug trade, Duterte came out with a purported list of about 1,000 personalities, whom he alleged to have been involved in illegal drugs.8 Duterte brandished the list in several fora and mentioned names, whom, he said, were listed, but no independent confirmation came out on the veracity and integrity of his much ballyhooed list of over 1,000 names. Neither did he mention and explain any process of vetting the list. They were all just claims, albeit empty and done in an atmosphere of bravura and bravado. Incidentally, some names he mentioned were long dead or ailing.9 It was an exercise in futility as the list was virtually of very little or no value at all.
Rodrigo Duterte went to the extent of encouraging police officers to keep on killing suspects (drug users, pushers, and retailers etc.) under his war on drugs. In several speech engagements, Duterte used the line “sagot ko kayo (I’m answerable for you)” as his way to assuage their hesitation to go on killing sprees. His line could have pepped up the law enforcers for the official statistics on EJKs kept on going up for a while.
DUTERTE DOCTRINE. Infamous modern-day dictators in history ordered the murder of millions of people mainly on the bases of certain doctrines – racial or ideological. Joseph Stalin, dictator of the old Soviet Union, and Mao Zhedung, ruler of China, murdered millions because they claimed they were the “class enemies,” representing the bourgeoisie, or the people, who had kept on exploiting the long suffering masses, who belonged to their antithesis, or the “exploited class” or the proletariat. The classical Marxist lines posited that the interest of the working class could be best upheld and sustained by the ideological lines that included the physical extermination of their class enemies.
German dictator Adolf Hitler ordered the murder of six million Jews, and hundreds of thousands of homosexuals, persons with disabilities (PWDs), Gypsies, and Slavs because of racial doctrines that identified them as physically and racially inferior to the Aryan race. Hitler was a believer of the concept of racial superiority and its flipside - racial cleansing. This is the reason he has been viewed a villain in modern history. By mere accident of birth, or because he was born a Jew or a PWD, he was physically exterminated.
Rodrigo Duterte was neither a believer of racial nor class superiority. He could not be counted along with Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. But he believes in the perverted doctrine that drug users are “lowlifes,” whose brains “have been cooked” by frequent drug use. These people are beyond redemption, he claimed with an air of finality. They can no longer be rehabilitated to return to society and become productive citizens again. Ergo, they should be exterminated. There is no better way to exterminate them but to adhere to his concept of war on drugs. His distorted anti-drug war would ensure their social and physical elimination.
Duterte spoke of his doctrine, not once, or twice, but in several speaking engagements. It was believed that many police officers have felt enamored with his distorted beliefs. Falling victims to his shortsighted views, they were the police officers, who were believed to have been mostly engaged in the Project Double Barrel. Duterte did not offer empirical basis for his assertions, but believers have taken them as gospel truths. They hardly raised any opposition, but followed him blindly.
***
CBCP STAND
AT the home front, the influential Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), the organization of the more than 100 Roman Catholic bishops nationwide issued on Jan. 30, 2017, or seven months after Duterte has become president, a pastoral letter describing Duterte’s antidrug campaign as “a reign in terror” and denouncing the spate of EJKs. The CBCP Pastoral Letter was signed by Archbishop Socrates B. Villegas, head of the Archdiocese of Lingayen and then CBCP president. It was read repeatedly in Catholic churches nationwide during the Holy Mass. The Catholic laity came out too to condemn Duterte’s war on drugs. Even the then Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle came out to protest those EJKs. Some pertinent parts:
“We, your bishops, are deeply concerned due to many deaths and killings in the campaign against prohibited drugs. This traffic in illegal drugs needs to be stopped and overcome. But the solution does not lie in the killing of suspected drug users and pushers. We are concerned not only for those who have been killed. The situation of the families of those killed is also cause for concern. Their lives have only become worse. An additional cause of concern is the reign of terror in many places of the poor. Many are killed not because of drugs. Those who kill them are not brought to account. An even greater cause of concern is the indifference of many to this kind of wrong. It is considered as normal and, even worse, something that (according to them) needs to be done.
“We stand for some basic teachings. These teachings are rooted in our being human, our being Filipino, and our being Christian.
“The life of every person comes from God. It is he who gives it, and it is he alone who can take it back. Not even the government has a right to kill life because it is only God’s steward and not the owner of life.
“The opportunity to change is never lost in every person. This is because God is merciful, as our Holy Father Pope Francis repeatedly teaches. We just finished celebrating the Jubilee Year of Mercy, and the World Apostolic Congress on Mercy. These events deepened our awareness that the Lord Jesus Christ offered his own life for sinners, to redeem them and give them a new future.
“To destroy one’s own life and the life of another, is a grave sin and does evil to society. The use of drugs is a sign that a person no longer values his own life, and endangers the lives of others. We must all work together to solve the drug problem and work for the rehabilitation of drug addicts.
“Every person has a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Society has ways and processes to catch, prove guilty and punish perpetrators of crimes. This process must be followed, especially by agents of the law.
“Any action that harms another (seriously) is a grave sin. To push drugs is a grave sin as is killing (except in self-defense). We cannot correct a wrong by doing another wrong. A good purpose is not a justification for using evil means. It is good to remove the drug problem, but to kill in order to achieve this is also wrong.
“The deep root of the drug problem and criminality is the poverty of the majority, the destruction of the family and corruption in society. The step we have to take is to overcome poverty, especially through the giving of permanent work and sufficient wages to workers. Let us strengthen and carry forward the unity and love of the family members. Let us not allow any law that destroys the unity of families. We must also give priority to reforming rogue policemen and corrupt judges. The excessively slow adjudication of court cases is one big reason for the spread of criminality. Often it is the poor who suffer from this system. We also call upon elected politicians to serve the common good of the people and not their own interests.
“To consent and to keep silent in front of evil is to be an accomplice to it. If we neglect the drug addicts and pushers we have become part of the drug problem. If we consent or allow the killing of suspected drug addicts, we shall also be responsible for their deaths.
“We in the Church will continue to speak against evil even as we acknowledge and repent of our own shortcomings. We will do this even if it will bring persecution upon us because we are all brothers and sisters responsible for each other. We will help drug addicts so that they may be healed and start a new life. We will stand in solidarity and care for those left behind by those who have been killed and for the victims of drug addicts. Let us renew our efforts to strengthen families.”
***
EJKS AS MAJOR CONCERN
EXTRAJUDICIAL killings, or EJKs, have been the major human rights concern in the country for many years. The unabated rise of human rights violations, as reflected by the number of EJKs, tortured victims, arrests without warrants, and forced disappearances of political activists and critics under the Marcos dictatorship, was among the reasons the framers of the 1987 Constitution have included a constitutional provision on the creation of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The Constitution empowers the CHR to handle human rights abuses. Few countries have a human rights body in their respective constitutions.
Evidently, the number of human rights violations had
increased substantially at the onset of the 2016 antidrug campaign and it had
continued in the succeeding years but at a decreased level. It was perceived
that civilian control over PNP and other security forces was inadequate and
dismal to indicate an obvious loss of control. These were contained in a 2018
country report (Philippines) on human rights practices prepared by the U.S.
State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.10 It said:
“Human rights issues included unlawful or arbitrary killings by security forces, vigilantes, and others allegedly connected to the government, and by insurgents; forced disappearance; torture; arbitrary detention; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; political prisoners; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; criminal libel; killings of and threats against journalists; official corruption and abuse of power; and the use of forced and child labor.”
HUMAN RIGHTS TERRAIN. Unbeknown to Duterte, the human rights community or terrain is composed of international, regional, and local organizations that have been fully entrenched, well-versed, and functioning to deter transgressions, tyranny, and abuses of power by the powers-that-be. They have been vigilant against wanton violations with impunity against their people’s rights. The International Criminal Court (ICC), formed in 2003 by the Rome Statute, the multilateral treaty that calls for its creation and establishment, has been doing over the years since its creation its probe of abusive leaders, who have been facing various charges for human rights abuses. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (UNOHR) has been taking a proactive stance on many human rights issues on a global scale.
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights was formed in 1946 mainly to promote human rights and push nations to adhere and follow treaties on human rights. But it did little to intervene and punish states, which had violated global rules on human rights. In 2016, this body was replaced by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), a collegial body of representatives of at least 53 member-states. It holds annual meeting in Geneva to review the human rights situation in many countries. This body should not be confused with the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the job of which is to coordinate activity related to human rights. This office is part of the United Nations Secretariat and the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights reports directly to the UN Secretary-General.11
The international terrain for human rights protection is incomplete without mentioning the Human Rights Watch, an independent, private international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. Formed in 1978 with the founding of its Europe and Central Asia division (then known as Helsinki Watch), Human Rights Watch has divisions worldwide. It has thematic divisions or programs on arms; business and human rights; children’s rights; crisis and conflict; disability rights; the environment and human rights; international justice; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights; refugee rights; and women’s rights. It is an independent, nongovernmental organization supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly.
Another non-government organization in the global protection of human rights is the London-based Amnesty International. It claims to have more than ten million members worldwide. Its mission is to campaign for "a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments.” It issues periodic reports about human rights issues.
The HRW and Amnesty International complement the Philippine-based Commission on Human Rights l (CHR) particularly in ensuring the compliance of the Philippine government on the international covenants, treaties, pacts, and agreements on human rights. The CHR has been instrumental not just in the prosecution of human rights violators but in deterring prospective human rights violations. The CHR’s creation and its inclusion in the Constitution has been a model among developing countries that have human rights issues. As a constitutional body, the CHR has ascertained that the issue of human rights is not only a side issue in effective governance. It is indeed part and parcel of governance.
VERBAL ABUSES. Knowing the CHR was a big obstacle on his war on drugs and its human rights violations and abuses, Rodrigo Duterte had subjected the constitutional body to verbal abuses or badmouthing, which was his usual disdainful but outmoded style to dramatize his point, or contempt on which he fancied. At one point, he claimed that the CHR was a “toothless” and “powerless” agency because it could only investigate police officers and other state workers engaged in the war on drugs if he would allow as president such probes.12 The CHR has other low points. At a forgettable point, Duterte floated its possible abolition. But this was easily shot down by his critics not only because it was easier said than done but mainly because it would require an amendment in the Constitution, which was not easy to pursue on the basis of Philippine political history.13
At another point, his allies in Congress initiated the move to defund the CHR by reducing to P1,000 its proposed budget of over P600 million in the proposed 2018 national budget. The move to defund a constitutional body did not prosper to kill CHR. Later, Congress enacted the appropriation law that brought back the CHR’s original budget. The proposed defund initiated by one of the ill repute but comical lawmakers named Rodante Marcoleta, who represented the party list group of the indigenous Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC), was ignored. Marcoleta’s proposal to defund CHR was more for show, nothing else. It did not go as planned because many lawmakers opposed it to Duterte’s chagrin and total frustration.14 Lesson: it was not easy too to defund a constitutional body. (to be continued)
