SIYASAT KAY DUTERTE

GUMUGULONG ang proseso ng International Criminal Court (ICC) kay Rodrigo Duterte. Noong Biyermes, hiningi ng Pre-Trial Chamber ng ICC ang kuro-kuro ng mga human rights groups at pamilya ng mga biktima ng extrajudicial killings (EJKs) sa hiling ni Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan na ituloy ang nabimbing formal investigation kay Duterte at kasapakat sa digmaan kontra droga ng gobyernong Duterte. Hindi patay ang mga sakdal na sama-samang iniharap sa ICC nina Sonny Trillanes at Gary Alejano at mga pamilya ng mga biktima. Buhay na buhay ang mga sakdal bagaman pinipilit ni Duterte na harangin at pabagalin ang proseso.

Itinakda ng ICC Pre-Trial Chamber ang ika-18 ng Septiyembre bilang deadline upang isumite ng mga human rights groups at pamilya ng mga biktima ng ICC ang kanilang sagot sa hiling ni Khan. Hindi namin nakikita na sagabal ang napakaraming detalye tungkol sa mga EJKs. Sa sobrang dami ng patayan kaugnay sa droga, maagang matatapos ng mga nagharap ng sakdal ang kanilang sagot sa hiling ni Khan. Ngayon, si Duterte at mga kasapakat ang may problema at hindi ang mga nagsasakdal.

Walang naisagot si Duterte sa pagpapatuloy ng formal investigation ng ICC sa kanya at mga alipures na mahigit 60 katao. Isumite sa ICC ang ulat ng PNP sa mga nasamsam na droga, aniya. Pinagtawanan si Martin Andanar na nagsabing pinasok ng pulitika ang isyu sa ICC. Walang naintindihan si Andanar na dating tagabasa ng balita sa TV. Hindi nasapol ni Duterte ang isyu sa kanya. Hindi nasusukat ang isyu ng droga sa dami ng nasamsam ng mga pulis. Trabaho nila iyon. Ang isyu ay bakit nilabag niya ang karapatang pantao ng mga biktima? Bakit hindi sila isinailalim sa proseso ng batas?

***

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.

HUMILIATION AND VIOLENCE

The war on drugs, which Rodrigo Duterte had unleashed, took a big bang on the first day of his incumbency. Days passed without any report of persons, who were killed in alleged violent encounters and police operations – or rubouts, plain and simple. A Filipino scholar argued that the anti-drug war was premised on humiliation and violence. It was no different from the same anti-drug war, which Duterte used in Davao City as its erstwhile mayor. Hong-Kong-based Andres Reyes, a former journalist, said in a published article on the early years of his presidency:

“Duterte’s message in his war on drugs is clear: Criminals can be humiliated and killed in order to protect law-abiding and God-fearing Filipinos.”

Reyes said Duterte came out with a list containing names of users and pushers purportedly to shame and humiliate those involved in drug trade. He said:

“This is the same method Duterte used in Davao City when he revealed the names of suspected drug dealers and users in radio and television shows, telling them to stop their illegal activities. The police would then visit the houses of persons on the list, known in Cebuano as “Tokhang” (tok-tok [knock], hangyo [request]). The police and the military would then speak to the person and his family members and warn them to stop selling and using drugs. This was, and is, often a prelude to killings. In Davao, many of those killed in police operations and vigilante killings were persons on the list. Why should they be killed? Duterte implies drug addicts are not human and criminals have no place in society. The police, using entrapment operations, search the houses of suspects and question them for ignoring their warnings. If the suspected individuals fight with the policemen or “nanlaban”, they can be killed in the process.”

In his article, Reyes advanced the thesis that in Duterte’s war on drugs, the victims’ bodies were “political artifacts” sought to embody and deliver what he described “the message of violence.” He said:

“The individuals who were humiliated and killed in Duterte’s war on drugs were alleged criminals who were neither investigated nor convicted for the crimes they were supposed to have committed. The ‘spectacle’ in the war on drugs is distinct because the violence inflicted on the body of criminals is perpetrated by both state and non-state actors. The supposed criminals were punished by the state’s coercive apparatus (the police and the military) and … (vigilantes and hired killers) before their guilt was established. The sovereign in the Philippine political system is the people, who are personified by Duterte as the chief executive. Therefore, there is political value in this spectacle in punishing criminals, by humiliating and killing them, and this punishment outside the ordinary legal process has political meaning to it. A common feature in the practice of punishing criminals is the use of the body as material to impose discipline as well as a vehicle to carry political messages.”

According to Reyes, the humiliation and violent deaths of drug criminals were designed to elicit “credible threats” to the public. Hence, those who violated the law have actually been punished. The killing of criminals in police operations, public spaces, and in their homes makes Duterte’s threats “very real,” deterring violators of the law. The humiliation of supposed criminals by labeling their bodies to say they are criminals could be interpreted as “objectification of the body.” Reyes said:

“It reduces the body to an object as a vehicle to carry political messages. In the war on drugs, this is done first, through official listing of drug dealers, users and criminals, and revealing their names in public; and second, by encouraging their killing, and then humiliating those friends and relatives left behind by placing placards identifying them as criminals who deserved to have been killed.”

According to Reyes, this phenomenon, citing a scholar, is a form of violence that lead to what is termed the “commodification of the body by turning it into political text.” He said:

“Those who lived at the margin – the poor, and the criminals whom Duterte calls living in ‘low-lives’ – have their bodies made into text by placing placards on them and parading them in public and on marking their corpses when they are killed.”

Citing another scholar, Reyes described the use of the body as a “spectacle of violence.” This leads to the concept of the “politicization of life,” citing Duterte’s penchant to declare whose life has and does not have value. He said:

“The Philippine president divides Filipinos into two groups: the drug dealers, addicts and criminals – who are seen as violent law breakers, dangers to social welfare and obstructions to economic development – and law-abiding and God-fearing persons, who are viewed as victims of violence, the human resources for economic development, and the basis of the well-being of future generations. Duterte has been explicit about the need to eliminate the first group in order to protect the second.”

Reyes cited Nazi Germany’s experience in which the Nazi regime decided on the extermination of the Jews, and the incurably ill, adding that the moment “a political decision is reached, mass killings of those whose lives are now declared to have no value, become inevitable.” Reyes said:

“Duterte is popular because of the clarity of his message about who can be killed: drug lords, drug addicts and criminals, preferably men, habitual criminals and drug addicts who repeatedly went into rehabilitation but were never cured.”