‘KILL KILL KILL’ (2)

BAHAGI ito ng using tsapter ng aking aklat “KILL KILL KILL Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines; Crimes Against Humanity vs. Rodrigo Duterte Et. Al.” Dahil mainit ngayon ang balita na maaring dakpin si Gongdi, inilabas ko ang ilang halaw. Pakibasa at limiin ang malaking panganib sa bansa ng madugo pero bigong war on drugs ni Gongdi.

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.” (Itutuloy)