|
A grieving woman embraces the lifeless body of her loved one, a victim
of vigilante killing in the Philippines. Photo: Thomson
Reuters
 hilippine President Duterte’s promise on 5 August 2016 to maintain a “shoot to kill” order
in his crackdown on crime is a clear violation of the fundamental human
right to life and could lead to further killings in the country.
In a further
statement, two days later, President Duterte claimed that policemen or
soldiers would not be held accountable for conducting such so-called
‘duties.’ This is a deeply alarming call given the rapid rise in
killings in the Philippines.1 Amnesty International strongly opposes
such measures, which will further exacerbate the culture of impunity
amongst law enforcement officials for human rights violations in the
Philippines.
Since 30 June, the day
President Duterte took office, reports have documented that hundreds of
individuals across the country have been unlawfully killed by police and
vigilantes as part of a ‘war on crime’. Some of these killings, as
reported, clearly amounted to extrajudicial executions. The killings
follow a campaign in which the President identified the sale and use of
illegal drugs as one of the main problems of the country.
These latest
statements by President Duterte give law enforcement agencies
unrestricted powers to continue further killings, which affects the most
marginalized sectors of the population, including people who use drugs.
Under international
human rights law, including treaties which legally bind the Philippines,
the right to life is non-derogable. It cannot be restricted even in
times of crisis. International standards, which guide states on how to
respect this right while protecting order and the lives of individuals,
require law enforcement officials to “as far as possible, apply
non-violent means before resorting to the use of force”.2 Where the use
of force is unavoidable, they must “exercise restraint in such use and
act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate
objective to be achieved”, minimize damage and injury and “ensure that
assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected
persons at the earliest possible moment”.3
Additionally,
international standards also emphasize the importance of proportionality
in judging whether the use of force is legitimate and strictly
unavoidable, in order to protect life.4 With the exception of
circumstances of extreme, immediate danger, law enforcement officials
must identify themselves as such and “give a clear warning of their
intent to use firearms, with sufficient time for the warning to be
observed”.5
Whenever unlawful use
of force is suspected, in particular where such force has led to injury
or death, prompt, impartial and effective investigations must take
place. Where sufficient, admissible evidence is found, individuals
suspected of responsibility, including those with command
responsibility, must face justice in fair proceedings, and victims and
survivors must be offered reparation. All relevant officials must at all
times be held accountable for their actions through a transparent system
of investigatory and judicial proceedings, without the promise of
protective immunity or amnesties.
Apart from police
killings, many killings appear to have been perpetrated by vigilantes or
unknown hitmen. The State has a duty to protect people from all forms of
violence, including an obligation of due diligence to prevent or to
promptly, independently and impartially investigate such killings and
bring perpetrators to justice.
Amnesty International
is also concerned that the practice of public naming and shaming of
individuals, in a climate where anyone can kill anyone in the name of
the “war on crime,” is highly dangerous and will not only contribute to
unlawful killings, but increased lawlessness, with “punishment” being
meted out in the absence of legal authority, cogent evidence and fair
legal procedures.
The open accusation of
named officials including judges, members of Congress, police and
military officers of being involved in the drug trade, without providing
sufficient evidence or due process to substantiate these allegations is
deeply troubling.
To date, seven judges
have been identified by the President as being linked to illegal drugs.
However, according to a statement by the Chief Justice Maria Lourdes
P.A. Sereno made this week, of these seven judges, one was killed in
2008, one judge was compulsorily retired in June 2016, one was
dishonorably discharged in 2007 and has therefore not been part of the
judiciary for nine years, whereas several other judges were said to have
only heard few and marginal drug cases. In response, President Duterte
mentioned the possibility of declaring martial law if the judiciary
attempted to stop his campaign.
Background
During his leadership
campaign and since becoming President, President Duterte has repeatedly
and publicly made commitments to stamp out drug crime, calling on law
enforcement agencies “to double your efforts…triple them if need be…we
will not stop until the last drug lord, last financier and last pusher
have surrendered or put behind bars or below the ground if they so
wish”.
Since his election
victory on May 10 and inauguration on 30 June 2016, the number killings
by police and unknown hitmen throughout the Philippines has risen
rapidly.
Counter-narcotic
operations and other law enforcement practices based on the use of force
and militarization as a means of reducing crime and controlling
addiction have proven to be counterproductive. In turn, such policies
have increased levels of violence, intimidation and corruption usually
associated with drug markets.
Repressive and
punitive drug policies have exacerbated discriminatory practices against
people who use drugs. The actual or suspected use of drugs cannot
constitute grounds for violating the rights of individuals, irrespective
whether the applicable drug control regime allows for imprisonment or
other sanctions.
Published
8/12/2016
_________
1 Credible reports have
documented a rapid increase in killings, including the Philippine Daily
Inquirer: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/794598/kill-list-drugs-duterte
and ABS-CBN: http://news.abs-cbn.com/specials/map-charts-the-death-toll-of-the-war-on-drugs.
In an interview on 5 August 2016, the President vowed “this campaign
(of) shoot-to-kill will remain until the last day of my term”. During a
televised address on 7 August 2016, the President listed the names of
judges, military, police, lawmakers and local officials that he claimed
were linked to the sale and distribution of illicit drugs. He also
pledged that policemen and soldiers “will never go to prison. Not under
my watch,” as they crackdown on people suspected to be involved in the
illicit drug trade.
2 Principle 4 of the
Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement
Officials (UN Basic Principles), adopted by the Eighth United Nations
Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders,
Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990.
3 UN Basic Principles,
Principle 5.
4 Principle 9 of the
Basic Principles states that “officials shall not use firearms against
persons except in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent
threat of death or serious injury” or to prevent “a particularly serious
crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such
a danger” and “only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve
these objectives”. The Principle continues: “In any event, intentional
lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable to
protect life”.
5 UN Basic Principles,
Principle 10. |
