Ruth Anne B.

Galera
2AA

There is a popular saying which goes, History repeats itself.

During the time of the late former President Marcos, the Philippines was
once the center of criticisms from around the world due to the killings
and enforced disappearances from political activists. In the present, the
Philippines has once again caught the attention of the whole world due
to the allegations of extrajudicial killings which emanates from our
current President Rodrigo Dutertes declaration of war against drugs.
According to an article written by one Christian Pangilinan, more
recently during the administration of President Arroyo onward, from
2001 to the present, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances
reemerged in Philippine public consciousness as a drastic rise in their
number was reported.

My stand in the current controversy that the Philippines is facing

in the present based on the allegations of extrajudicial killings is against
the latter. As a student studying law, and as an aspiring lawyer, I strongly
believe that every persons must conform with the constitutional
mandate which guarantees every individual their right to due process of
law, and furthermore, observe and practice the generally accepted
principles of international law in which the country (used to)
advocate/s. It is the very back bone, the very framework of our country
as a democratic state to bestow and enforce upon the people who
possesses the sovereignty in the land, their constitutional right, and as
well as every persons inherent rights known as human rights.

I.

Introduction

As evident as it is, hearings here and there are being conducted;

Investigations regarding the alleged extrajudicial killings are being
enforced, as the number of reported deaths allegedly emerging from the
presidents war on drugs has significantly been alarming not only the
Filipino people, but as well the members of the international
community. People are divided and are continuously debating as to
whether President Dutertes means is necessary or should be stopped as
the latter has consistently been vocal of his support on on site killings by
the police force, while others continue to support and trust the president
despite the controversies that arise from his leadership.

According to Pangilinan (2014), although the government has

publicly denounced such killings, elements of the government have also
repeatedly argued that extrajudicial killings should also comprise
killings by non-state actorsspecifically those by rebel groups. This has
led to a dispute over how the State and civil society should define
extrajudicial killings. Pangilinan (2014) continued to argue that efforts
against extrajudicial killings should rely on a definition of such killings
as acts that are attributable to the State. He went on further to state that
such

definition

would

be

consistent

with

principles

of

state

responsibility under international human rights law. Guaranteeing

human rights requires that acts of the State be treated distinctly from
those of non-State actors. Moreover, treating acts by States distinct from
those not by States serves the important practical purpose of facilitating
prosecution by allowing for remedies that are tailored for state acts. As
an illustration, this article draws on the jurisprudence of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights to propose that victims or their
representatives be able to obtain civil redress under an altered burden of
proof. (Pangilinan 2014).

Before delving into more about the alleged extrajudicial killings

here in our country and my stand, it is important to understand why

certain people who understand the concept of rights that individuals are
entitled to, are against these unlawful and inhumane killings, and a way
to understand this to know what rights are people entitled to, and where
these rights emanates from.

II.

The Philippines as a Democratic State

Ever since the establishment of the Republic of the Philippines

whereby the Filipino citizens have gained what used to be a life long
battle for freedom and independence from several countries who have
conquered us in the past, democracy has since been the system of our
government. A key feature that characterizes a democratic state is the
power that is vested in its people. In facts our Constitution begins with
the assertion that The Philippines is a democratic and republican State.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.

As a democratic state, our Constitution guarantees its citizens

certain individual rights which are stipulated in Article III (Bill of Rights)
of its fundamental charter. As pointed out by Aquino (2006), the bill of
rights is but a roster of constitutional provisions that are primarily
limitations on the government, declaring that the rights exist without
any government grant that may not be taken away by the government
and that the government has the duty to protect. Furthermore, it is the
charter which embodies the liberties of a person and the limitations
upon the power of the state.

Among these rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights in our

Constitution is the provision which entitles every person due process of
law. The Philippine Constitution guarantees that every person is entitled
to due process of law as reflected in Section 1 Article III to wit, No

person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process

of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
In fact, the Constitution provided this section for the sole purpose of
vesting upon its people rights that cannot be violated or taken away by
the government. Farlex legal dictionary defines due process of law as a
fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be
fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an
opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's
life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall
not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.

It goes hand in hand with the rights of every accused, that is, to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty. Under the same article of the
Constitution which provides In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy
the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusations against him, to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. This is very consistent with the
Constitutional provision which entitles every person to due process of
law. Accusation of a commission of an offense is not equivalent to guilt
which is why an accused is given an opportunity to be heard during trial
so that if he is not guilty of the crime being alleged, he should not be
made to suffer for the penalties which corresponds to the offense being
charged against him for the basis of penalties and punishment is for the
guilty, and not the innocent. And until proven otherwise, an accused or
even merely a suspect, should not be deprived of his life and liberty by
the government.

As Chief Acosta (2014) have put it, a person who is accused of

violating any of the provisions of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as

the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, enjoys the same

presumption of innocence. He may not be held immediately liable for
the crime imputed to him. Rather, proper investigation will be made and
a trial will ensue before the court if probable cause is found. The accused
may only be made criminally liable therefor if the prosecution has
established by clear and convincing evidence that the accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt (Acosta, Philippine Law Journal,2014).

II.

History of Extrajudical Killings in the Philippines

The Marcos Era

On 21 September 1972, Marcos declared martial law to save the
republic and reform our society. A biography of the president
justified

martial

law

by

saying

that

the

society,

by

its

unresponsiveness to popular needs, had lost the right to exist.

(Department of Public Information 1975, 150). To aid Marcos
accomplish this, he launched an immense militarization campaign.
Reports reflected that military membership grew from 55,000 in 1972
to 250,000 in 1984, and its budget ballooned from P 608 million in
1972 to $ 8.8 billion in 1984. Military personnel, especially his Ilocano
friends, where appointed to various posts in government and civilian
bureaucracy (Nepomuceno-Francisco and Arriola 1987, 177). The
presidents former military driver, the loyal Ilocano General Fabian
C. Ver, was eventually appointed as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines. The military were given a free hand in
implementing peace and order (Hamilton-Patterson 1998, 177, 301).

Although he justified martial law as a necessary response to armed

Communist rebels, his assumption of emergency powers was also a
systemic assault against his political opponents and the press as well
as the beginning of an intensified counterinsurgency campaign

against various rebel groups (Christian Pangilinan, The Philippine

Law Journal, Volume 86, No. 4, July 2012).

Despite the prima facie peace and order attributed because of the
Martial Law and the modernization of the military and police,
beyond censored television and broadcasting, lies the dark forces of
Martial Law. Every now and then, people would now and then say
that there were horrible things happening inside the camps.
President Marcos denied them at first but when they become too
many he said they were only isolated cases, and dismissed them as
aberrations (Aquino 1984, 2000, 88-89). Marcoss political
opponents were murdered, disappeared, and/or tortured on a vast
scalea practice that would intensify even after martial law was
officially lifted. Targets included farmers, students, lawyers,
journalists, tribal leaders, and academics. The practice of salvaging
became

particularly

widespread.

Salvaging

refers

to

the

disappearance and summary execution of accused subversives by the

military with their bodies left where they will eventually be found.
(Christian Pangilinan, The Philippine Law Journal, Volume 86, No. 4,
July 2012).
The listings by Ninoy Aquino and Primitivo Mijares (Aquino 1984,
2000, 89-105, 110-113; Mijares 1976, 276-324) gives the names and
faces to the different techniques of torture. Aside from deadly
weapons, unassuming everyday items like water, pliers, thumb tacks,
ball pens, flat iron were used to create constant and enduring pain
that even time can hardly heal:
i.

Electric Shock
One of the frequently used techniques. Usually, the

electric wires were attached to fingers and the genitalia of the

victim, as inflicted on Charlie Revilla Palma and Wilfredo
Hilao. Sometimes, wires were attached to the arms and the
head, just like what happened to Romeo Tolio. Other victims

were Reynaldo Guillermo, Alejandro Arellano, Victor Quinto,

Pedro de Guzman, Jr., Reynaldo Rodriguez, Julius Giron,
Armando Teng, Santiago Alonzo, Romeo Bayle and Agaton
Topacio.
ii.

San Juanico Bridge

The victim lies between two beds and if his/her body

falls or sags, the victim will be beaten. This was just one of the
many tortures inflicted on Jos Lacaba and Bonifacio Ilagan.
iii.

Truth Serum
Administered at the V. Luna General Hospital. It made

Jos Lacaba talk drunkenly. It was also administered to

Victor Quinto.
iv.

Russian Roulette
The victim is forced to aim a revolver with a bullet at

his/her own head and then pull the trigger. This was used to
further terrify Rev. Cesar Taguba and Carlos Centenera while
being subjected to other tortures.
v.

Beating
Another favorite technique where a group of soldiers

would beat with fists, kicks and karate blows manacled

victims. Almost all those who were tortured where subjected
to thisbeating, among them Julius Giron, Macario Tiu,
Eugenio Magpantay, Joseph Gatus, Rev. Cesar Taguba,
Reynaldo Guillermo, Alejandro Arellano, Charley Palma,
Victor Quinto, Pedro de Guzman, Jr., Reynaldo Rodriguez,
Ma. Cristina Verzola, Julius Giron, Armando Teng, Romeo
Bayle, Agaton Topacio, Reynaldo Ilao and Ramon Casiple.
vi.

Pistol-Whipping

Beating with rifle butts; one of the techniques endured

by Reynaldo Guillermo, Roberto Sunga, Joseph Gatus and
Nathan Quimpo.
vii.

Water Cure
Another favorite technique. Huge amounts of water

would be forced through into the victims mouth, and by

beating would be forced out. This was applied to Guillermo
Ponce de Leon, Alfonso Abzagado and Andrew Ocampo.
viii.

Strangulation
Done by hand, electric wire and steel bar to Carlos

Centenera, and for two months his speech was impaired.

Others who claimed to be strangulated were Willie Tatanis,
Juan Villegas and Reynaldo Rodriguez.
ix.

Cigar Burns
Bonus you would get under torture. Received by

Marcelino Tolam, Jr., Philip Limjoco, Charley Palma, Ma.

Cristina Verzola and Reynaldo Rodriguez.
x.

Flat Iron burns

Despite being old in his fifties, Cenon Sembranos foot was

heated with a flat iron. His foot became swollen and infected.
xi.

Pepper Torture

Meynardo Espeletas bonus was a concentrated peppery

substance placed on his lips and genitals.
xii.

Animal Treatment

Victims are manacled and caged like beasts. For three

days, Leandro Manalo was caged inside a toilet handcuffed and
blindfolded. Because of the experience he got viral hepatitis. For
long periods of time, manacles were not removed from
Alexander Arevalo, Manuel Daez, Marcelo Gallarin, Romualdo

Inductivo, Faustino Samonte and Rodolfo Macasalabang, even

if they ate, discharged their waste, took baths or slept. Food was
given to them as if they were dogs, shoved under the iron
grilles. And they ate without even knowing what the food was
because there were no lights in their cell. Inductivo, despite his
old age, was mercilessly slapped and electrocuted under torture.
Rev. Cesar Taguba was made to drink his urine. And Monico
Atienza, in his nakedness was threatened to be fed to dogs.
(Aquino 1984, 2000, 89-105, 110-113; Mijares 1976, 276-324).

The Marcos regime was one of the dark times in the history of the
Philippines and has yet been the occasion whereby most human rights
violation has been accounted for. One can just imagine the brutality, the
inhumanity that the victims have gone through, the unbearable,
unimaginable torture that was inflicted upon the people who protested
and those were against the late President Marcos, and it is not a wonder
at all as to why so many Filipinos, not only the victims and the family
members of the latter, but as well as the youth and young adults of this
generation, protested against the burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani
for the reason that it is hard to consider someone a hero who was the
reason as to why people were slaughtered inhumanely, like animals.
Even figuratively, or metaphorically, or even in any way, it is hard to
swallow that someone without a heart be even called a hero.

Post Marcos Times: The Aquino Arroyo Period

According to Kessler (1989), international groups, such as Amnesty

International and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, issued
reports in 1988 that suggested that the human rights situation (under
the Aquino regime) was at least as bad as it had been under Marcos
(Tiglao, 2016, The Manila Times). Human rights violations, which has

always been a problem in the Philippines, did not cease with

democracys return during the late former president, Cory Aquino
(Rebellion and Repression in the Philippines 1989,Yale University).
In 1987, Aquino declared a total war against the NPA, against
which the CAFGUs were released. CAFGUs distributed hit lists of
intended targets of violence, warning victims that they would be killed if
they did not cease political activities, and engaged in the actual murders
of the victims. Victims of extrajudicial killings included human rights
activists, lawyers, members of the Church, and others. Aside from the
CAFGUS,

elite

intelligence

units

allegedly

engaged

in

covert

assassinations(Pangilinan, 2012, Philippine Law Journal Vol.86no.4).

The Hacienda Luisita case was one of the most controversial issues
that marked Cory Aquinos regime as this was one the times that
extrajudicial killings and human rights violations were accounted for.
The alleged violations in Hacienda Luisita were presented by the
Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) during the recently concluded
International Peoples Tribunal (IPT) held in Washington DC, where
Aquino was found "guilty of gross and systematic violations of human
rights,(Tupaz, 2015). Furthermore, according to Kessler (1989), there
were three times more arrests per year under Cory than under Marcos,
to wit: 3,627 against 1,960. The average of those killed and disappeared
during Corys watch was 244 annually, which isnt too far from Marcos
296 (Kessler, 1989).
The former president, Fidel Ramos, somehow improved the
alarming issues on extrajudicial killings and human rights violations in
the country, although the same may have continued. The government
did, however, reach a framework for peace negotiations with the
Communist Party or National Democratic Front, decriminalized
membership

in

the

Communist

Party,

and

entered

into

Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and

International Humanitarian Law (CARHIHRL) with the CPP-NDF

(Pangilinan, 2012).
This, however, ended somewhat briskly upon Gloria Arroyos
assumption of presidency. Quoting Pangilinan (2012), Outside Metro
Manila, extrajudicial killings dramatically rose in number. According to
one estimate, the number of cases of extrajudicial killings in the country,
excluding journalists, tripled in 2005 and 2006, rising to 63 and 68
respectively from 22 in 2004.
It is to be noted however, that former president Arroyo was never
directly linked to the extrajudicial killings. Nevertheless, the Arroyo
administration introduced positive developments with regard the
extrajudicial killings. Extrajudicial killings, excluding killings of
journalists, declined in 2007 and after, and furthermore, the period also
saw the finding of the governments independent Melo Commission,
that the government was responsible for extrajudicial killings and the
Supreme Courts effort to address extrajudicial killings through the
promulgation of the new writs of amparo and habeas data(Pangilinan,
2012). In addition, the Arroyo period saw the passage of the Philippine
Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and
Other Crimes Against Humanity and the Anti-Torture Act. Moreover,
during the last few years of the administration, the countrys
Commission on Human Rights took a more active role in investigation
human rights violations (Philippine Law Journal, 2012, Volume 86).
However, the positiveness with the measures implemented fell
short once again during the 2010 massacre in Maguindanao province
which killed 58 people by gunmen connected to a political family allied
with her administration. This has severely damaged Arroyos reputation
on human rights, as did continuing criticism from the Special
Rapporteur and human rights groups concerning the effectiveness of the
administrations measures (Human Rights Watch, 2010).

III.

President Rodrigo Dutertes Present Regime

The 2016 Presidential Election has been the most controversial
yet, in the history of the Philippine election. Millions of Filipinos
rallied here and there to express their support for the
presidential candidate bet, and Filipinos were very much vocal
on social media, and as well as on surveys. Citizens of the
Philippines longed for a president who would inspire change in
the country and amongst the Filipinos as reflected in the result
of the last election held whereby Presidents Dutertes lead
among his other contenders was sweepingly high. Many were
swept off their feet with the Presidents countless promises of
eradicating crime through the extermination of drugs.
As of December 12 in this same year, there are 3, 671 reports
on unexplained killings, 2886 number of deaths under
investigation. The United Nations, Human Rights advocates,
and other nations have expressed their concern with regard to
the rising number of unexplained killings allegedly linked to
President Dutertes war on drugs. The latter however, has
remained steadfast to his pact that he shall eradicate crime in
the Philippines through measures necessary, even if deaths
amongst its people will be put at stake.

IV.

Conclusion

The Philippine Constitution was crafted in way that leans towards

the welfare of its people, for after all, its people is what it considers
sovereign in the land. In fact, the Bill of Rights, the chapter which
exclusively enumerates the rights of the people against the government,
serves as a proof that indeed, the rights of the people are supreme and

serves a high purpose that cannot be violated in any way by anyone from
the government.
The permission granted by President Duterte to shoot or kill when
necessary among the police force is but a reckless move that as a
consequence, endangered the lives of the nations constituents, and
risked as well the inherent rights of the people to be violated. In a span of
months since President Duterte assumed his presidency, countless
deaths had been accounted, and worst, even innocent people have lost
their lives due to vigilantes and mistaken identities. Thousands of
people have died, thousands of families have lost a loved one, all
because such persons were suspected of being linked to illegal drugs.
These people have died all because of a mere suspicion which may never
be proved. Whatever happened to the Constitutions guarantee of
providing due process to every person; What happened to the mandate
that a person shall be considered innocent until proven otherwise. All
the hard work and intellect and humanity that is embodied in the
Constitution, crafted by the forefathers of this Land, is now but an
illusion, a broken promise, a beautiful dream or fantasy that now,
citizens cannot invoke nor enjoy in their favor.
People suspected of being linked to crimes must be given their
right to be heard, the right to present pieces of evidence that may prove
their innocence if so. Killings without due process of law must be
forsaken. People accused of having committed a crime must be given an
opportunity to be afforded their rights enumerated in the Constitution.
We fellow people, must not take the law into our own hands for such act
is not a right that we possess.
Truly, justice can never be achieved when the means taken would
only do further injustice.

HUMAN
RIGHTS
LAW
POSITION PAPER:
Extrajudicial Killings in the
Philippines
Submitted to:
Dean Feble
Submitted by:
Ruth Anne Galera
2-AA
Date Sumbitted:

December 15, 3026