Anti-Drugs or Anti-Poor: A Waging War in the Philippines

by Fredric Lean Ajesta, Nachelle Therese Baylon, Nelle June Centina, and Novi Mari Noble

As a result of the May 2016 presidential elections, the notorious Mayor of Davao,

Rodrigo Duterte, celebrated his victorious win with a crowd of frisky, banner-clad supporters.

Duterte confirmed his campaign promise to eradicate illegal drugs within six months and ‘fatten

the fish of Manila Bay with the corpses of criminals.’ He was quoted saying, “We will not stop

until the last drug lord and the last pusher have surrendered or put behind bars or below the

ground, if they so wish” (Iyengar, 2016). He also gave a “shoot-to-kill” order against the drug

suspects and guaranteed the immunity of the soldiers and police from prosecution (Aljazeera,

2016). After the campaign was enacted, there was an increase of news reports regarding it.

This includes the disclosure of government officials and political families involve in the drug

trade, the number of suspects being arrested, and the human rights violation said to be

committed by the law enforcers.

Duterte’s triumph saw him capture 39% of the popular vote: a landslide in terms of the

pluriform multi-party electoral system in the country. The Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte

has gained quite a reputation in both national and international sphere due to his controversial

war against drugs. Duterte’s foul-mouthed and unapologetic hardline campaign that had

promised to restore law and order and wage a ‘bloody war on drugs’ had gained traction with

many voters who had become increasingly fearful of the seemingly ever-growing social

problems in the Philippines. Duterte launched his campaign in a climate of fear about rising

crime and drug use across the country and vowed to ‘clean up the streets’ with brutal

crackdowns on government corruption, rising crime and drug peddlers. Duterte’s macho

rhetoric was well received with voters and he was already renowned for his unorthodox

methods of ‘ruling with an iron fist in return for social peace and personal security’ during his 28

years as mayor of Davao. With his explicit calls for police to kill drug users and dealers and the

vigilante purges Duterte ordered of neighborhoods, almost 9000 people accused of drug dealing

or drug use were killed in the Philippines in the first year of his government – about one third

by police in anti-drug operations according to a study by Reuters. Although portrayed as self-

defense shootings, these acknowledged police killings are widely believed to be planned and

staged, with security cameras and street lights unplugged, and drugs and guns planted on the

victim after the shooting. According to the interviews and an unpublished report an intelligence
officer shared with Reuters, the police are paid about 10,000 pesos for each killing of a drug

suspect as well as other accused criminals. The monetary awards for each killing are alleged to

rise to 20,000 pesos for a street pusher, 50,000 pesos for a member of a neighborhood council,

one million pesos for distributors, retailers, and wholesalers, and five million for “drug lords.”

Under pressure from higher-up authorities and top officials, local police officers and members of

neighborhood councils draw up lists of drug suspects. Lacking any kind transparency,

accountability, and vetting, these so-called “watch lists” end up as de facto hit lists.

Another Reuters investigation later revealed that police officers were killing some 97 percent of

drug suspects during police raids, an extraordinarily high number and one that many times

surpasses accountable police practices. That is hardly surprising, as police officers are not paid

any cash rewards for merely arresting suspects. Both police officers and members of

neighborhood councils are afraid not to participate in the killing policies, fearing that if they fail

to comply they will be put on the kill lists themselves. Although EJKs are not a new

phenomenon in the Philippines, the openly state-sponsored and brazen nature of the killings

demonstrate a break from what would previously have been secretly organized, clandestine

operations.

It has been more than 30 years since the reinstatement of democracy in the Philippines.

Yet, despite the efforts of multiple activists in the three decades succeeding the 1987 Peoples

Power Revolution, human rights have not progressed or developed to the acceptable,

internationally-recognized standard that the Philippines pledged to achieve when they became

signatories to the United Nations Rome Statute. There has instead been an identifiable

retraction of human rights values at the national and local level, physically embodied by relative

public indifference to the drug-related EJK’s. There is seemingly a new narrative winning the

war of words: that ‘human rights’ are a threat to progress, and an impediment when it comes

to eradicating crime and reforming society. The point is commonly made that not only are

illegal drugs and all those involved in the drugs trade a threat to security, but so as well are the

HR defenders who seek to promote the universality of human rights.

Human rights abuses in the Philippines are not a new and emerging issue. From the era

of the Marcos dictatorship up until the present day, there have been HR violations, forced

disappearances, and killings. However, the unique mix of a dramatic rise in the number of EJKs,

the complicity of the wider public, and the discrediting of HR NGOs and their counter-narrative

fight-back, all make what is currently happening in the Philippines an intriguing case worthy of
deeper study. This research paper in particular seeks to answer the effect the Philippine war on

drugs has had on individuals who live in impoverished conditions. Whether or not the current

administration’s campaign alleviates or exacerbates their plight.

“Why are drugs still able to get into this country? [The authorities are] going after the twigs and

the leaves, but leaving the roots and trunk. So the tree will still be there.”

— Marilou Batucan, mother of 8-year-old San Niño, killed as a bystander in December 2016

The victims of extrajudicial executions—carried out both by police officers and unknown

armed persons— come overwhelmingly from the most impoverished segments of society. The

police often add insult to injury by stealing from families as they work a crime scene and by

running a racket with funeral homes that increases costs on grieving families, who at times are

forced to borrow money to receive the body for burial. Several local human rights activists

claimed if anything is to derail the popularity of President Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, it is the

growing realization that poor, small-time users and dealers are being hit in a way that major

drug lords and traffickers are not.

The vast majority of the victims of drug-related killings reside in the Philippines’ poorest

urban neighborhoods. In an ABS-CBN review of 50 drug-related killings, “Almost all of the

victims were poor” and “lived in the slums and outskirts of the provinces.” The death often puts

families in an even more precarious financial position and leaves many relatives embittered, as

they see authorities overwhelmingly target the poor. Family members of drug-related killings

often linked their loved one’s involvement in the drug trade to poverty and a lack of job

opportunities. Ethnographic research and media reports present a similar picture of small-scale

sellers scraping by a living, and of people who use shabu often employing it as a means to

stave off hunger or to stay awake and work longer hours.

Below are some stories of extrajudicial killings related to the administration's war-on-drugs:

1. Unlawful police killing of Gener Rodina

At 2 a.m. on 25 November, a loud knock woke the household of 38-year-old Gener

Rondina. Those at home peeked through the window and saw a large gathering of police

officers surrounding the house in Cebu City. Gener removed the wall air-conditioning unit and

tried to escape, but quickly returned inside when police shone a flashlight on him. A witness

claimed that Gener then began yelling that he would surrender.

 “The police kept pounding, [and] when they got in he was shouting, ‘I will surrender, I

will surrender, sir,’” the witness recalled less than two weeks later. The police ordered Gener to

lie down on the floor; a witness said Gener kneeled and raised his arms behind his head.

Another person in the house was ordered out of the room. Soon after, the witness heard

gunshots.

Relatives said Gener was using and selling drugs, though he had been trying to stop

both activities. “When he was using, he was very thin,” one family member said. “When he

stopped, he started to gain weight again. He was slowly starting to stop selling [too], but he

was waiting for money to be remitted from his buyers. He wanted to stop.”

His difficulty in stopping, particularly selling drugs, may have been aggravated by

corrupt police officers. A family member asked Gener to surrender, but he felt it was

unnecessary, saying, “Why would I when the police just keep making money out of me?”

Several weeks before he was killed, a family member heard that Gener had been seen with

police; when confronted about it, he said he had paid off a police officer.

Police allege Gener fought back. Family members said he did not own a gun, and the

witness indicated it was inconceivable, after he was already kneeling and pleading for mercy,

that he could have somehow resisted. “The room is just [a couple meters] wide, [and] there

were so many officers they couldn’t fit, some were on the stairs,” the witness claimed. “He was

squeezed between cabinets beside him, the bed, the AC unit. His hands were raised, he

couldn’t go anywhere. He was really frightened. I find it hard to accept he resisted arrest.”

Sometime after he was killed, police read out a search warrant; a person present saw

them record video as they did, saying it was to have proof. “What’s the point?” the person

asked. “He’s dead.” Eventually, a police officer asked a colleague for help in removing Gener’s

body. A witness recalled them “carrying him like a pig” and then placing his body near a sewer

before eventually loading it into a vehicle.

When family members were allowed back in the house six hours after Gener’s death,

they described seeing blood splattered everywhere. Valuables including a laptop, watch, and

money were also missing, and, according to family members, had not been accounted for by

police in the official inventory of the crime scene.

Gener’s father, Generoso, served in the police force for 24 years before retiring in 2009.

He claimed that he was “ashamed” of his son’s drug use and prior record for “snatching.” He

also professed support for the government’s anti-drug efforts. “But what they did was too

much,” he said. “Why kill someone who had already surrendered?”

 2. Barangay Captain Prolly Bolo – Killed By Unknown Armed Persons

On 7 September 2016, 42-year-old Barangay Captain Prolly Bolo, a father of five

children, was killed in broad daylight by unknown armed persons while drinking with friends at

his Caloocan City junk shop. Several witnesses claimed that a police patrol vehicle pulled up at

the location not long after 3 p.m.; Bolo approached the vehicle and spoke with the police. Less

than 10 minutes later—a timeline confirmed by CCTV footage, which shows the full incident—a

friend watched as four armed persons, wearing helmets and face masks, arrived on two

motorcycles. “Prolly shouted, ‘We’re not your enemies!’” the friend recalled. “The first assailant

was close. Prolly was holding his hands up. Two shots hit him,” killing Bolo instantly, as the

shooters left.

Several family members believed strongly that the police patrol vehicle was a lookout, to

ensure Bolo was at the designated place when the unknown armed persons arrived. They also

pointed to CCTV footage showing the killers near a local police station before and after the

killing. “If this was just a gun for hire, you wouldn’t walk this near to the police station,” one

relative said. “The one who is responsible for this is the police.”

Relatives said Bolo had a contentious relationship with the local police. One recalled Bolo

saying, not long before he was killed, “Why should I give them lists when the police know who

the addicts and pushers are, but they let these people go because they give [the police]

money?” His wife similarly remembered how, several weeks before he was killed, they saw on

the news a story about another barangay captain being killed: “[Prolly] said he’d just spoken

with him. He shook his head and said the lives of the barangay captains are in danger—we

don’t know who the real enemies are, the police or the drug traders.”

3. Killing of 8-year-old San Niño Batucan

At around 8 p.m. on Saturday, 3 December 2016, 8-year-old San Niño Batucan was lying

down on the floor of his family’s small wooden shack in Consolacion, a town northeast of Cebu

City. Outside, his father Wilson, a village tanod, or security officer, prepared to go to the

barangay hall. He saw a man, who he and other witnesses claim is a known police “asset,”

talking on the phone some 10 meters from the Batucan’s house. The man said, “Your target is

already here.”

As Wilson walked down the road, four masked men arrived on two motorcycles. They

continued up the street, passing a house at the end where a man—their intended target—was

leaning against a post. As the “asset” realized the masked men had driven past their target, “he

called them and … said, ‘That’s the guy, the guy in red,’” Wilson . “The guy realized they were
looking for him and ran.” The assailants pursued the target and opened fire. As the target

zigzagged near the Batucan home, they missed.

“I went inside the house. My son said, ‘Dad, I’m wounded,’” Wilson recalled. “I opened

his shirt, and I saw the bullet hole, it had passed through to the other side of his stomach. I

carried my son outside, and I shouted, ‘Your operation is a flop! My son is shot!’” Wilson

flagged down a motorbike driver and asked him to take them to the hospital. The first hospital

could not provide the treatment required, so Wilson loaded his son into an ambulance that

transported them to another hospital. “My son was saying it was very painful. He was still

breathing when I brought him off the ambulance … but when he was laid [down] on the

operating table, his eyes weren’t moving anymore. The doctors tried to resuscitate him,” before

telling Wilson there was nothing they could do. “I cried and cried,” he said.

Wilson and his wife Marilou, who also witnessed the incident, were both adamant that

the shooters were actually police officers. They cited the collaboration with a known police

“asset.” They also said the assailants wore bulletproof vests, which Wilson said was unheard of

for hired killers there—an opinion echoed by local activists and journalists. Finally, Wilson said

the police never conducted a proper investigation; he carried around the .45 calibre shell that

killed his son, and wondered why police had neither found it nor returned to interview him.

According to media reports, the police denied it was their operation. But, credible sources

claimed, that the police at times carry out drug-related killings while disguised as unknown

armed persons. The operation’s target, who Wilson said police have called a drug financier,

escaped. “They should have just arrested him,” he said. “There were four of them—why didn’t

they just arrest him?”

San Niño was the thirteenth of the family’s fifteen children. He often helped his mother

Marilou in the small outdoor stall where they sold goods. “He would approach customers and

ask what they wanted,” Wilson recalled. “Each time my wife would buy merchandise in the

market, he would help [set it up]. We can’t accept that he is dead. He had so many friends,”

she said. “When he died, there were so many of his playmates [that came].”

The family plans to pursue a complaint, once they can pay for burial costs. Marilou

blamed the government’s violent anti-drug campaign for San Niño’s death, saying, “The

President is responsible for my son’s death. I don’t like the way he is running his government. I

am one of his victims.”

 4. Shooting of Kian Delos Santos

At around 8:00 p.m on August 16, 2017, officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP)

led by PO3 Arnel Oares, were conducting a "one-time, big-time" anti-illegal drugs operation in

Barangay 160, Caloocan where Delos Santos lived. During the anti-drug operation, Delos Santos

went missing for almost an hour, which prompted his family to look for him at the nearest

police station but failed to find him there. Several gunshots were then heard.

At 8:57 p.m., C/Insp. Amor Cerillo and another police officer, both in plainclothes,

arrived at the hall of Barangay 160 to report a supposed shootout. In a muddy and dark alley

near his house, which was the site of the alleged encounter, Delos Santos was found in fetal

position with gunshot wounds to his head. Recovered from his corpse were a .45-caliber pistol,

four cartridges, and two sachets of suspected methamphetamine.

According to the official police report, at around 8:45 p.m, Delos Santos tried to flee

when he noticed the police officers approaching him. He then drew his gun and "directly shot"

towards the police, which prompted PO3 Arnel Oares to fire back in self-defense, killing Delos

Santos. The pistol, cartridges, and two sachets of methamphetamine were then found in Delos

Santos's possession.

According to Cerillo and Bersaluna, a drug dealer that they earlier arrested claimed that

Delos Santos was the mule of "Neneng" Escopino, a local drug dealer on the police watch list.

On the other hand, witnesses claim that Delos Santos was just loitering near his house at

around 8:00 p.m., when two unidentified men grabbed him and led him away. The

barangay's CCTV footage of the incident shows that at 8:24 p.m., a young man believed to be

Delos Santos was being dragged by two men in plainclothes towards the area where his corpse

would be later found. The video also showed a third man that headed towards the same

direction. Cerillo confirmed that the two men in the video were plainclothes police officers. He

also clarified that the person being dragged was not Delos Santos, but rather a police asset.

Bersaluna and Cirillo also clarified that police officers are not required to wear their uniforms

during anti-illegal drugs operations.

Two witnesses who claimed that Delos Santos was blindfolded by the two men and

forced to hold a gun, fire it, and run. Another witness claimed that Delos Santos begged for his

life before getting shot. Afterwards, the shooters approached the witness and asked him if he

knew the victim, which he denied. The witness later confirmed that the men who were filmed

inside the barangay hall reporting the alleged shootout were the same men who shot Delos

Santos.
 A 13-year-old witness claimed that she saw Delos Santos being punched and slapped by

four armed plainclothes officers before he was dragged away. Delos Santos's uncle, Randy,

questioned the police claim that the victim had a concealed firearm, since his nephew was

wearing boxers at that time. Delos Santos's father, Saldy, also pointed out that the pistol was

recovered from the left hand of his otherwise right-handed son.

The Philippine authorities are bound by international and domestic obligations, which

among other things protect the right to life of all persons as well as their right to fair trial and

the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health.

The Philippines is a state party to several human rights treaties, among them the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits the arbitrary

deprivation of life and guarantees the right to a fair trial. It is also a party to the International

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which protects the right to enjoy

the highest attainable standard of health.

In accordance with international law, the Philippine authorities are obligated to:

 Respect and protect the right to life at all times;

 End incitement to violence against people suspected of using or selling drugs

immediately;

 Investigate all killings which may be unlawful, including suspected extrajudicial

executions, and provide adequate protection from harassment and reprisals for

witnesses and complainants;

 Bring to justice those responsible for unlawful killings; and

 Provide remedy and redress to victims.

Under the ICCPR, the right to life is non-derogable, that is, cannot be restricted even “in time of

public emergency which threatens the life of a nation.” The right to life must be protected by

law, and no one should be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. The UN Human Rights

Committee speaks of the right to life as the “supreme right” and has called on states parties to

“take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to

prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The law must strictly control and limit the

circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life.”

 For anyone charged with a criminal offence, the ICCPR also enshrines the right “to a fair

and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law,” with

the presumption of innocence. In addition, states parties must “ensure that any person whose

rights or freedoms are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the

violation has been committed by persons acting in official capacity.”

The Special Rapporteur on the right to health has emphasized that an “individual’s use

of drugs cannot constitute grounds for curtailing her/his rights, irrespective of whether she or

he has a recognized dependence syndrome or whether the applicable drug control regime

allows for imprisonment or other sanctions.” The UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has

stressed that “individuals who use drugs do not forfeit their human rights.”

In an article written by Jamaine Punzalan in ABS-CBN News, the United Nations panel

asked Philippines to stop drug war’s discriminatory impact on the poor. The United Nations

Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights pressed the Duterte administration to

counter the discriminatory impact of its anti-narcotics drive on poor and marginalized

communities. The ABS-CBN Investigative and Research Group’s monitoring shows that 2,209

people have been killed in connection with the ongoing war on drugs, between May 10 and

October 11 of 2017. In a public statement, President Rodrigo Duterte promised that 100,000

people would die in his war on crime with so many bodies dumped in Manila Bay that the fish

would grow fat from feeding on them. He even offered bounties to policemen and civilians who

kill drug suspects, and has spent much time telling off the United Nations, the Commission on

Human Rights, the United States and the European Union for raising concern over the drug

crackdown. This explicit and candid statements coming from the Chief Executive of the country

shows his strong disregard of human rights and due process.

As the years progressed the body count grows on Duterte’s war on drugs, as stated in

the Human Rights Watch in its World Report of 2018, over 12,000 drug suspects were killed,

mostly from poor families in urban centers across the country. One of the many cases of extra-

judicial killings was the death of Kian Delos Santos, the 17-year old boy, who died in an anti-

drug operation on August 16, 2017, the police claimed that Kian was a drug courier.

This incident is an epitome of the brutal process of eliminating drugs and drug-related

crimes in the Philippines and its discriminatory nature against the poor. President Duterte

himself said that killing the poor who get quick money from selling drugs is necessary in

destroying the “apparatus”. Besides, he added, it does not make sense for people who have
money to get involved in street-level drug peddling. Majority of the drug-related mass killings

belong to poor families and it creates an impression that poor drug suspects are killed while the

rich ones are spared and subjected to trial, this statement is backed by a private pollster Social

Weather States survey, they asked over a thousand Filipinos if they agree rich drug suspects

get to live while the poor die. Sixty percent agreed with the statement and 23 percent

disagreed.

Another earlier notorious death involving Duterte’s war on drugs is the death of Ronaldo

Morales, a garbage hauler during a police operation in Quezon City however, the 46-year-old

father of three was not the target of the buy-bust operation carried out by the narcotics agents

from the Batasan Hills station of the Quezon City Police District. The target was in fact, Jerry

Baldosa, his brother-in-law who live next door but the police identified Ronaldo Morales as a

“cohort” who was with Baldosa on the evening of December 6, 2016 during the said operation.

The police report said that during the operation, the two sensed the presence of cops and fired

the officers, who returned the fire, killing both of them. After the death of Morales and Baldosa

outside their homes, police officers said they recovered three sachets of suspected shabu from

both the deceased. Rowena Morales, Ronaldo’s widow, was told that her husband was killed

during a police operation. She said that on the night of her husband’s death, he stepped out of

the house, wearing and relieved himself in a nearby creek. Right before 10pm, police barged

into their house and aimed their firearms at them. After that, she left the house and went

looking for her husband whom she later found at a hospital morgue and had been shot once

through the mouth with the bullet exiting through the back of his head. Clearly, there was no

police operation. One of the many concerns in buy-bust operations or arrests of suspected drug

users and dealers is the planting of evidence by law enforcers and the grave neglect of legal

procedures in properly conducting buy-bust operations and arrests.

In several cases, courts are not even keen in trying drug cases and not all drug related

incidents reached the court. Many law enforcers have been resulting to planting of evidence in

order to perpetrate their targets. Peter Bouckaert, emergencies Director at Human Rights watch

and author of License to Kill said, “Our investigation into the Philippine drug war found that

police routinely kill drug suspects in cold blood and then cover up their crime by planting drugs

and guns at the scene”. President Duterte sees drugs as the enemy as well as those who give

life to it by producing and selling them and those who consume them. What people usually do

with their enemies is to eliminate them, and for President Duterte, this is the most effective way
of eliminating drugs all together and he’s been vocal about in several occasions. On September

30 of 2016, he said “Hitler massacred three million Jews. Now, there are three million drug

addicts. I’d be happy to slaughter them. If Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have

(me).” Also, on August 6, 2016 he said that “My order is shoot to kill you. I don’t care about

human rights, you better believe me.” He is a leader with capabilities but is using them wrong.

Obstruction of justice gives zero respect to the law and the Constitution nor the selective

application of his policy on the war on drugs. The real question, however, is, who is responsible

for all these, since the government failed to arrest—let alone— prosecute a single police officer

for their role in any of the war-on-drugs killings? In a report written by Peter Bouckaert, it was

stated that there are several legal grounds for which Duterte and his chief subordinates could

be held criminally liable in the Philippines or by a court abroad. There are no evidence

whatsoever showing that Duterte took part in any plans nor ordering extrajudicial killings.

However, Duterte’s repeated calls for killings as part of his anti-drug campaign could constitute

acts instigating law enforcement to commit the crime of murder. His statements encouraging

vigilantes among the general population to commit violence against suspected drug users could

constitute incitement to violence. Furthermore, the doctrine of command or superior

responsibility imposes criminal liability on officials for the unlawful acts of subordinates, where

the superior knew or had reason to know of the unlawful acts and failed to prevent or punish

those acts. His public comments such as those abovementioned are evidence that he knows

about them.

Finally, the president, senior officials, and others implicated in unlawful killings could be

held liable for crimes against humanity, which are serious offenses committed as part of a

widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population. The numerous and seemingly

organized deadly attacks on the publicly targeted group of drug suspects could amount to

crimes against humanity as defined by the International Criminal Court, to which the Philippines

is a party. The National Bureau of Investigation and Ombudsman’s Office should impartially

investigate the killings and seek prosecutions of all those responsible. Congress should hold

extensive hearings on the issue and adopt measures to prevent further killings.

The “War on Drugs” has been the top priority of our government ever since Duterte sat

on position. In 2017, statistics tell us that the highest number of cases filed in courts is a

staggering amount of 70,706. All of these cases are drug-related cases. Back in 2009, the
average was only 9,000 drug-related cases, way behind estafa, theft, and bouncing checks.

Now, these three are tens of thousands of cases away from drug-related cases. This is

understandable because the president did say that he was going to eradicate drug-related

criminals and illegal acts. By the end of 2017, nearly 300,000 drug-related cases were filed in

court.

The effectivity of this war on drugs, however, is a different matter. A normal citizen

would think that the huge number of cases filed in court means that the the government is

making great progress on solving this problem. In 2016, out of the 68,659 cases, 2,186 were

acquitted, 2,617 were dismissed, and only 2,241 were convicted. Similar numbers appear in the

following year.

We come to a question why the conviction rate is quite low. The government’s approach

to this “War on Drugs” has quite been unreasonable and questionable. Reckless searches, raids,

unwarranted arrests, everything out of personal speculation of the persons in authority which

amounted to weakening the strength of each case, and to make it worse, when civilians take

the law into their own hands and punish “possible” drug-related criminals.

In the midst of this process, it has left Filipinos with a sting in their hearts fearing of

their safety in the hands of the government and their fellow citizens. The victims of the “War on

Drugs” have almost always been poor. This is coincidentally opposite to the promise of the

president to protect the welfare of those in poverty. Poor urban areas are most often the target

of police operations regarding illegal drugs. This raised the suspicion on such areas when it

came to the trafficking and use of illegal drugs, such is why most of the victims and casualties

of the “War on Drugs” are poor people.

The president, his inauguration speech, said something very grim which left poor

Filipinos in great fear because of its effects. “if you know any addicts, go ahead and kill them”

said the president. This war has taken lives and rendered human rights inutile. Not only are the

poor arrested out of suspicion or from the president’s infamous drug criminal list, they are also

being killed not just by the police, but also by civilians.

This portion of society need their rights to be protected now more than ever because of

the effects of the war on drugs. The right to due process, their rights against unreasonable

searches and seizures, against arrests, and most importantly, their right to life. Criminal law

tells us that for one to be deemed a criminal, it should be proven that such persons are guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. Application of the law is not selective. It applies to all persons

regardless of their social status. Each of us deserve our rights uplifted and protected.

Criminal laws are construed and interpreted in favor of the accused and strictly against

the state, but by the events rampaging in our country, it appears that the “War on Drugs”

shoved it down our throats, and now we’re choking with injustice.

In the case of People of the Philippines vs Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez and Jhunrel

Sulogaol y Datu, GR. No. 205787, the accused are acquitted from violations of the Dangerous

Drugs law for the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The

court said that “this much is clear and needs no debate: the blunders committed by the police

officers relative to the procedure in Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165, especially on the highly irregular

manner by which the seized items were handled, generates serious doubt on the integrity and

evidentiary value of the items. Considering that the seized items constitute the corpus delicti of

the offenses charged, the prosecution should have proven with moral certainty that the items

confiscated during the buy-bust operation were actually those presented before the RTC during

the hearing. In other words, it must be unwaveringly established that the dangerous drug

presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the

first place.105 Under the principle that penal laws are strictly construed against the

government, stringent compliance with Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR is fully justified. The

breaches in the procedure provided in Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165 committed by the police officers,

and left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt

beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants as the integrity and evidentiary value of the

corpus delicti had been compromised.” The prosecution was not able to show that they

overcame the presumption of innocence which the accused enjoy, prove the corpus delicti of

the crime, establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, and any other

explanation to prove why sections of the Dangerous Drugs Act were not complied with.

In the case of People of the Philippines vs Felimon Pagaduan y Tamayo, the court said

“we are not unmindful of the pernicious effects of drugs in our society; they are lingering

maladies that destroy families and relationships, and engender crimes. The Court is one with all

the agencies concerned in pursuing an intensive and unrelenting campaign against this social

dilemma. Regardless of how much we want to curb this menace, we cannot disregard the

protection provided by the Constitution, most particularly the presumption of innocence

bestowed on the appellant. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient

to produce moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in

judgment, is indispensable to overcome this constitutional presumption. If the prosecution has

not proved, in the first place, all the elements of the crime charged, which in this case is the

corpus delicti, then the appellant deserves no less than an acquittal.”

People of the Philippines vs Marilou Hilario y Diana and Lalaine Guadayao y Royo shows

that the accused were acquitted of illegal sale in the dangerous drugs act because the the

prosecution failed to prove the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This was made

possible because of the negligence of the police in their duty to properly conduct reasonable

seizures and disregarded the rights of the accused.

In another case in Taclooban city, three persons were acquitted because of the failure of

the police to follow proper procedures in conducting search and seizures of illegal drug. The

police were not able to provide for physical evidence of the drugs in the presence of the

accused, counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any

elected public official.

In People of the Philippines vs Salim Ismael y Radang GR. No. 208093, the accused was

charged of possessing the illegal drug of Shabu. He was, however, acquitted based on

reasonable doubt as the prosecution was unable to establish an unbroken chain of custody and

provide for reasons on why proper search and seizures were not conducted in apprehending the

accused.

There are many cases in which the accused are allegedly drug users, owners, pushers,

and lords, and are acquitted because of the failure of the police to conduct the proper methods

of apprehending these drug suspects.

In the midst of the drug war, these suspects were almost always victims of improperly

conducted police operations. They are lucky if they do not get killed extra judicially in the

process. The proper authority for these operations are disregarding the rights of the citizens in

several aspects.

In perspective, if the authorities continue doing this, the damage that they deal to those

in poverty is catastrophic because they have less in life and because of that, they have
insufficient protection. Most of them may not realize that their rights are being abused and

therefore, they are easy targets and casualties in the eyes of the War on Drugs.

Reports tell us that in most cases of the drug war, victims are more likely to be killed

extra judicially than to have their rights defended in court. This way this war has been

approached not only caused inconvenience and casualties, but also installed fear in the minds

of those experiencing poverty and realizing that their relatives and neighbors are not safe from

the arms of the police and vigilantes.

From the annual statistics and reports, we learn that the accused in drug cases are more

likely to be acquitted or have the case dismissed than to have them convicted. People should

not lose trust in our courts, but rather encourage the police to do their jobs properly. The

justice system in the drug war is imbalanced not because of the disposition of drug cases, it is

because of the approach of the police and civilians on this war. A rushed method of operations

and taking the law into our own hands is never the solution for a problem like this. Our rights

exist for a reason, and the government, of all entities, should be protecting them and providing

diligent due process of law, not encourage its constituents with violent manners of contacting

suspected drug persons.

The police and the government are here as protectors, providers, and peace keepers of

civilians, especially for those in who have less in life and need more in society. The law is their

guide to keep themselves in check and not step out of their authority. It provides substance to

our rights and keep us safe from threats of the unjust. The war on drugs has proven itself to be

an enemy of the poor. It has made vulnerable prey and targets of them in the process of it all.