‘PULITIKA NG PAGHIHIGANTI’

HINDI tumkbo si BBM sa panguluhan upang maglingkod sa sambayanan naghihirap dala ng kapalpakan ni Rodrigo Duterte at grupong Davao na kilala sa taguring “Inferior Davao.” Tumakbo si BBM upang linisin ang kanilang mabaho at malansang pangalan dala ng diktadura na pinangunahan ng kanyang ama – Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

Patunay ang kawalan ng masinop at maipagmamalaking programa upang maiangat ang Filipinas. Itinago ang sariling kapalpakan sa panawagan ng “unity,” o pagkakaisa. Walang malinaw sa unity. Hindi maipaliwanag ang salitang iyan. Sino at ano ang pagkakaisahin niya? Sino ang niloloko niya kundi ang kanyang sarili?

Sa aming pananaw, Paghihiganti ang pangunahing pakay ni BBM upang tumakbo at maging pangulo. Nais niyang pagbalingan ang mga tao at institusyon na nagpabagsak sa diktadura ng kanyang ama at nagpabaho sa kanilang pangalan. Ito ang pangunahing layunin sa kanyang tagong programa na linisin ang kanilang mabahong pangalan.

Pulitika ng paghihiganti – ito ang mararamdaman natin sa anim na taon. Hindi malinaw sa kanyang limitadong isip kung paano pauunlarin ang bansa at pangungunahan at patatagin ang aming pambansang ekonomiya. Ngunit malinaw kung paano paluluhurin ang mga taong at institusyon na sa kanya ay sumira sa kanilang pangalan.

***

HALAW ang mga sumusunod sa aming aklat “KILL KILL KILL: EJKs in the Philippines; Crimes Against Humanity vs. Duterte Et. Al. at the ICC.” Nasa huling yugto na ako na pagsusulat.

DECENT PROPOSAL. The European lawmaker was not content to listen to Trillanes’s narrative of the local condition from the lens of the democratic opposition. It could be presumed that he did not travel thousands of miles and spent time, resources, and efforts to listen to the opposition gripes. He slowly but surely unveiled his purpose and adroitly navigated the intricate web of diplomatic talks. The parliamentarian, whom Trillanes did not identify because he promised him protection, gave the decent proposal that would lead him to start the immediate filing of crimes against humanity against Duterte before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Reconstructing from Trillanes’s memory, their conversation proceeded this way:

EUROPEAN UNION PARLIAMENTARIAN: You should not feel helpless with what your president has been doing to your people. I am not bound here by diplomatic niceties, but I propose that you take immediate actions.

ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV: I understand, Your Honor. But how? May I have the pleasure of hearing any suggestions?

EU PARLIAMENTARIAN: I suggest that you go to the International Criminal Court since the local justice system, as you have said, could not function anymore. Go and file charges of crimes against humanity against Duterte and his people engaged in that war against the Filipino people.

ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV: I must confess that I am not familiar with the ICC’s operations. But this is a proposal worth exploring, Your Honor.

EU PARLIAMENTARIAN: Study the ICC and its operations. But you have to start immediately because the process takes long. The charges against Duterte may or may not prosper, Your Honor. But you have big chances that it would prosper. It is worth trying to stop Duterte from his track.

***

THE INTERNATIONAL OPTION

HIS fateful meeting with the unidentified European parliamentarian solidified his view that not much could be expected from the domestic criminal justice system and that he had to take the bull by its horns by going to the international criminal justice system to settle the raging issue of mass violence in Duterte’s war on drugs. He knew Duterte, although a lawyer, was pursuing an illegal drug war that had no respect for the rule of law and due process. Being a former soldier and not a lawyer, Trillanes confessed his disadvantage because he had to vet the proposal. He asked the Magdalo Party List and his legislative staff to conduct complete staff work and determine the possible filing of charges against Duterte before the ICC. The anti-drug war, the centerpiece program of the Duterte government, had to be stopped on its bloody and deadly track. There was no turning back.

In over a month of complete staff work that sapped the energy of his Magdalo colleagues and legislative staff, the results came out positive and conclusive. It was possible to file crimes against humanity against Duterte and his cohorts before the ICC. There was a basis to make him responsible for those killings. The democratic opposition could bring it before the world body. But when he consulted his colleagues in the Senate on the possibility of joining forces in the first ever complaint against Duterte before the ICC, he was disappointed with their reactions. They were reluctant to join him. They were hesitant to go against the flow, warning they did not want to get involved because Duterte, whom they already thought was a madman during those days, could and would retaliate. They were fearful of reprisals. Fear was clearly etched in their hearts.

At that time, Leila de Lima was being persecuted. They were afraid to follow de Lima’s fate. When he floated to the mass media the idea of going to the ICC and filing charges of crimes against humanity against Duterte, Trillanes did not get the support of his colleagues. Then Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, a mediocre lawmaker, described as “nonsense”the crimes against humanity charges against Duterte and his minions without knowing and understanding the nature of those charges. Some mocked him, believing it would not take off and, ergo, was bound to fail. Sen. Panfilio Lacson said the charges were destined to the “dustbin of history.” The puerile Sen. J. V. Ejercito dramatized the impossibility of his planned charges by describing as “suntok sa buwan” (punch on the moon). In short, nobody wanted to join him. It was a lonely battle because he knew he would be alone to go against Duterte. But he did not lose hope. The next events seemed to conspire to push him to file the crimes against humanity against Duterte and company before the ICC.

On September 15, 2016, or a few days after Trillanes met the European lawmaker, the European Union, through its Parliament, came out with a stinging resolution on its deep concern on the excessively high number of people killed in anti-drug operations. The European Parliament urged the Duterte government “to condemn the actions of vigilante groups and to investigate their responsibility for the killings” and conduct “an immediate, thorough, effective and impartial investigation in order to identify all those responsible, to bring them before a competent and impartial civil tribunal and to apply the penal sanctions provided for by the law.” The European Parliament’s resolution contained important information and inputs that would define the bilateral relations between the region-state and the Philippines, which was then viewed as veering toward a new episode of authoritarianism.

The European Parliament acknowledged as “a national and international concern” the illegal drug trade in the Philippines, even as it cited the official report that 20% of the barangays in the country reported drug-related crimes and that “the Philippines is considered to have the highest usage rate of methamphetamines in East Asia.” Furthermore, it cited as indication of Duterte’s state policy to murder drug suspects the part of the resolution that “President Duterte repeatedly urged law enforcement agencies and the public to kill suspected drug traffickers who did not surrender, as well as drug users.” Duterte reacted violently to the resolution. He slammed the European Parliament for what he considered an “intervention into internal affairs” of the Philippines. Henceforth, their bilateral relations have been strained.

Curiously, the EU statement came out at the time the delegations of the Philippines and EU were discussing a free trade agreement to enhance trade between the two entities. Because of Duterte’s indifferent attitude towards the EU, discussions for a free trade pact between the two sides were suspended, adversely affecting entry of Philippine exports to the European market. The lack of substantial willingness to cooperate from the Philippines has led to the suspension of further discussions for a free trade pact. After five years, no free trade accord has been crafted. The withdrawal of the GSP+ preferences (Generalized System of Preference) has triggered the loss of competitiveness for Philippine exports in the European market.