Proving justice still exists

On July 23, 2018, then-President Rodrigo Duterte promised the attendees of his third State of the Nation Address (Sona), that the war on drugs will continue to be “as relentless and chilling as on the day it began.” Addressing members of the Senate and House of Representatives, Duterte criticized human rights advocates, accusing them of enabling the country’s drug problem. “Your concern is human rights, mine is human lives,” he declared. “The lives of the youth are being wasted and families are being destroyed.” His remarks were met with loud applause from the audience—a seeming endorsement of the extrajudicial killings (EJKs) that claimed an estimated 12,000-30,000 lives.

No one is clapping anymore. Last Friday, House Bill No. 10986, or the proposed Anti-Extrajudicial Killing Act, was filed in the House, classifying EJKs as a heinous act. Under the bill, any state agent involved in EJK—either committing or ordering its execution—will receive life imprisonment. The bill also mandates the creation of a claims board to provide fair compensation for the victim’s families.

EJK refers to the deliberate and unlawful killing of individuals by people in an official position or those acting with state consent. Under the Duterte administration, EJKs were justified and normalized, citing them as necessary measures to address the supposed threat to safety and order posed by the drug problem. The Philippine National Police defended them as official anti-drug operations, alleging that the suspects were harmed because they fought back during the raids. Human Rights Watch and other groups, however, have long argued that these operations often involved the arbitrary execution of suspects, with police planting evidence to cover their tracks.

Recent testimonies of key witnesses at the House quad committee hearings have helped shed new light on the strategic implementation of EJKs in the country. Retired police colonel Royina Garma revealed that a “Davao model” of monetary payments and rewards was followed to incentivize police officers and officials to kill drug suspects. According to Garma, The Davao model involves three levels of rewards: First, if the suspect is killed; second, the funding of planned operations; third, refund of operational expenses. The payouts could range from P20,000 to P1 million.

Another key witness to come forward is Rolan “Kerwin” Espinosa, claiming he was coerced by then-police chief now senator Bato de la Rosa to falsely confess that he was a drug lord and to implicate then-senator Leila de Lima. In a press conference, Espinosa announced that he was “1,000 percent” willing to testify before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Human rights lawyer and former Bayan Muna representative Neri Colmenares has urged President Marcos to submit the sworn statements of Garma and Espinosa to the ICC. It is worth noting that Mr. Marcos had previously declared non-cooperation with the ICC, asserting that the Philippine criminal justice system has the jurisdiction, and is fully capable of investigating and addressing the alleged violations.

In a surprising change of tone, however, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla recently said the Philippines would not block any arrest warrants issued by Interpol related to the ICC’s investigation. He pointed out that while the country no longer has a commitment with the ICC, we still have with Interpol.

This sudden change of attitude, while welcome, is further proof why swifter and more decisive action has to be undertaken regarding the issue. Every human life has inherent worth and it is the state’s duty to protect the right to life. Our definition of who gets to live and who has access to due process should not be subject to the whims of those in power. Nor should justice be reduced to being a convenient outcome of the political maneuvering of two family dynasties.

The central issue here is not just retribution for past atrocities but the end—or at least the gradual reform—of the culture of impunity.

While Mr. Marcos has consistently declared his commitment to human rights in diplomatic meetings, his sincerity has been heavily questioned by advocacy groups for failing to implement concrete measures to improve human rights protections and hold perpetrators accountable.

Taking Colmenares’ suggestion and fully cooperating with the ICC investigation will send a strong message that the Marcos administration is serious about upholding a rules-based international order. The opportunity to do so will not always be as favorable as it is now. The upcoming elections, with the prospect of a Duterte political resurgence, could potentially revive the former president’s influence over the judiciary and legislature.

In her testimony at the quad comm hearings, Baby Rosales tearfully recounted how her son, Angelito, was unjustly killed by four policemen inside their home. She insisted that he couldn’t have fought back and his body showed no signs of defensive wounds, apart from the fatal gunshot.

When asked why she did not file a case, Rosales emphasized that they don’t have money and therefore, “Wala sa amin ang batas” (The law does not serve us). The Marcos administration now has the chance to prove her and countless other EJK victims wrong.

—————-

eleanor@shetalksasia.com