case study about human rights in the philippines

• NEW: Arizona Recognizes John McCain Democracy Week August 25–31, 2024
• Newsletter Signup
• Impact Report
• Board of Trustees
• Fellowships
• Junior Fellows
• Junior Fellowships
• Courage Awards
• In The Arena Awards
• Leadership Programs

Democracy Programs

• Human Rights & Freedom Program
• Forum Supporters & Partners
• Past Participants
• Past Forums
• McCain Alumni Club
• Membership Programs
• Legacy Giving
• Senator McCain On The Issues
• John McCain Democracy Week
• McCain Blog
• All Reports
• All Podcasts

Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law in the Philippines: Making the Case

BY THE DEMOCRACY & HUMAN RIGHTS WORKING GROUP*

The Philippines and the United States share a long, deep, and broad relationship which began in the late 1800’s, but grew with the U.S. recognition of the Philippines as an independent state in 1946. The two countries have strong military ties, with the Philippines — and its population of more than 100 million people – in a formal military alliance with the U.S. since 1952 and the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid and equipment. The U.S. military has long had access to bases in the Philippines, even after its pull out from Subic Bay in 1992. A recent agreement was reached on proposition of equipment and rotational deployments of the U.S. military at Philippine bases, including near the contested South China Sea. The two countries have an extensive economic relationship, with over $25 billion in goods and services traded each year. The United States is the Philippines’ third largest trading partner, as well as one of its largest investors. In terms of people-to-people ties, an estimated four million U.S. citizens of Philippine ancestry live in the United States, and over 220,000 U.S. citizens live in the Philippines. The two countries share a range of interests, from stemming China’s influence in the region to collaborating on anti-terrorism operations. Maintaining a continuing commitment to democracy and human rights should also feature prominently on the agenda.

Like any developing country, however, the Philippines has its share of challenges, including corruption and impunity, disappearances and arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, an inefficient court system, a media culture that is vibrant but which sometimes self-censors and is prone to corporate and political interests, and open, competitive elections that are tainted by intimidation and political violence. While there has been some progress in bringing peace to Mindanao, which has been rocked by violence from Muslim rebel groups for years, other smaller groups of militants, as well as a 48-year-old Communist insurgency, remain a problem.

However, with the election of President Rodrigo Duterte in May 2016 and his call for a “war on drugs,” the stunning increase in the number of people killed by the Philippines National Police and unidentified gunmen has raised serious questions about the country’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law. According to a March 1, 2017 report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) entitled “License to Kill,” over 7,000 people have been killed as part of this anti-drug campaign. While Duterte has indicated his campaign is targeted at “drug lords” and “drug users,” HRW found that many of those killed are the urban poor living in impoverished areas, and that in some cases evidence is being planted after the suspects are killed. During the presidential campaign, Duterte declared, “If by chance that God will place me there, watch out because the 1,000 [people reportedly executed while Duterte was mayor of Davao City] will become 100,000. You will see the fish in Manila Bay getting fat. That is where I will dump you.” On June 30, 2016, he stated, “If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself as getting their parents to do it would be too painful.” These words and the actions that are resulting from them are of grave concern and have caused serious harm to many families of victims and to the country’s image. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) decided in December 2016 not to re-select the Philippines as eligible for a second MCC compact, citing “concerns around rule of law and civil liberties.”

Further, opponents of Duterte’s campaign are being harassed and intimidated. As chair of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Senator Leila de Lima conducted an investigation into the killings related to the “war on drugs” in August 2016. Previously when she served as chair of the Commission on Human Rights, de Lima investigated the Davao Death Squad, when Duterte was mayor of Davao City. In September 2016, Duterte’s allies in the House of Representatives held a hearing where criminals and accused drug lords were offered immunity in exchange for testifying that de Lima was bribed with drug money, and she was stripped of her chairmanship. On February 24, 2017, Senator de Lima was arrested and detained on the same charges. Other critics of the president’s policies have received threats as well.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The relationship between the United States and the Philippines is strong, and it is important for both countries that it remain so. Recommendations for the U.S. administration on working with the Philippines on democracy, rule of law, and human rights include:

• Calling for an end to extrajudicial killings and a full and independent review of President Duterte’s policy for dealing with the war on drugs.
• Cutting U.S. assistance and training to the Philippines police given evidence of their complicity in extrajudicial killings, and prohibiting licenses for sales or transfers of US manufactured weapons to the police, or buyers known to supply them.
• Encouraging MCC not to reinstate the Philippines’ compact eligibility until concerns surrounding human rights and the rule of law are addressed.
• Withholding any invitation to President Duterte for a bilateral visit to the United States amid serious questions related to the killings surrounding his anti-drug campaign.
• Meeting at senior U.S. government levels with Philippine human rights defenders, opposition leaders, and civil society activists.
• Maintaining current levels of U.S. assistance for programs that focus on transparency, independent accountability, health, rule of law, and support for human rights defenders, civil society, and independent media outlets.
• Increasing legislative exchanges between the United States and the Philippines as a means of supporting and strengthening the independence of the Philippines’ legislative bodies and rule of law.
• Encouraging Philippines government officials to redirect attention toward health-oriented counter-narcotics programming and promoting such programming by refocusing existing U.S. counter-narcotics funding for the Philippines, for instance the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs funds, away from law enforcement and instead toward health-oriented and civilian-run drug treatment and prevention programs until police complicity in extrajudicial killings is addressed. However, it is important to maintain U.S. support for drug interdiction efforts, as large quantities of ingredients are shipped from other countries, including China.
• Urging the military to uphold respect for the rule of law and human rights, while warning that arms sales, military cooperation, and financial assistance could be affected if the military’s commitment to these principles weakens.
• Emphasizing that the Philippines’ overtures to China and Russia should not come at the expense of the country’s strong relationship with the United States.

* The Democracy & Human Rights Working Group is a nonpartisan initiative bringing together academic and think tank experts and practitioners from NGOs and previous Democratic and Republican administrations, seeking to elevate the importance of democracy and human rights issues in U.S. foreign policy. It is convened by Arizona State University’s McCain Institute for International Leadership. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the positions of individual members of the group or of their organizations.

Publish Date

April 10, 2017.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Protecting Women’s Human Rights: A Case Study in the Philippines

Related Papers

Krissi Shaffina Twyla Rubin

The study traces feminist engagement with international law and examines the Philippine women’s movements’ engagement with the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, particularly its Optional Protocol (OP) mechanisms. Using the three Philippine OP CEDAW cases as benchmarks, the study examines the Philippines’ compliance with international women’s human rights jurisprudence and the constraints and challenges in their implementation in the current political context. Through a feminist perspective on international law, the study problematizes the reach and the limits of international women’s human rights jurisprudence and their potential in advancing women’s dreams of equality and gender justice.

Niki Johnson

In: Pause for Thought. Lessons Learnt and Ways Forward for Women's Human Rights Advocacy. Montevideo: GEO-ICAE, REPEM, 2006

Reinventing Legal Education

Lynn Welchman

Maria Plata

Danilo Mahilum Jr.

Health and Human Rights

Robert Lawrence

Dr. Danilo A Reyes

A working paper on the idea of human rights and how "rights" is understood in contemporary Filipino society. This paper was originally written for a law course in December 2011.

C. Blengino and A. Gascón (eds.), Epistemic Communities at the Boundaries of Law: Clinics as a Paradigm in the Revolution of Legal Education in the European Mediterranean Context

Jose A. García Saez

This text addresses issues related with the teaching of human rights not only as a specific course, but also as a cross-cutting theme of growing importance in contemporary law. Firstly, we will briefly go over some values and skills that one can work on in a legal clinic. Values and skills that through the clinical methodology one can work on with students in a much more effective manner than with traditional teaching methods. Finally, considering the low presence of legal clinics in a country like Spain and the need to promote and develop them, three possible routes to introduce this learning method in law curricula will be suggested.

Alma Luz BeltranyPuga

Australian Feminist Studies

Senthorun Raj

My review of Niamh Reilly's book on transnational feminist advocacy and activism: Women's Human Rights (2009).

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Diane Orentlicher

Sharmila Parmanand

Cynthia Soohoo

Ciara O'Connell

Retrieved online at http://www. cwg. rutgers. edu/ …

Samantha Frost

International Journal of Clinical Legal Education

Omoyemen Odigie-Emmanuel

Women's Human Rights

Professor Anne Hellum

Rama Ariadi

University of the Philippines Center for Integrative & Development Studies (UP CIDS)

Eduardo C . Tadem

Sonal Singh

International Human Rights of Women,

Niamh Reilly

Sofia Gruskin

James Orbinski , Sonal Singh

Vec Alporha , Meggan Evangelista

Yale Journal of International Law

Deena Hurwitz

Health and Human Rights:

People's Reporter

Vibhuti Patel

Kara Mae Noveda

Charlotte Bunch

International Human Rights of Women

Human Rights Quarterly

MARELLA ADA M BOLANOS

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository

• < Previous

Home > Faculty and Deans > Faculty Articles > 919

Protecting Women's Human Rights: A Case Study in the Philippines

Tamar Ezer , University of Miami School of Law Follow

Document Type

Publication date, recommended citation.

Tamar Ezer, Protecting Women's Human Rights: A Case Study in the Philippines , 18 Human Rights Brief 21 (2011).

Since September 30, 2020

Included in

Health Law and Policy Commons , Law and Society Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines
• UM Law Authors
• Law Library

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Human Rights Brief

Home > WCL Journals & Law Reviews > HRBRIEF > Vol. 18 > Iss. 3 (2011)

Protecting Women’s Human Rights: A Case Study in the Philippines

Tamar Ezer Arwen Joyce Priscila McCalley Neil Pacamalan

Recommended Citation

Ezer, Tamar, Arwen Joyce, Priscila McCalley, and Neil Pacamalan. "Protecting Women’s Human Rights: A Case Study in the Philippines." Human Rights Brief 18, no.3 (2011): 21-27.

Since November 10, 2011

Included in

Human Rights Law Commons , Law and Gender Commons

• About the Brief
• 2016-2019 Regional Coverage
• Our Website
• Submit Article
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Advanced Search

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Violence , Human Rights ,  and Democracy in the Philippines

Evidence-based research.

A multisectoral undertaking to produce, and subsequently disseminate, rigorous research outputs that can sustain an evidence-based intervention in ongoing public debates in the Philippines about violence and tendencies towards authoritarianism .

GROUNDED RESEARCH

We first want to address what exactly is happening in localities before asking the question why a phenomenon is happening in these localities.

Variation Across Localities

Elaborating on what explains variation among multiple cases might potentially constitute one of the most important innovative analytical insights to this project.

Multidisciplinary Approach

We do not favor one particular research methodology over another but instead adopt a multidisciplinary research approach.

COUNTRY-WIDE

Case studies.

The research introduces 11 case studies based on the deployment and experiences of violence in different localities across the country, as well as the creation of a database in counting the dead from Duterte’s war on drugs.

Segregating Lives, Recycling Violence: Examining the Local Dynamics of Rodrigo Duterte’s Drug War in Barangay Payatas

Abstract Using the experience of Barangay Payatas under Duterte’s drug war, the study examines the continuity of violence as it manifests in a local community and as against the backdrop of state formation, rejecting the notion that violence is distributed equally...

Struggling Women in the Face of Tokhang: A Feminist Action Research on the Women Victim-Survivors in Duterte’s Drug War in Bulacan

When Tokhang was implemented by Duterte, he [my husband] surrendered to the police. He underwent community-based rehabilitation and was eventually released. There were three policemen who went to our house, even though he already surrendered, the police still went to...

The War on Drugs, The Abra Story

Abstract The drug situation in the province of Abra has been the subject of vacillating narratives.From being reported as having the worst case in its region in July 2016, to being, albeitunofficially, declared as drug-free just six-months into the Duterte...

Tokhang in North Caloocan: Weaponizing Local Governance, Social Disarticulation, and Community Resistance

(This is an edited excerpt from a case study written by the author for the project, “Violence, Human Rights, and Democracy in the Philippines.” The project is a joint undertaking by the Third World Studies Center, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University...

Dissent and Its Consequences under the Duterte Administration: The Cebu Experience

Abstract Rampant repression and persecution, oftentimes violent, underscore the response of the Duterte administration towards dissidents. Documentation of these incidences, however, has hardly included narratives from the Visayas region. Centering on the province of...

The Subnational Dynamics of the War on Drugs: The Case of Iloilo City

Abstract Uncovering the factors contributing to the spike of violent law enforcement in the Duterteadministration requires a research that carefully combines both structural and contextuallevels of analysis. The study analyzes the subnational political dynamics of the...

Factors and Forces That Led to The Marawi Debacle

(This is an excerpt from a case study written by the author for the project, “Violence, Human Rights, and Democracy in the Philippines.” The project is a joint undertaking by the Third World Studies Center, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the...

The Manobo Community of Han-ayan: Enduring Continuities and Changes in Militarization

(On December 4, 2019 Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana was quoted in media reports that he is not recommending to President Rodrigo Duterte the extension of martial law in Mindanao. The original declaration was made by President Duterte on May 23, 2017 in response to...

Mirroring Duterte

by Karol Ilagan, Agatha Fabricante, and Christine Fabro | Case Studies, Mindanao (This is an excerpt from a case study written by the authors for the project, “Violence, Human Rights, and Democracy in the Philippines.” The project is a joint undertaking by the Third...

Politics of Prowess: (Re)animating Violence, Politics, and Democracy in a Philippine Political Frontier

Abstract The political development of Davao indicates a pattern of leadership marked by tough, unconventional, and high-handed authority. Politicians who exhibit this kind of leadership are recognized and voted to power. They utilize coercive forces and offer the...

Database of Drug-Related Deaths

This section details the experience of the researchers in developing the database in counting the dead, as well as the template, coding guide, etc. The files are free to download to promote our advocacy of documenting these violent deaths prone to erasure from the collective memory.

For updates, follow us @DahasPH on Twitter. 

COMPILED CASE STUDIES

Open access book.

This section shares the edited volume based on the case studies. The book and its chapters are free to download or share to promote our advocacy of sharing the results of evidence-based research to the public. All book chapters will be made available mid-2020.

Case studies

Presentation.

In the six years of the Duterte regime, a total of 442 politically-motivated EJKs happened under Duterte’s watch. This means that there is at least one victim of EJK per week in the six years of Duterte. The killings can be disaggregated as follows: 130 EJKs happened in Luzon; 119 happened in Visayas; and 193 happened in Mindanao.

In terms of organizational affiliation, a disproportionate number of victims were members of peasant organizations, often affiliated with the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP). Among these victims were farm workers under the National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW), as well as church workers who were assisting farmers’ organizations in their advocacies, such as Fr. Marcelito “Tito” Paez of the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines (RMP). Other church workers and religious were among those murdered throughout the five years.

Similar to the observation made by former United Nations Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Philip Alston in 2006, the modus operandi of the killings under the Duterte administration also involved motorcycle-riding assassins, often wearing bonnets to conceal their identities.

Assailants sometimes used unmarked motorcycles and passed off their activities as isolated cases of common crimes. Nevertheless, the pattern in the killings is clear, and the targets are often activists, members or leaders of activist, progressive or mass organizations, trade unions, workers’ or peasant associations, women’s or youth groups, or cultural/artistic activist groups.

Only months into the pandemic, activists and organization leaders who were already victims of red-tagging and state intimidation prior the public health emergency such as Carlito Badion of urban poor group Kadamay, Randall Echanis of the KMP and Anakpawis Partylist, as well as Zara Alvarez, a human rights worker in Panay were soon assassinated.

Randall “Ka Randy” Echanis

Zara alvarez, dandy miguel, the southern tagalog 9, abner esto, edward esto, melvin dasigao, mark lee bacasno, ana lemita-evangelista, ariel evangelista, puroy dela cruz, randy dela cruz, emmanuel ‘manny’ asuncion, trumped-up charges, nimfa lanzanas, dr. natividad castro, balingasag 7, teresita naul.

At the outset, these cases were already questionable for the following reasons:

• Non-Compliance of the Due Process. Naul was not officially and personally furnished copies of the Complaints as required by the rules. They were only able to know about these cases through the Karapatan – Caraga Chapter. Moreover, Naul was not named in the Complaint, and yet was subpoenaed by the Prosecutor.
• Wanting of factual basis in finding probable cause against the Accused. The complaints failed to establish the positive identities of Naul as being one of the perpetrators of crimes committed on December 19, 2018 at 3:00 in the morning, much less her slightest participation in therein.
• Physical Impossibility for Naul to be in two places at the same time. Naul submitted, along with her counter-affidavit, proof of her respective activities and location at the time of commission of the crime. Accordingly to the records, on December 19, 2018, Naul was brought to St Ignatius Hospital in Cagayan de Oro City to undergo laboratory examination to determine the causes of her bronchitis and asthma which she was experiencing in the days prior. Then on December 20, 2018, Naul was then brought to Polymedic General Hospital for further check-up. Yet the documentary evidence consisting of hospital records and other certifications were simply brushed aside by the prosecution.
• Wrong offense charged. Both complaints allege Naul and all the other Accused as members of the New Peoples’ Army – an armed rebel group associated with the Communist Party of the Philippines – and they allegedly committed the crimes of Arson, Kidnapping and Robbery on December 19, 2018 as such. Under Philippine case law, the acts or offenses committed by rebels are stripped of their “common” complexion and thus acquires the political character of the crime of Rebellion. Thus, the crime charged should have been only Rebellion and not the ordinary and separate crimes of Arson, Kidnapping and Robbery. The correctness of the crime allege would significantly change the nature and essence of the case(s).
• Falsus in Onus, Falsus in Omnibus. The complainants in these cases, who were members of the Philippine National Police and its auxiliary groups swore to tell the truth in stating their allegations and filing their complaints. One of their allegations included naming one human rights lawyer, Atty. Jose Begil and Vicente Libona as part of the raiding team on the eve of December 19, 2018.

In his counter-affidavit, Atty. Begil showed proof that he is a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing and that he is regularly appearing before the courts of law in Agusan and Surigao provinces, such that he could not have been one of the perpetrators of the crimes committed on December 19, 2018.

Libona, for his part, showed proof that he has been languishing in jail at the Misamis Oriental Provincial Jail for over ten (10) years now, and that there could have been no way for him to get out of prison only to commit another crime(s), much more in that part of Agusan del Sur, more than a hundred kilometers outside Misamis Oriental.

For these reasons, Atty. Begil and Libona were dismissed from the charges, along with eight (8) others.

This as a flaw in the complaints which thus presents a ground for their quashal as a falsity in one allegation makes everything else a falsity. The truthfulness of statements made by the complainants in their Judicial Affidavits of Complaint is debunked and discredited, thus raising serious doubts as to the certainty in their identification of the accused as perpetrators of the crimes alleged to have been committed. Hence, the complaints should be forthright dismissed.

After almost two years in detention, these cases against Naul and 16 others from Northern Mindanao Region were dismissed, for which reason Naul was released to freedom.

Associació Catalana per la Pau Via Laietana 16, 1r pis 08003 Barcelona Tel. (+34) 933 188 444 [email protected]

A project by

In collaboration with

With the support of

© 2023 Human Rights Philippines | Legal notice and privacy policy | Cookie Policy | Web Design: Croma

Privacy overview

• Corpus ID: 153596641

Protecting Women's Human Rights: A Case Study in the Philippines

• Tamar Ezer , A. Joyce , +1 author Neil Pacamalan
• Published 2011
• Law, Political Science
• THE HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF

2 Citations

The woman president, between danger and pleasure: rethinking the imperilled filipina migrant body in jose dalisay’s soledad’s sister, 23 references, the equal protection of the laws, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Share this via Facebook Share this via X Share this via WhatsApp Share this via Email Other ways to share Share this via LinkedIn Share this via Reddit Share this via Telegram Share this via Printer

Download the full report in English

Summary and Recommendations

Buod at Rekomendasyon

“Our Happy Family Is Gone”

Impact of the “War on Drugs” on Children in the Philippines

Jennifer M. drew this using pencil and crayon as part of her therapy  for the psychological distress she suffered after witnessing the killing of her father by police officers inside their Quezon City home in December 2016. © 2016 Kiri Dalena for Human Rights Watch

Thousands of people in the Philippines have been killed since President Rodrigo Duterte launched his “war on drugs” on June 30, 2016, the day he took office. Among those who died have been dozens of children under age 18 who were either specifically targeted or were inadvertently shot during anti-drug raids, what authorities have called “collateral damage.” Philippine children’s rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) put the total number of child fatalities at 101 from July 2016 through December 2018, both targeted and killed as bystanders. More deaths of children have been reported in the media in 2019 and 2020.

More broadly, official figures from the Philippine National Police and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency put the number of “drug war” casualties at 5,601 deaths as of January 31, 2020. In virtually every case, police claimed they killed a drug seller or user during a raid after the suspect resisted arrest and fought back. The national Commission on Human Rights and domestic human rights groups believe many thousands more – estimated at more than 27,000 – have been killed by the police, agents of the police, or unidentified assailants.

The overwhelming majority of these killings have not been properly investigated. According to the Philippine Department of Justice in January 2019, just 76 deaths have led to investigations. Even then, only 33 resulted in court cases and 5 were pending before the Office of the Prosecutor, while the prosecutor dismissed half – 38 cases. At time of writing, only one case – the killing of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos by three police officers in August 2017, which happened to be captured on video – has resulted in a trial and conviction.

Human Rights Watch also investigated the killings of adults in which police showed little to no regard for the safety and welfare of children, often conducting raids in the middle of the night while the entire family was at home. In many raids, children witnessed the killing of a parent, or were present while their parent was dragged away and shot.                                             

The harmful consequences for children of Duterte’s anti-drug campaign go beyond the immediate violence of the raids. Many suffer psychological distress after witnessing the killing of a loved one. Some children have had to leave their homes and community, either going into hiding or relocating because they and their family members feared for their lives.

At school and in their own communities, some experienced bullying because of the stigma of alleged drug use by a now deceased parent. Human Rights Watch met one 5-year-old boy who developed aggressive and violent behavior after his father’s gruesome killing. A number of children have stopped going to school because they no longer had enough money for transportation, food, and school supplies.

The loss of a parent who is the main breadwinner can plunge an already impoverished family into even more extreme poverty. Many children are left with no choice but to work, and some end up homeless and living in the streets, further exposing themselves to danger, violence, and criminal activity.

The Philippine government, apart from its refusal to effectively and impartially investigate the killings and its policy of detaining children in conflict with the law, has done little to address the needs of children directly affected by the anti-drug campaign. The Department of Social Welfare and Development, the main government agency responsible for the welfare of children, does not have a specific program directly aimed at addressing the needs of children affected by the “drug war.” Whatever assistance the department gives children and families is derived from existing programs, such as cash assistance for burial expenses or its conditional cash transfer program.

Families have been wary about approaching the government for help because they consider the police and other government officials to be responsible for the loss they have suffered. This leaves the children and their families left with only programs supported by civic and nongovernmental groups, particularly those from the Roman Catholic Church and a few Protestant and ecumenical groups. In some communities where violence is frequent, parish priests and lay workers have been leading the effort to help by providing psycho-social (mental health) support, economic assistance, support for children to attend school, and help in finding and supporting livelihoods for affected families. But as the killings continue, such voluntary efforts have been overwhelmed and are insufficient to address the needs of affected children.

Human Rights Watch believes governments should ensure respect for human rights in their policies and practices on the use, possession, production, and distribution of drugs. We oppose the criminalization of the personal use of drugs and the possession of drugs for personal use. To deter, prevent, and remedy the harmful use of drugs, governments should rely on non-penal regulatory and public health approaches that do not violate human rights. 

Human Rights Watch calls on the Philippine government to end its abusive anti-drug campaign and investigate and prosecute those responsible for killings and other human rights violations. The UN Human Rights Council should establish an independent international investigative mechanism into extrajudicial killings and other violations committed in the context of the “war on drugs” since June 2016. The families of victims of unlawful killings by government officials and their agents should be promptly and fairly compensated for their loss. Government agencies should address the dire needs of children whose breadwinner has been killed, especially those living in impoverished communities across the Philippines where the killings typically take place, and ensure the government adopts measures to protect affected children from abuse.   

Methodology

This report is based primarily on in-person interviews that Human Rights Watch carried out between March 2018 and February 2020 in Manila, Caloocan City, Quezon City, Cebu City, General Santos City, and Quezon province. In all, we interviewed 49 people – 10 children; 23 parents, relatives, or guardians of those children; and 16 individuals from nongovernmental organizations and government offices – to obtain information on 23 deaths in which the victim of a “drug war” killing left behind children. Several NGOs assisted in identifying cases and tracking down the families of victims. Human Rights Watch focused on incidents in which a child dependent was left behind and benefited from the assistance of community organizations working with children.

When possible, Human Rights Watch conducted the interviews in a private and safe setting, without the presence of others. Several interviews with children were done in the presence of a parent or guardian. In five cases in which the interview subjects agreed in advance, the interviews were conducted in front of a Human Rights Watch video crew. Interviews were conducted mainly in Tagalog but also in Visayan and English. The interviewees were not compensated but Human Rights Watch paid travel and food expenses when, for security reasons, we interviewed them some distance from their homes.

Except in cases already well publicized, the names of children, parents, and guardians in this report have been changed to protect their privacy and prevent possible retaliation.

I. Background

Since taking office on June 30, 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte has consistently delivered on his campaign promise to kill drug users and dealers. [1] In the four years since his inauguration, police have killed 5,601 persons in what authorities called “legitimate anti-drug operations” during which the suspects allegedly fought back ( nanlaban ), forcing police officers to shoot them. [2] This official death toll from the Philippine National Police (PNP) does not, however, include the thousands more across the country killed by unidentified gunmen, which the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) estimated to be more than 27,000. [3]

Research by Human Rights Watch and others has found many of these killings were perpetrated by law enforcement personnel in civilian clothes or members of so-called death squads working with the police or local government officials. [4] In many cases, the police have planted evidence such as drugs and weapons on bodies to justify their “nanlaban” claims. [5] In other cases, the police allegedly have outsourced the killings to armed vigilante groups. [6]

While the daily number of killings has declined somewhat since the carnage of the first year of the campaign in 2016-2017, killings still occur on a frequent basis. [7] In the early stages of the campaign, killings were concentrated in the cities comprising the sprawling Metro Manila area, with its vast impoverished neighborhoods where the drug raids usually occur. However, more recently, the violence has expanded to adjacent provinces such as Laguna, Cavite, and Bulacan. [8] The killings have also worsened in other urban areas, particularly in the central Philippine province of Cebu. [9]

President Duterte has sanctioned [10] and encouraged [11] the killings. In speech after speech, Duterte has ordered the police to kill drug suspects, and even to plant evidence during raids. [12] He has promised the police cash rewards and promotions for killing drug suspects. [13] Officials who have followed his orders have later secured plum positions in government, among them Ronald dela Rosa, his first Philippine National Police chief whom Duterte strongly supported in his ultimately successful run for a Senate seat in May 2019. [14] Duterte also promised police officers impunity for rights abuses, stating he would protect them, and ultimately pardon them, if ever they are convicted for enforcing his anti-drug policies. [15]

There has been virtually no accountability for killings associated with the “drug war.” At time of writing, police officers implicated in the killings have been convicted in only one case. [16] According to the Department of Justice, only 33 cases out of the 76 it investigated in 2018 have resulted in charges filed against police officers. [17] The PNP claims it has disciplined hundreds of police officers, but this claim is misleading because most of those are administrative cases, not criminal, and many involve infractions that are not related to the anti-drug campaign. [18]

Police have not only failed to investigate these deaths in an independent and impartial manner, but in some instances have actively frustrated other efforts to gather information on the killings. The CHR has complained the PNP routinely refuses to provide copies of police documents so that it can investigate cases, [19] prompting the CHR to seek a dialogue with the PNP. [20] Litigants in criminal cases filed against police officers have likewise been turned away by the PNP, forcing them to seek intervention by the Supreme Court, which ordered the police to turn over tens of thousands of documents in a 2019 ruling. [21] The police eventually gave documents to the litigants, who called them “rubbish because most of it were cases not related to the ‘drug war.’” [22] Journalists have likewise complained that police have ignored their requests for official police documents of drug raids, which are supposed to be public records. [23]

The administration itself has resisted calls for accountability. President Duterte launched a vilification campaign from the very beginning of his presidency against those who criticized the “drug war,” including those from international agencies and foreign countries. [24] His government attacked then-United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein for criticizing this vilification of critics campaign. [25] Duterte threatened to literally slap Agnes Callamard, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, for commenting on the killings. [26] In March 2018, Duterte ordered the withdrawal of the country from the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court after the court’s Office of the Prosecutor announced that it would launch a preliminary examination of the complaints filed against Duterte. [27] In June 2019, the government launched a sustained disinformation campaign against UN Human Rights Council members countries that were considering whether to pass a resolution critical of the human rights situation in the Philippines. [28]

Domestic civil society organizations and human rights defenders have likewise been targeted with threats by President Duterte, police, and other public officials. [29] Critics of the government have been accused of supporting communist rebels, an allegation that can prove fatal in the Philippines because of military, police, and vigilante violence. [30] In some cases, the government has brought inflammatory charges against activist groups, alleging illegal possession of firearms, for example, in actions apparently designed to harass, intimidate, and ultimately silence them. [31] The government’s Securities and Exchange Commission issued a memorandum in November 2018 tightening regulations on NGOs who receive funding from foreign governments or entities, an attempt to obstruct funding to organizations critical of the Duterte administration. [32]

The administration has also targeted the political opposition. [33] In February 2017, police arrested on fabricated charges Senator Leila de Lima,  who, at time of writing, remains in detention at the police headquarters in Quezon City. [34] De Lima had earlier launched a Senate investigation into the anti-drug campaign and, as a consequence, was subjected to harassment by Duterte and his allies in Congress – including many misogynistic verbal attacks [35]  – before being detained. [36] Government prosecutors eventually brought non-bailable charges of collusion with drug syndicates against de Lima while she was secretary of justice. [37]

When she was chairperson of the CHR from 2008 to 2010, de Lima was the first – and so far the only – public official who investigated Duterte for the death squad killings in Davao City, where Duterte was mayor for more than two decades. [38] Duterte vowed to destroy de Lima as a result of that investigation, calling her an “immoral woman.” [39]

Other political opposition figures, such as Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, also face various retaliatory legal cases as a result of their critical stance against the administration. [40] At time of writing, Trillanes is facing incitement to sedition and kidnapping charges. [41]

Journalists and media outlets who have reported critically on the “war on drugs” have also faced harassment both on social media and from the government. The government’s prime target in the media has been the news website Rappler, which has frequently reported critically on the anti-drug campaign, including groundbreaking reports on the involvement of the police in the killings. [42] Rappler’s owners, editors, and journalists face numerous legal cases, and police have arrested its editor, Maria Ressa. [43] Ressa has also been targeted by a withering demonization campaign on social media. [44]

In July 2019, the government ramped up its campaign against critics of the violence, accusing members of the political opposition, human rights advocates, and Catholic bishops and priests of incitement to sedition, among other charges. [45] The inclusion of religious figures among those accused signifies the government’s increased hostility toward the Catholic Church, and to church leaders and priests who have become increasingly vocal in their opposition to the violence. [46] Much of the church’s criticism springs from the experiences of priests in communities as they go about their ministerial work. [47]

The vast majority of the killings have occurred in impoverished communities, prompting accusations that, more than anything else, the “drug war” is a war against the poor. [48] In many cases, the victim has been the breadwinner for a low-income family and their death drives the family even deeper into poverty. “These people are often the most marginalized members of our society and the ‘drug war’ violence has marginalized them even more,” said Father Danilo Pilario, dean of the School of Theology at Saint Vincent’s College in Quezon City, who also runs the Project Support for Orphans and Widows (Project SOW) that provides assistance to victims of the violence. [49]

Father Pilario and other community-based priests, as well as human rights defenders, children’s rights advocates, parents and guardians, and children themselves have spoken of the dire consequences for children of the killings. [50] These include psychological distress caused by witnessing the violence, economic hardships that follow loss of a breadwinner, dislocation from their homes and schools, and, when they do go to school, bullying and discrimination. [51]

The government has developed no specific programs to address these issues. A former top official from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the main government agency mandated to care for children, told Human Rights Watch there has never been a single cabinet meeting under Duterte in which the effects of the “war on drugs” on children was discussed. [52] The official said that while some of the department’s existing assistance for indigent families can be applicable to affected families, such as assistance with burial expenses, the government has no program specifically aimed at addressing the needs of these children. [53]

As a result, families of “drug war” victims either receive no assistance or must seek what they can from NGOs and other civic institutions. [54] Increasingly, families have flocked to parishes whose priests have put in place interventions to provide financial assistance, vocational and livelihood support, psycho-social services such as counselling, and a safe space for them to tell their stories and share experiences with others who are sympathetic and face similar situations. [55] However, the government’s recent aggressive moves against members of the clergy, including the filing of criminal cases against some of the very same priests who help these children, threaten to take away the little help these children and their families are getting.

II. Killings of Children

On the evening of August 16, 2017, officers from the PNP dragged a teenage boy through the dark, filthy alleys of an impoverished community in Caloocan City, one of the cities that comprise Metro Manila. His body was found moments later, slumped in a corner next to a pigsty. [56] The victim was Kian delos Santos, 17, a Grade 11 student who had wanted to be a police officer one day. According to witnesses, the boy had pleaded to his assailants – one of whom held him by the neck—to stop hurting him because he had a school exam the next day. [57] They ignored his pleas and shot him three times while he was kneeling. [58]

The police maintained that delos Santos was killed in a firefight, that he was the first to fire at the police and was shot dead in the ensuing shootout. [59] This claim – like similar police nanlaban claims in many other “drug war” cases that the individual killed had been fighting back – was later debunked by witness testimony. [60]

While a number of children had died during earlier drug raids, delos Santos’s killing a year into Duterte’s anti-drug campaign was unique because of the discovery of CCTV footage showing the police officers dragging the boy through an alley that led to the spot where his body was found. Later, encouraged by the surfacing of the CCTV footage, witnesses – delos Santos’ neighbors – started to come out to testify.

“If not for the CCTV footage, the truth about my nephew’s death may not have been known and there never would have been a case against the policemen,” Randy delos Santos told Human Rights Watch. [61] Delos Santos, 43, realized there was a government-installed CCTV camera near the site of the killing, in a neighborhood called Barangay 160 in Caloocan City. He immediately asked village officials for a copy of the footage and, according to him, gave a copy to ABS-CBN, the country’s largest broadcast network. [62] He said police officers later asked village officials to delete the footage but were told that the boy’s family already had it. [63]

“What my neighbors told me about what they saw was exactly what was shown on the CCTV footage,” Delos Santos said. “It was like watching a movie being replayed.” [64]

“Kian was the sweetest and kindest boy,” his uncle said. “He was never in trouble and was never into drugs, contrary to what the police alleged.” The worst offense he had committed in school, he said, was cutting classes once. He thought that the raiding police team “used an informant during the raid and pointed at the wrong person.” [65]

More than a year later, on November 29, 2018, a Caloocan court found three police officers – Arnel Oares, Jeremias Pereda, and Jerwin Cruz – guilty of murder and sentenced them to a maximum of 40 years in prison without eligibility for parole. It was the first ever and so far, the only, criminal conviction of police officers for misconduct in the “war on drugs.” [66]

A number of the children killed had been targeted during drug raids like Kian delos Santos, but most have died simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time: they lived in the mainly impoverished communities police have typically raided in their anti-drug operations. [67] According to statistics from the Children’s Legal Rights and Development Center, nongovernmental groups that track the violence, 101 children were killed from the start of the campaign in July 2016 up through the end of 2018. [68] Several children have been killed from the beginning of 2019 up to 2020. [69] Government officials, including President Duterte, have dismissed the killing of these children as “collateral damage,” as if the anti-drug campaign were an actual armed conflict. [70]

“Drug war” killings continue to occur frequently. On the afternoon of January 27, 2020, Ronjhay Furio, an 8-year-old in Grade 3, was out in the street in Santa Ana, a Manila district to buy isaw, his favorite barbecued chicken snack, according to his relatives. [71] Four gunmen in civilian clothes and motorcycle helmets arrived riding two motorcycles about 200 meters from the boy’s house. One gunman fired a .45 caliber handgun at a group of village officials. The apparent target, councilor Roberto Cudal, 52, and another man were wounded; one bullet fatally struck Ronjhay in the abdomen across the street. “He was waiting for his food when the gunmen on motorcycles came,” said a relative. [72]

Human rights advocates helping the family of Ronjhay believe that this shooting was linked to the anti-drug campaign. But even if that was not the case, Human Rights Watch’s investigation showed how such killings can devastate a family. A relative spoke about how he was very gentle and kind to his parents and other siblings. He had already displayed a sense of responsibility around the house. After helping an uncle fix their jeepney (mini-bus) that day, he had become hungry and so fatefully decided to cross the street to buy some barbecued food. [73]

III. Psychological Distress

Children who have witnessed violence against their loved ones are among those seriously harmed by the “drug war.” [74] Human Rights Watch documented several cases in which children saw the killing of their family member or were in the house where the killing occurred. The effects on them have been profound.

Jennifer M.

Jennifer M., from Payatas, in Quezon City, was 12 years old  when her father was killed by police officers in December 2016. [75] Police, some in uniform and some in civilian clothes, entered their home and ordered all the children outside. They couldn’t pry Jennifer away from her father; she later said she was hugging him tight so that “they don’t harm him.” One of the officers finally managed to wrestle her away from her father and flung her to the ground outside. Shots rang out immediately, and seconds later, Jennifer saw her father dead on the floor. [76] Jennifer said she has nightmares since the killing, her hands often shake, she is easily startled by loud sounds, and she has become withdrawn and has difficulties eating. [77]

She said: “I was confused because I didn't understand why. Why my papa? Of all the people outside, why did they pick my father? I was angry at the policemen because my father was begging for mercy, but they didn't listen to him. That's why I was so angry.”

When asked about the killings that had become common in her community, Jennifer replied: “I can't explain it because with so many being killed here in Payatas, it's like your mind gets muddled. How else to talk about it? What goes through your mind when you remember what happened? It's like your mind is in disarray.”

Children of Renato A.

The children of Renato A., a scavenger killed in December 2016, in Mandaluyong City, has also experienced enduring psychological distress. Robert A., Renato’s eldest child, who was 15 at the time of the shooting, recalled the night his father was killed as he attended the wake of an aunt who had been shot three days earlier:

We were out to buy peanuts. My cousin and I saw four men riding two motorcycles without plate numbers, their faces covered, wearing jackets. I tried to chase them, I tried to get ahead of them. I did everything I could to reach my father first, but it was too late. I saw my father being shot. [78]

Robert said his younger brother John A., who was 13 at the time, witnessed the shooting and was wounded in the leg. Robert said of his brother:

John was more affected by my father’s death because ever since my father died, I don’t see him happy anymore. If I see him smile, it’s forced. He’s still looking for our father because he was my father’s favorite. He easily gets angry now and he lost trust in people. [79]

Karla A., the youngest child who was 10 at the time, also saw the killing, cowering in fear beneath her aunt’s coffin as the gunman fired at her father a few feet away. In tears, she told Human Rights Watch: “I was there when it happened, when my papa was shot. I saw everything, how my papa was shot. … Our happy family is gone. We don’t have anyone to call father now. We want to be with him, but we can’t anymore.” [80]

Their mother, Andrea A., said Karla was “always in a daze” after the killing:

“Sometimes, before we went to sleep, we would talk about her father, the happy things they did. Sometimes we talk about those and sometimes we would just cry. I would just tell them to go to sleep but the next day they were all still in a daze.” [81]

Children who did not directly witness the deaths of their parents also suffered. [82] Kyle R. was 5 years old when his father, Alvin R., a 39-year-old driver, turned up dead in November 2016. Unidentified assailants had wrapped his head had in packaging tape and stabbed him 19 times before dumping his body on an overpass in Tondo, an impoverished district in Manila. Kyle’s mother, Zeny R., tried to shield the boy from any news about what had happened to her husband, but Kyle learned about it from his friends. One time, Zeny said, Kyle saw his father’s picture being flashed on the TV news.

Zeny said that the boy’s demeanor has changed dramatically since then. He started behaving extremely aggressively and using foul words. During a visit in February 2019, Human Rights Watch saw Kyle pick up a skateboard and hit his mother repeatedly with it as he bounced about the living room shouting, “Putang ina mo! Putang ina mo!” – Tagalog for “your mother is a whore” – and flashing his middle finger. One time, she said, he threatened to kill a friend and wrap him with packaging tape. [83]

A crying Zeny told Human Rights Watch:

I don’t know what’s happening. I don’t know how this happened…. He misses his father a lot and he takes it out on me.

I fear [what will happen] when he grows up [because] he becomes so violent…. He might turn out like the other kids who have gone astray or might be jailed. That's what I fear.

Children of Julian R.

The six young children of Julian R., 22, who was killed by motorcycle-riding gunmen in June 2017, in Batasan, Quezon City, also had difficulty adjusting to his death. “They watch news every day and they see news about killings,” Julian’s mother, Julieta R., said. [84] “It is not easy to forget it.”

Children of Hamed U.

The children of Hamed U., 29, a carpenter in General Santos City, on the southern island of Mindanao, were so upset by his death by the police in March 2018, that they asked their grandfather to demolish a part of their house that had been his room. The children, according to their grandfather Abdul U., always became sad each time they saw the room, so he had it torn down. [85]

Psycho-social Programs Offered by NGOs and the Catholic Church

Social workers and experts consulted by Human Rights Watch believe the violence many of these children have experienced has created a mental health challenge for the Philippines. [86] However, the government has adopted no specific programs for children harmed by the “drug war” to address that challenge. None of the children or parents whom Human Rights Watch interviewed had ever seen social workers from the DSWD. The burden then falls on NGOs, like children’s rights groups, or Catholic parishes to provide psycho-social programs, such as counselling.

In Payatas, Quezon City, the parish’s Project SOW has specifically included counseling as key part of its work. Father Michael Sandaga, the priest of the Ina ng Lupang Pangako parish in Payatas who helped run the program, said 35 children ages 5 or older were enrolled in the program, which meets two Saturdays each month:

The psychological aspect of the program is being taken care by psychologists, among them the priest in charge for this program, a graduate of psychology. So, he is the one taking care of all the modules and then also assessments. And then for the spiritual program, we have our Bible sharing and the personal reflections of the parents. [87]

Father Sandaga said that, based on his observations since the program started in 2016, “it was always tragic for the children.” He recounted initial encounters with boys who had turned violent because of what happened to their parents, always quarreling and fighting with other kids. [88] The girls, he said, were very shy and are scared of strangers, including priests. Some of the children, he said, tended to isolate themselves, refusing to interact with other children. These, he said, were the “manifestation of the violence that they saw.”

IV. Bullying and Stigmatization

Several days after her father was killed during a police raid in December 2016, Jennifer M., whose case is detailed above (see Section III), was interviewed by a television network about what happened. The news report identified the girl, 12 at the time, and showed her face. Her account was impactful because, by then, the Duterte’s “drug war” had only been in effect a few months, with killings happening on a daily basis. The TV report, however, meant trouble for Jennifer. She told Human Rights Watch:

I went to school after [it was shown] and my classmate told me I was a show-off. I was embarrassed. Then the teachers were also asking why I was interviewed. Of course, I didn't know what to tell them because I'm embarrassed to tell them what had happened. I tried to brush it aside. Then one day, one my classmates asked why was my father subjected to tokhang . [89] Maybe my father was using illegal drugs, he said. I said no he didn't. Then he asked me to tell him what happened. I didn't want to. He said it must be true. He was bullying me by then. He said my father was an addict. I ignored him. But the other children told my siblings that my father was an addict, that's why he was killed. [90]

Jennifer told her mother, Malou M., about what happened but she did not make much of it at first. Then finally, the month after the killing, Jennifer decided to drop out of school. Malou was disappointed but recognized that her daughter was going through a rough time. She recalled:

They were judging her and saying a lot of things about her father. Then she told me, “Ma, I don't want to go to school anymore.” I asked her, “Why is that?” She told me what was happening to her in school. So, I said, “All right, if you don't want to go to school now, then don’t. There's still next year.” It was okay for me because I wasn't there, so I didn’t know how to help her. [91]

Siblings of Jasper F.

One of the siblings of Jasper F., a 15-year-old boy killed in Bagong Silang, Quezon City, in December 2016, also faced harassment by classmates in school. He dropped out of school as a result. [92] The boy, who was in fifth grade at the time of his brother’s killing, suffered taunting by friends, his grandmother, Aida F., told Human Rights Watch. “It’s a good thing your brother died,” one friend told him one day. [93]

Children of Luciano F.

Maila F., 13, the daughter of Luciano F., a 43-year-old drug user in Payatas, Quezon City, suffered bullying after her father was killed in June 2017. “She was being harassed and taunted all the time in school because her father was killed, because he was a user,” her grandmother, Josefa F,. said. [94] “She and her young brother were crying all the time.” Soon thereafter, Maila decided to stop going to school.

Children of Lee-Ann L.

Lee-Ann L., a mother of three children whose husband was killed in March 2017, said her two daughters had been bullied in their Quezon City school, prompting her to confront the mother of one of the bullies. Although her children managed to continue schooling in the same school, it had not been easy, she said. “They are now afraid to go to school or go home. I now have to fetch them every time,” Lee-Ann said. [95]

Severe Impacts of Bullying

Father Sandaga said he encountered many cases of bullying that forced children to drop out of school. It’s part of the stigmatization that comes with being identified as a drug user or, worse, targeted by the police. “So, a child doesn’t come to school anymore because he was being bullied and was being told that his father was a drug user. He was killed because he was an addict. So the child was being humiliated,” he said. “In this community, when you lose someone, when a member of your family is killed in a drug raid, no one comes to your house for the wake. No one goes to the wake because there was a stigma on the family. Usually, wakes here would go on for more a week, sometimes two weeks, but not anymore because nobody comes.” [96]

This bullying and stigmatization has had severe impacts on families, Father Sandaga said. [97] One family was forced to leave Payatas and go back to Bohol province, in the central Philippines, because they couldn’t withstand the fear and the taunting. [98] In another case, a mother who was allegedly on a police “drug watch” list was forced to leave her children behind in the care of their grandparents. [99] “Families are also separated from each other because they needed to move out one member of the family,” Father Sandaga said.

V. Deepening Poverty

The killing of a parent or guardian typically has significant financial consequences for those left behind, especially because most victims have been from impoverished communities, and were often the family’s main or sole breadwinner. Economic impacts of this loss include inability to pay for food, school supplies, and public transport to school. The new dire economic circumstances of the family have compelled some of the children to work to help make ends meet. Other children have had to leave the family to go live with relatives who could take better care of them. And some of the children have been forced by these new circumstances to stop going to school altogether.

One evening in March 2017, Jonathan L., 35, a bus driver who drove 24-hour shifts, was waiting in a street in Quezon City for another driver to deliver the jeepney, or minibus, that he was going to drive the next day. Two gunmen on motorcycles and wearing balaclavas sidled up to him. One of them shot him point-blank, killing him on the spot. Jonathan left behind a wife and three children – two in high school, one in elementary school. Driving the jeepney had been his main source of income. [100]

As with many “drug war” victims, Jonathan had been the family’s main breadwinner. His wife, Lee-Ann L., had stopped working to take care of the children. Jonathan’s death forced Lee-Ann to move the family to live with her in-laws, which unsettled her because one of her husband’s brothers was known to be a drug user. “But I had no choice but to move in with them,” Lee-Ann told Human Rights Watch. [101]

Lee-Ann’s in-laws were also poor, so she went looking for work, finally finding a job in the kitchen staff at a school canteen. Even with the job, Lee-Ann had difficulty making ends meet. “While the kids remained in school, they no longer had the usual support that they received from their father. I have not been able to pay their school fees,” Lee-Ann said. Although public education is free in the Philippines, students and pupils still need to pay expenses like transportation and class projects.

Other families of victims had similar stories. Malou M., the wife of Benigno M. who was shot dead in Payatas, Quezon City, in December 2016, said she and her family had been driven deeper into poverty after Benigno’s death:

It's hard because you don't know how you're going to start, how you're going to fend for your children, how you're going to send them to school, and how you’re going to pay for their daily expenses and their meals. There are times they can't go to school because they don't have school allowance. We lost our tap water because we can't pay the water bill, and electricity and many more things. [102]

Some surviving parents manage to get assistance from NGOs who help victims while others seek help from their parishes. Malou was able to find work at the Project SOW in Quezon City, where she worked as a tailor after her husband died. Even then, she said, the income was hardly adequate:

It’s really not enough because it's hard to budget 250 pesos (about US$5) a day. Sometimes, I won't even earn that much in a day if you cannot make the quota of 250 pieces daily, in which case you only get paid 150 pesos. But how about the children's school allowance? They're four, all attending school. How about the food? They often just make do with eggs. Sometimes, they don't have food when I leave them at home. [103]

All of the victim’s families interviewed by Human Rights Watch suffered economic difficulty as a result of the death of their loved one.

Family of Jasper S.

Jasper S., 37, was killed in September 2017, when two masked men on a motorcycle shot him in broad daylight in Mabuhay, a suburb of General Santos City, on his way home from a volleyball game with friends. His father, Ben S., said one of the men shot him twice. “He was not into drugs, he was not in the drug watch list,” Ben said. “We do not know why he was killed.” [104]

The death of Jasper, who worked at a computer store and was supporting his six nephews and nieces, left his family economically devastated. “[His death] is a huge loss to us emotionally, economically,” Ben said, who supports his children and grandchildren by selling snacks in front of their home.

Family of Renato A.

The family of Renato A., a scavenger murdered in December 2016 in Mandaluyong City, has faced extreme difficulties since his death. All three of his children – ages 13, 10, and 1 at the time of his killing – stopped going to school and, since their mother remarried, live in the streets of Mandaluyong, taking odd jobs, such as watching parked cars and teaching hip-hop dance in order to survive. On some days, they sleep in the homes of friends and cousins, but they mostly spend their nights at the back of a local supermarket, sleeping on mats of cardboard and hammocks tied underneath a storage building.

“We couldn’t afford it so we decided to stop going to school,” said Robert A., the eldest of Renato’s children. [105] Robert said their most significant expenses were the public transportation fare to and from school, which can be as little as 15 pesos ($0.30), and lunch, typically 50 pesos ($1) per day. To support his siblings, Robert tried to work as a garbage collector but found the job too taxing on his health. Now 19, he teaches hip-hop dance to teenagers in Mandaluyong City but is barely able to support the needs of his siblings. “We make do with my salary so that my siblings and I can eat three times a day,” he said, adding:

I had to work harder when my father died. I became a father to my siblings because I don’t want to see them suffer… so I’m doing everything I can. I force myself to work even if I don’t want to. I force myself for me, for my siblings. [106]

We sleep near Marketplace beside the stall. We lay cartons around 9 p.m. at the side of the stall. We sleep there until morning. And then when we wake up, we transfer to the parking lot. We spend the night there. [107]

Children of Lorenzo M.

Melanie M. was 12 when her father, Lorenzo M., a 38-year-old worker at a canning factory in General Santos City, was shot dead by the police in July 2017. After Lorenzo’s death, Melanie and her two other siblings were forced to stop schooling because money ran dry – they had relied solely on Lorenzo’s income because their mother had no job at the time of the killing. To support her mother, who sells peanuts and washes clothes for a living, Melanie also started selling boiled peanuts in the streets of General Santos, often well into the evening. [108]

Children of Antonio S.

The five young children of Antonio S., a 45-year-old small business owner in Bagong Silang, an impoverished community in Quezon City, have suffered from psychological distress and extreme poverty since his killing by the police in August 2017, with the children often skipping meals. Their mother, Anita S., has had difficulty finding work or income because she’s preoccupied with taking care of her children and has had no one to entrust them to. [109]

Family of Sixto M.

Sixto M., 26, from Payatas, Quezon City, used to regularly buy hypertension medicines for his father, Democrito M. Since Sixto was killed in 2017, Democrito has had trouble acquiring the medicines because he lacks the money to purchase them. Sixto’s mother, Ambrosia M., now takes care of Sixto’s children, whom he had supported when he was employed as a construction worker. Since Ambrosia herself does not have a regular income, she was forced to ask one of her relatives to adopt one of the children. The separation involved sending the child to live in a province outside of Manila. [110]

Family of Felixberto D.

For a wife and mother like Filomena D., it has been particularly difficult because she has six young children at home and had depended entirely on the earnings of her husband, Felixberto D., a 48-year-old seller of pillows and beddings in Labugon village, Cebu City. He was shot dead in the presence of his children by the police during a raid on June 27, 2018. Filomena said:

They came almost at midnight, when we were asleep. People in civilian clothes accompanied by police officers with long firearms. I was in the living room, the children and Felixberto were upstairs. They took him and asked about another person, Junjun, my eldest child. My husband told them Junjun was our son and that for them to take him instead of him [Junjun]. He went on his knees and pleaded but he was shot three times in the chest and three more times in the back…. How do we restart our lives now? [111]

Community-Based Support Systems

These difficulties suffered by families of victims are a reality that supporters like Father Danilo Pilario have had to grapple with since the killings began. “The first need that we have been responding to is economic,” he said.

It’s a need that Father Pilario’s Project SOW tries to meet mainly through the livelihood center it established in Payatas. The center not only supports the children of victims but also provides livelihood to mothers and relatives of victims, many of whom work as tailors at the center just across the street from the parish church in the community. The mostly women workers make bags and other household items such as potholders that they sell. Workers like Malou typically earn 250 pesos (about $5) a day. The income is inadequate, but earning money is not the only mission of the center, which also provides psycho-social services to children affected by the violence. Other parishes in many parts of Metro Manila have similar projects.

VI. In-depth Personal Stories

Children of benigno m. [112].

In a small, dilapidated house in Payatas, near Quezon City’s mountain of garbage, Jennifer M. stared longingly at the blue couch that had been her father’s favorite spot. Her father, Benigno M., was on the couch when police shot him dead during a drug sweep of the neighborhood in December 2016. The police claimed Benigno was a drug dealer and resisted arrest.

Jennifer has a different version. She said about seven men in civilian clothes barged into their small home that day, looking for Benigno. The men ordered everybody out. But Jennifer clung to her father, hugging him as he sat on the sofa, and held up his work ID for the police to see.

“ He was told to lie face down, but he held his ID up behind him. All the while, one of the men had a gun to his head,” Jennifer recalled. Benigno kept begging. “Sir, if I committed a crime, please have mercy, please don't kill me. If you want, you can just detain me. Because of my poor children, they are seven. What happens to them, who will take care of them?” a crying Benigno told the men, according to Jennifer’s mother Belinda M. [113] Jennifer said she tried to shield her father by hugging him and covering him with her small body.

One of the men – “the big one,” she said – grabbed Jennifer, who was 12 at the time, and threw her to the floor just outside the door of the living room. One of her siblings caught her, breaking her fall onto the dirty concrete floor. The men ordered everyone but Benigno to leave the house; on her way out, Jennifer saw her father continue to beg for his life. Moments later, when Jennifer and all the others were in the small alley outside the house, three gunshots rang out.

Uniformed police officers arrived minutes later; the men in civilian clothes were still inside Jennifer’s home. When the medics came, Jennifer strained to look inside and saw blood all over the floor, her father now lying face up beside the couch. “That’s when I saw the gun beside his hand,” Jennifer said. She said her father did not have a gun, that she never saw one in their home. Police say they shot him because he fought back. They claim they found a sachet of shabu , Filipino slang for methamphetamine or crystal meth, on Benigno ’s body.

Witnessing what happened to her father was traumatic enough for Jennifer and her family. But the consequence of his death only added to their suffering. Benigno worked in a junk shop in another district of Manila and was the family breadwinner. He was only home the day he was killed because it was the birthday of another daughter.

Since Benigno’s death, there have been days the children have had nothing to eat. They rely mainly on the generosity of their grandmother, who agreed to take care of them. Jennifer’s mother was in jail for a drug-related case at the time of the killing but has since reunited with her children. After a TV station interviewed Jennifer, exposing her identity in the process, classmates began bullying her in school, ridiculing her for her father’s alleged drug use, which she denied.

Jennifer still grapples with the trauma of her father’s death. There were days when the grief was so unbearable, she didn’t know what to do, she said. She became withdrawn, not just because of the bullying but also because she just wanted to keep her head down. [114] She finds comfort in the company of her siblings, staying mostly inside their ramshackle home, their giggles – and tears – drowned out by the noise of a malfunctioning electric fan.

Every now and then, the family takes a minute to pray at the image of the Holy Family tacked above the couch. There are days when Jennifer just sits all day on the couch that was punctured by one of the bullets that took her father from her. She hugs the couch, smelling the frayed and faded seat cover, imagining the man who had sat in it, remembering the father she once had.

“I am confused because I still don’t understand why. Why my Papa? Of all the people here, why did they pick my father?” Jennifer said. “I am so angry.”

During these bouts of confusion and anger, Jennifer finds refuge in doodling and drawing scenes of her family, kittens, and sad girls on her notepad or on the plywood walls of her home. But she has never been able to finish her drawings. “It's because something is missing in the drawing,” she said. “It's incomplete.”

Child of Alvin R. [115]

“Putang ina mo! Putang ina mo! Putang ina mo!”

Kyle R. was shouting as he bounced around the cramped living room of his family’s home in Delpan, Tondo – one of the poorest, most crowded and crime-prone districts of Manila –  when we visited his home in February 2018. He jabbed his middle finger in the air, shouting as he jumped around, oblivious to the perplexed reactions of the people in the room.

He picked up a skateboard and hit his mother, Zeny R., with it twice in the arm. “Putang ina mo!” he shouted. That is Tagalog for “Your mother is a whore.” [116]

Kyle’s behavior is deeply disturbing, in part because he is only 5 years old. While it might not be unusual for children his age to sometimes use foul language or act out among friends, his mother found something profoundly unsettling about the intensity of Kyle’s aggressiveness. “I don’t know what’s happening,” Zeny said, shaking her head and close to tears. “I don’t know how this happened.”

Zeny has not taken Kyle to a therapist because she cannot afford the expense. The nannies she has been able to hire so she could leave the house and go to work typically have not lasted long because of Kyle’s aggressiveness.

During a visit by Human Rights Watch in February 2019, the latest nanny, a 50-something man, displayed a remarkable calmness toward Kyle. Almost cheerfully, he bathed Kyle, changed his clothes, and helped him into his school uniform – even as Kyle grabbed a knife and chased him with it.

The presence of strangers may have emboldened Kyle to behave more aggressively, but Zeny said this was not the first time. Sometime last year, Kyle was playing with friends when it suddenly turned ugly – he threatened to kill one of his playmates, telling him he would wrap him with packaging tape.

In November 2016, Kyle’s father, Alvin R., a 39-year-old driver, disappeared. He was found dead two days later, on the Delpan overpass not far from their home. He’d been stabbed 19 times. “I’m a drug pusher. Don’t emulate me,” read a handwritten sign in Tagalog placed beside the body. Alvin's head was wrapped with packaging tape.

Alvin’s horrific death turned Zeny’s world upside down. Because he had been the breadwinner, Zeny was forced to look for a job. When she found one, she started spending less time with Kyle. And when she entered into a relationship with her current boyfriend, Kyle became even more aggressive and violent. “He's always saying that he's going to kill my partner now because maybe he's jealous because sometimes I don't have time for him anymore,” Zeny said. She fears that Kyle would remain violent into adulthood. “I want him to leave this place because he might grow up like the other kids who went astray or ended up in jail.”

The community Zeny and Kyle lived in Delpan is similar to the urban communities where many “drug war” victims lived, which is to say impoverished areas with high rates of violent crime. Zeny and her husband would fight constantly because Alvin , according to her, liked to “stay outside” and hang out with friends. “His life was really outside. Sometimes when his kid was asleep, he would sneak out. So, when he comes home, I'm mad. “Where did you go this time?’ Confrontations like that,” she said. Confrontations that Kyle would see. One time, Kyle confronted Zeny about her nagging. “You said you wished daddy would die,” the child told her.

Alvin’ s death affected Zeny’s ability to hold her family together. “I kind of punished myself when he was gone. I was drinking every day. To this day. My coworkers know that, and they ask me why since they thought I’d moved on already.”

But moving on is a challenge seeing how Kyle seemed to grow more violent each day, Zeny said. “I'm going to kill you. Knife! Give me the knife!” the boy screamed at Zeny once. [117] It’s a behavior that made it even more difficult for Zeny to take care of him. “He misses his father a lot and he takes it out on me,” she said.

Children of Renato A. [118]

The four men wearing balaclavas arrived at the funeral wake on two motorcycles. Moments later, shots rang out, sparking panic among the crowd of mourners, who fled or dove for cover. The gunmen’s apparent target, Renato A., was shot 10 times and died at the scene. His then-13-year-old son, John A., was hit in the leg; his daughter, Karla A. who was 10 at the time, cowered under a table but wasn’t physically injured in the attack. The eldest son, 15-year-old Robert A., who was right behind one of the gunmen as he fired into the crowd, also managed to escape without injury.

The wake was for Renato’s sister-in-law, Veneracion A., 39, who had been gunned down three days earlier while having dinner in front of a convenience store in an impoverished Manila neighborhood. The assailant walked up and shot her in the head in the evening of December 16, 2016. An alleged drug user whose name was on the authorities’ drug watch list, Veneracion had feared she might be a target of the government’s anti-drug campaign. [119]

Two years after the murder of their father, Renato’s children eke out an existence on the streets of Mandaluyong City in Metro Manila, abandoned by their mother, out of school, and dependent on meager wages from menial jobs and the generosity of extended family to get by.

Human Rights Watch spent time with Renato’s children and their friends and cousins one day in February 2019. They behaved like they felt at home in the streets of Mandaluyong – and, in a way, they are. Since their family’s home was demolished by the government years before, allegedly because it encroached on private property, they had been spending more time in the streets. They were familiar faces to neighbors and shop owners, and even to policemen and neighborhood watchmen.

As Karla and Robert walked around Mandaluyong that day looking for their brother John, chatting up friends and acquaintances, high-fiving jeepney drivers and street vendors, it was clear they seemed comfortable living in the bustle of the city.

When Human Rights Watch spoke to Karla, she was still upset about the time she got feverish one night that month and was all by herself in a cousin’s house. John and Robert were nowhere to be found; they had spent the night with their friends out in the streets. That night was the loneliest she felt since her father’s death, she said.

“My brothers and I were always together,” said Karla, now 12. “We were always complete. Since her father died, “a big change happened with my family,” she said, now sobbing. “I just want us to be together.” [120]

Her father’s murder shattered her family. Their mother, Andrea A., has since remarried, and practically abandoned the children, who refused to live with her because, they told Human Rights Watch, they hate their mother’s new husband. Andrea told us her decision to remarry was mainly driven by her inability to support herself, and this seems to have bred resentment among her children.

Since the killing, all three children have stopped going to school. They enrolled for a few months at one point, but eventually gave up because they were homeless. Robert found menial work with the municipal government as a trash collector but left it because he found it too taxing. These days, he earns money by teaching hip-hop to teenagers in Kalentong. John has become withdrawn since his father’s death and refuses to socialize even among friends. “He easily gets angry and he has lost trust in people. Especially when he learned that we know the man who had my father killed,” Robert said.

But Robert is confident John can take care of himself, a view Andrea shares. “They are boys, so they are okay,” she told Human Rights Watch. [121] But both worry about Karla. Andrea wanted to take Karla with her to Taytay, a town north of Manila, where the girl could live with her and her new husband. But Karla refused, afraid her mother would just turn her into the housekeeper for a friend of Andrea’s husband.

The three siblings spend their days in Kalentong, their nights in the houses of friends and cousins, and their afternoons in the parking lot behind Marketplace mall. There, they hang hammocks between delivery vans, taking naps, waiting for their friends who also live in the streets, and spending hours just chatting, gossiping with delivery drivers, and horsing around. Aren’t they afraid the men who killed their father will come back for them? “If they wanted us dead, we would have been dead a long time ago,” Robert said.

While life in Kalentong has not been easy, especially for Karla, the three have no plans to leave. Here, Robert said, “we have friends, we have each other.”

Children of Kristina D. and Diana D.

Kristina D., 27, and her sister, Diana D., 26, were very close siblings, almost like best friends. They shared many things, among them that they worked at the same job at the same beer house and restaurant in General Santos City. But most importantly, they shared a responsibility for their respective children. Both were not married but had children in past relationships; Kristina had two children, aged eight and ten, while Diana has one, aged seven. All of them lived in one hut made of bamboo on the outskirts of a city in the southern Philippines, and the children were cared for by their mother, Carmen D., when the sisters were at work.

One night in August 2017, two men arrived on a motorcycle, entered the restaurant where the sisters were working, sat down, and ordered beer. Not long after they took swigs of beer, one of the men drew a gun and aimed it at Diana, who was attending to another customer a few tables away. Kristina saw what was happening, lunged at the gunman, who fired four times and hit Kristina instead: twice in the chest, once in the knee and once in the arm. [122] The gunman kept firing even as Kristina fell to the floor, hitting Diana twice: once in the face, another in the spine. Kristina died on the spot; Diana survived but is now paralyzed from the waist down. The gunmen managed to escape on their motorcycle.

Diana did not want to go into details of why she was targeted, but she said it might have something to do with a previous side gig she did providing information to the local police about drug dealing in the city. But she was not sure whether the police or the drug syndicates were behind the attack.

When Human Rights Watch visited her on May 21, 2018, Diana was inside their hut, the cheerful Hello Kitty posters that adorned the room doing nothing to dispel the sense of helplessness inside. Dangling beneath the bed made of bamboo and coconut wood was a bag of urine from a catheter, its tube snaking up to Diana as she sat on a four-inch thick foam slab. Carmen, her 49-year-old mother, was the more emotional of the two as she narrated what had become of her grandchildren, all of whom were still in elementary school.

One of Kristina’s children now lives with his grandparents on his father’s side, far away from General Santos City. Carmen has been taking care of the other two on top of making sure that Diana’s needs are met – bathing her, inserting her catheter, and providing daily care. Despite Carmen’s best efforts, things have been extremely difficult, not least because Kristina and Diana had been the breadwinners of their extended family. As Carmen lamented: “[The children] have stopped going to school. Nobody could take proper care of them.” [123]

“We’re like beggars now, asking for help from everybody,” Diana said. But she despairs for her child, her nephew, and her niece the most. “I pity our children. What will become of them now?” she said. “All I can do as I sit here all day, in pain, is cry and pray.”

Children of Lorenzo M. [124]

A month after her father was killed, Melanie M. started going out in the streets of General Santos City, in the southern Philippines, to sell boiled peanuts. It’s a decidedly unusual – and risky – task for a small 12-year-old girl but this has become Melanie’s routine. She sets out at 9 o’clock in the morning and tries to return home by sundown, but often ends up returning well into the evening. “I go around the plaza, pleading with people to buy my peanuts,” she said.

She sometimes is accompanied her mother in selling the snack but often she is on her own, navigating the wide streets and busy highways of the city, particularly near the plaza where the traffic is the busiest. It’s hard work, Melanie said, but she hoped things would get better. “I hope to stop selling peanuts during class days and just do it during the weekends,” she said. “I intend to go back to school.”

Melanie stopped going to school after her father, Lorenzo M., a 38-year-old worker at a canning factory, was shot dead by the police in July 2017. Lorenzo’s wife, Marilyn M., said the police officers who raided her in-laws’ home in an impoverished community called Silway claimed they shot him because he fought back. [125] Melanie, who was present during the raid, rejects the police claim. [126]

Since Lorenzo’s death, his family has suffered. Not only Melanie, but also her younger brother, Kenneth M., 9, stopped going to the public elementary school. She was in Grade 4 while Kenneth was in Grade 1 at the time of their father’s death. The youngest child, Richard M., 4, recently fell ill with asthma. The mother’s earnings from selling peanuts and washing other peoples’ clothes were simply not enough.

Prior to dropping out, Melanie and Kenneth would go to school without lunch money and their teachers would take pity on them and feed them. But that arrangement did not last long and, soon after, both children stopped attending classes. Marilyn noted that other families in her community received the modest 4Ps, or conditional cash transfer program benefits, from the DSWD, but they did not. [127] She did not bother to ask why, except to say that she was ashamed and scared to ask for help from government.

Children of Hamed U. [128]

Inside the compound owned by Abdul U., a 64-year-old tricycle driver, is a small area no larger than three square meters that looks cleaner than the rest of the property, three homes made of unfinished hollow blocks and tin roofs. “That used to be my son’s room,” Abdul said, pointing a finger at the cemented floor. His son, Hamed U., 29, died during a police raid of the compound in the outskirts of General Santos City in March 2018.

Police officers in camouflage uniforms without nameplates arrived at the house shortly before 2 a.m., when everybody was asleep, took hold of Hamed, and ordered him to go out of the room. They did not show an arrest or search warrant. “They were carrying Armalite [military assault] rifles, pointing them at my son,” Abdul said. Moments later, three shots rang out; two of the bullets hit Hamed while he was seated in the next room on a wooden bench. Abdul pointed to the bullet holes at the back of the bench as he narrated what happened.

Hamed’s children were sleeping in the same room with their father when the police invaded and yanked their father into the next room and killed him. Hamed’s wife was not there because she was working in Saudi Arabia as a domestic worker at the time. “ Ama , please help me! They are going to kill me!” Hamed pleaded to his father, according to a cousin who witnessed the raid.

Hamed, a carpenter who police alleged was a drug dealer, left behind three children. Moner U., the eldest was 9 years old and a Grade 3 pupil at the time. His grandfather said he was traumatized by what happened to his father: “He would just sit and stare at my son’s picture all the time.”

When we spoke to him days after the shooting, Abdul said they had not yet figured out what to do with Hamed’s children. “They live in fear. We live in fear,” Abdul said. The fear was such that the family decided not to pursue a case against the police. “We can’t do anything,” he said.

But Abdul did do what he could. When his grandchildren started to complain that they could not bear looking at the room in the house where Hamed and his children used to stay, he had it demolished.

VII. Government Response

The Philippine government has failed to assist the children of those killed in its abusive “war on drugs.” Beyond the illegality of the killings themselves, the government has violated the fundamental rights of the children of victims.

International human rights law, to which the Philippines is party, places obligations on governments to protect children at risk. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights calls for the “widest possible protection and assistance” to the family and dependent children. [129] Moreover, “children and young persons should be protected from economic and social exploitation.” [130] The Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out a range of rights that governments must afford children. [131]

While the Philippine government has asserted that families of individuals who have died in anti-drug operations can avail themselves of programs of the DSWD – such as payment for medical and burial expenses – it doesn’t have specific programs addressing the needs of such families. [132] A former senior DSWD official told Human Rights Watch that there was no separate or specific program or plan for children orphaned in drug raids. [133] This official said that as of May 2019, the impact and effect of the “drug war” violence on children had not been raised in any Cabinet meeting. [134]

Early on, the department announced that existing programs would meet the needs of these families, but no specific programs have been created, and Human Rights Watch’s research indicates that their special needs remain unaddressed. [135]

Human Rights Watch sent letters (see Appendix) in January 2020 to the DSWD, as well as the Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC), the government agency that coordinates all efforts to protect children, and the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC), asking about the existence of specific programs for children of the “war on drugs.” We received no response from the CWC or JJWC. The DSWD responded to our inquiry on February 20, 2020, requesting more time to reply, to which Human Rights Watch replied affirmatively on March 6, 2020. However, after that, Human Rights Watch received no further response.

Other agencies that could help victims’ families with targeted programming – such as the Department of Health – have expressed support for the anti-drug campaign. When asked about psycho-social help for family members of people who have been killed, Paulyn Jean Ubial, the Health Secretary from 2016 to 2017, said: “Why is it a public health issue? [Is it] contagious? Lifestyle-related? In the first place, is that a disease?” [136]

Even if there were programs, government agencies would need to address the deep wariness – if not outright fear – that many families and children of victims feel about approaching the government for help. [137] Clergy and children’s rights advocates with whom Human Rights Watch spoke to said that these families have been severely stigmatized and often live in fear, so that they cannot be expected to seek support from the very entity that they feel is responsible for their plight.

VIII. Recommendations

To the government of the philippines.

• Issue a presidential proclamation officially ending the “war on drugs.”
• Investigate and prosecute alleged perpetrators, including law enforcement personnel, credibly implicated in extrajudicial killings and other abuses committed during the Duterte government’s “war on drugs.”
• Promptly and fairly compensate the families of victims of unlawful killings by government officials and their agents.
• Fully cooperate with the Commission on Human Rights’ investigation of such killings, including by providing requested information on the anti-drug campaign generally and specific cases.
• Fully cooperate with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which was directed by the UN Human Rights Council in a July 2019 resolution to prepare a report on the human rights situation in the Philippines.
• Provide material assistance and targeted financial support programs to parents, appointed relatives, or legal guardians and any relevant agency responsible for the welfare of a child adversely affected by the anti-drug campaign to ensure children remain in school.
• Protect adversely affected children from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral, or social development.
• Gather information and data about the children and families affected by the anti-drug campaign, ensuring confidentiality and protection against retaliation.
• Form and provide resources for a multi-agency initiative (government, civil society, academe, faith-based organizations, and NGOs) to develop, plan, and implement programs for assistance specifically to children of “drug war” victims.
• Ensure that the department’s conditional cash transfers (4Ps benefits) reach the families of victims, and actively monitor implementation of the program to prevent any discrimination against those families.
• Ensure that all children, including those adversely affected by the anti-drug campaign, enjoy their right to free and compulsory primary education as guaranteed under the Philippines Constitution and international human rights law. Take immediate measures to ensure that no child is ever denied their right to education, including secondary education, due to school fees or related costs of education.
• Enforce anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies, notably with respect to children adversely affected by the anti-drug campaign, inform students how they can confidentially report incidents of bullying, and specify measures to hold accountable students found responsible for bullying.
• Ensure school officials and teachers are trained and equipped to handle cases of bullying among students, and ensure school administrators ensure all staff and students abide by the government’s anti-bullying policy, and recognize that all children should be protected from bullying and harassment based on their economic circumstances or on the basis of the status or activities of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members
• Assist the Department of Social Welfare and Development in providing mental and psycho-social health services to children of families affected by the anti-drug campaign.
• Create a partnership and coordinate with private mental health professionals and academics to ensure that adversely affected children and their families are provided adequate mental health care and support.

To the Philippine Commission on Human Rights

• Investigate the deaths of all children killed in the “war on drugs.” Publicize the results of those investigations and make specific recommendations for accountability in all cases where there is sufficient evidence for such a determination.
• Urge relevant government agencies, such as the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Department of Education, to enforce existing laws and policies for the protection of children.

To the United Nations Country Team and UN Bodies

• Strongly advocate with the Philippines government to end government policies supporting the “war on drugs.” Call on the government to hold perpetrators of violence against children and their families accountable for rights abuses.
• The UN Human Rights Council should establish an independent international investigative mechanism into extrajudicial killings and other violations committed in the context of the “war on drugs” since June 2016.
• The UN Country Team in the Philippines should speak out publicly about the plight of adversely affected children and their families.
• UNICEF should make the children of “drug war” victims a priority in their programs and interventions, particularly on the issues of psychological distress and livelihoods. It should support a multi-agency initiative, to be led by the Department of Social Welfare and Development, to provide such intervention.
• Provide political, technical, and financial support for the Commission on Human Rights to investigate human rights violations in the “drug war.”  

To Bilateral and Multilateral Donors

• Support the creation of a multi-agency initiative that will provide specific assistance to the children affected by the anti-drug campaign.
• Consult with Philippines government agencies and independent civil society and community groups on the design of timely and effective assistance programs to benefit children adversely affected by the anti-drug campaign.
• Provide technical and financial support for assistance programs designed to support adversely affected children.
• Publicly and privately urge the government ensure support for adversely affected children and families, such as through disbursement of conditional cash transfers.

Acknowledgments

This report was researched and written by Carlos H. Conde, researcher in the Asia division. It was reviewed by Michael Bochenek, senior counsel, and Bede Sheppard, deputy director, in the Children’s Rights Division, and edited by Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director. James Ross, legal and policy director, and Joseph Saunders, deputy program director, provided legal and program review, respectively. Production assistance was provided by Racqueal Legerwood, Asia coordinator; Travis Carr, Publications coordinator; and Fitzroy Hepkins, administrative manager.

Human Rights Watch would like to thank these groups and individuals for their assistance in the research and preparation of this report, as well as the video that is accompanying it: Kiri Dalena, Bahay Tuluyan, Children’s Legal Rights and Development Center, Project Support for Orphans and Widows, Network Against Killings in the Philippines, iDefend, Arnold Janssen Kalinga Center, and Resbak.

And to the parents, relatives, guardians, friends, and children of the victims of the “drug war,” we extend our heartfelt gratitude for courageously sharing your stories with us.

On page 17 of the report, the age of John A. was corrected to be 13, not 11, at the time of the incident.

Related Content

Philippines: lasting harm to children from ‘drug war’.

UN Human Rights Council Should Promote Justice for Killings

• Philippines
• Children's Rights

Protecting Rights, Saving Lives

Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in close to 100 countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice

Get updates from the source.

Join our newsletter to learn how you can take action to make a difference.

Donate to HRF

There are two ways to donate to HRF, via traditional cash payments, or via Bitcoin.

Don't Repeat

Repeat monthly.

Red-Tagging in the Philippines: A License to Kill

By Tanyalak Thongyoojaroen, Legal & Policy Intern

Introduction

February 2023 marked three years in prison for Frenchie Mae Cumpio, a 24-year-old Philippine community journalist and executive director of the independent news website, Eastern Vista . In 2020, the Philippine government accused her of illegally possessing firearms and explosives; Cumpio was reportedly denied “the right to present evidence and prove the utter falsehoods against her.” She also faces politically motivated terror finance charges, which could land her 40 years in prison if found guilty. 

Cumpio is one of many journalists “red-tagged” by the Philippines regime. 

Red-tagging isn’t new to the country: Implemented in 1969, the government-backed campaign was designed to “tag” and counter communist and Maoist groups, particularly the New People’s Army (NPA). Red-tagging has since become a destructive tool to quash dissent. Under the former Duterte government and his National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), the regime has used the guise of red-tagging to crack down on activists and dissidents.

In the Philippines, anyone who criticizes the government can be red-tagged. The regime’s campaign includes falsely accusing journalists, activists, community leaders, and politicians of being members of or involved in the NPA. The government often starts by spreading lies or fake news about targets on public posters, television programs, or social media channels, branding them as terrorists or communist members or sympathizers. These widespread fabrications are often followed by threats or physical surveillance, eventually leading to attacks, arrest, detention, or death by security forces or “unidentified persons/groups.”

Since 2016, many human rights defenders, activists, and journalists have been killed after being red-tagged. Before the national election in May 2022, journalists, activists, and rights groups have called on the next president-elect to put an end to this practice. Yet, red-tagging and systematic persecution continues.

Political System

According to the Human Rights Foundation (HRF)’s political regime analysis, the Philippines is ruled by a competitive authoritarian regime in which freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are constantly under threat. 

Following World War II, the Philippines became the first country in Southeast Asia to gain independence in 1946 . The country held national elections, and its democratic system functioned effectively until 1965, when Ferdinand Marcos Sr. — father of the current president, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. — was elected. In 1972, Marcos Sr. declared martial law, granting sweeping permissions to the military to “prevent or suppress… any act of insurrection or rebellion,” dragging the country down the path of authoritarianism. Marcos Sr. heavily suppressed freedoms of expression, speech, and assembly. Opposition figures, activists, and all those deemed a threat to Marcos were arrested, forcibly disappeared, and subject to torture. 

In 1986, a mass demonstration called the People Power Revolution, ousted the Marcos regime, though persecution against activists continues . 

From 2016 to 2022, the Philippines, under the administration of Rodrigo Duterte, gradually slid back into authoritarianism. He introduced numerous repressive policies and threatened to execute human rights activists. His widely known “war on drugs” led to the death of at least 12,000 people, mostly the urban poor. The Philippines National Police carried out 2,555 of the killings. Duterte also renewed and intensified red-tagging to silence government critics. At the end of his rule, there were 801 political prisoners and 442 victims of extrajudicial killings — most of them red-tagged by the regime. 

Last year, the country hoped to begin a new chapter with Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s election, but his government has yet to improve human rights. 

Systematic Persecution

Individuals who are red-tagged often end up being persecuted or even killed. Institutionalized in state policy, Philippines law enforcement officers have used red-tagging to intimidate and harass indigenous members, leaders, and activists who oppose government-backed projects.

National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC)

In December 2018, Duterte issued Executive Order 70 to “end 50 years of deceit, lies and atrocities committed by communist terrorists against the Filipino people.” In his Whole-of-Nation Approach, the regime launched the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict throughout the country (NTF-ELCAC), with 1.7 billion pesos ($31.2 million) allocated to the Task Force in 2020. 

The Task Force red-tags in government press releases,  conferences, and social media posts. The NFT-ELCAC Facebook page has approximately 191,000 followers, thus reaching a good portion of the population with regularly published posts with regularly published red-tagging posts.

Marcos Jr., is continuing the red-tagging campaign. In October, he appointed Lt. Gen. Emmanuel Salamat — a retired military general close to Duterte — as the executive director of NTF-ELCAC. In December, the Philippines Congress allocated 10 billion pesos ($178.5 million) to the “anti-communist” task force despite strong opposition.

Anti-Terrorism Act

Adopted in 2020, the Anti-Terrorism Act is an expansion of the “war on terror” to execute “enemies of the state.” The law is supposed to “protect life, liberty, and property from acts of terrorism . . . to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people.” Critics say the law is a tool to silence dissent and target government opposition. And the ambiguity of the bill grants broad power to security forces to freely target, arrest, or detain suspected individuals without a warrant. 

Since the law’s adoption, social movements and political activities have been discouraged. The Anti-Terrorism Council prohibited the public from providing financial and other material support to the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People’s Army (NPA), and the National Democratic Front (NDF). Section 12 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) states that “any person who provides material support to a terrorist individual or organization” will be sentenced to life imprisonment, and any persons who provide financial support to the group will be fined “at least 500,000 [pesos,] no more than 1,000,000.00 [pesos].”

With its vague and overly broad definition of “terrorism,” it allows security forces to detain suspects without a warrant or charges for up to 24 days. The law has been heavily criticized for equating activism to terrorism. Nationwide, security forces have arrested protestors against the Anti-Terrorism Act. Rights groups are concerned that, ultimately, the administration will use the bill to justify a lethal crackdown on human rights defenders and dissidents. 

Case Studies

In recent years, the Philippine regime has targeted human rights defenders, journalists, the LGBTQI+ community, indigenous groups, and labor unions through its red-tagging campaign. Many of them have been harassed, intimidated. Some were even murdered at the hands of law enforcement officers or “unknown groups” likely linked to the government.

Red-Tagging of Human Rights Defenders and Activists

In 2020, longtime land rights activist and human rights defender Randall “Randy” Echanis was murdered in his hometown. His body was reportedly marked with multiple stabs and gunshot wounds. Before his death, Echanis was a staunch critic of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Angelo Karlo “AK” Guillen was also red-tagged and threatened countless times. For years, Guillen advocated against the Anti-Terrorism law and worked as the counsel for indigenous people in prominent cases, including nine who were killed by police in December 2020. In December 2018, his photograph was featured in posters across Iloilo city, falsely labeling him as a member of the terrorist entity NPA, which has been declared as a terrorist entity by the Philippines regime. Two years later, in 2021, two men stabbed him as he was exiting his car.

Women activists have also been subject to gender-based violence and red-tagging. Online trolls have repeatedly attacked activist and politician Sarah Elago, claiming she was part of the communist groups trying to overthrow the government. In the last few years, her name has appeared in at least 14,000 Facebook posts, falsely linking her to the NPA. The posts have been shared widely with comments inciting violence and calling for Elago to be killed or raped.

Red-Tagging of Journalists

Violence and intimidation against journalists have also become common. Maria Ressa, a prominent journalist and 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was red-tagged by the government-back media platform, Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI). In a SMNI show, Lorraine Badoy, a former anti-insurgency spokesperson, criticized Rappler , the independent online media organization co-founded by Ressa, as being a “destroyer of the Philippines.” He also published content that branded Ressa as an “enemy of the state.” 

Last year, at least four journalists were murdered , including Percival “Lapid” Mabasa. Mabasa devoted decades of his life to journalism, unmasking government corruption under the administration of Duterte and Marcos Jr. He was fatally shot near his home in October 2022. Police alleged that Gerald Bantag – the former director-general of the Bureau of Corrections under Duterte — was behind the killing.

As of May, the Justice Department’s Office of Cyber Crime saw 3,700 cyber-libel cases filed, including one against Maria Ressa. And the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines recorded 32 incidents of red-tagging and at least 23 journalists killed between 2016 and 2022.

Red-Tagging of LGBTQI+ Community

Despite its reputation as an LGBTQI+-friendly country, the Philippines lacks laws to protect members of the community. Abuse, harassment, and red-tagging against individuals based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression are common. Last year, the situation worsened under the SMNI’s smearing and fear-mongering.

Rey Valmores, activist and chair of the leading LGBTQI+ rights organization, Bahaghari (Rainbow) Philippines, was stalked several times by suspected security forces in 2020 and 2021. In November, Valmores and her group were red-tagged by SMNI, increasing their vulnerability to discrimination. 

Irish Inoceto, Iloilo Pride Team Chairperson, was also red-tagged last year while advocating for the transgender community and gender-affirming policies in schools. SMNI falsely accused Inoceto of being a member of the Communist Party and weaponizing the LGBTQI+ agenda to recruit members for communist groups. Like Valmores, red-tagging exposed Inoceto to greater threats, intimidation, and other forms of violence.

Red-Tagging of Indigenous Groups

Between 2016 and 2021, there have been at least 126 cases of extrajudicial killings of members and leaders of indigenous communities after being red-tagged. Beverly Longid, a member of the Bantok-Kankanaey indigenous people and the international officer of Katribu (national alliance of Indigenous Peoples organizations in the Philippines), has long been a target of red-tagging. She has been subjected to harassment, intimidation, and threats. In 2018, Longid was among the leaders of Cordillera People’s Alliance (CPA), an independent federation of indigenous community organizations, named in a petition by the Department of Justice, condemning the CPP and NPA. Although her name was later dropped from the list, such threats continue.

Since Duterte’s government, red-tagging has become a deadly weapon to silence critics. Two accompanying mechanisms, the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) and the Anti-Terrorism Act, have allowed law enforcement officers and security forces to arbitrarily arrest, detain, and kill dissidents. Despite strong opposition from activists, journalists, and human rights defenders, red-tagging continues.

To curb the brutality of the regime, HRF urges the Philippines government to immediately end red-tagging against human rights defenders, activists,  and journalists and stop labeling them as “terrorists.” The government should amend the 2020 Anti-Terrorism Act to comply with international human rights laws. And to promote the participation of its citizens, the State should ensure that rights groups, particularly indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, LGBTQI+ community, and women’s groups, can exercise their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Previous Post Meet HRF Freedom Fellow Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal

Next post like, tweet, & torment: activists push back.

350 5th Ave #6500

New York, NY 10118

United States

[email protected]

+1 (212) 246-8486

Join our community and stay updated

Copyright © 2024 Human Rights Foundation. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2024 Human Rights Foundation. All rights reserved.

• Legal & Privacy Policy
• Our Mission
• Annual & Financial Reports
• Subscribe to Our Newsletter
• Anti-Corruption Initiative
• Impact Litigation
• Oslo Freedom Forum
• Art in Protest
• Belarus Solidarity Fund
• Financial Freedom
• Chinese Communist Party Disruption Initiative
• Venezuela Solidarity Fund
• Flash Drives for Freedom
• Ukraine Solidarity Fund
• MicroGrants
• Wear Your Values
• Celebrities & Dictators
• Havel Prize
• Freedom Fellows
• More Programs >
• Take Action

T: (212) 246-8486

Copyright 2020 Human RIghts Foundation

Pagdayawon Rolando v. The Philippines

• Document source : UN Human Rights Committee (HRC)
• Date: 8 December 2004
• Document view Document
• Information

Views of the Human Rights Committee under

the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights*

- Eighty-second session -

Communication No. 1110/2002

Submitted by : Pagdayawon Rolando (represented by counsel, Mr. Theodore O. Te, of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG).)

Alleged victim : The author

State party : Philippines

Date of initial communication : 22 July 1998 (initial submission) The Human Rights Committee , established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Meeting on 3 November 2004,

Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 1110/2002, submitted to the Human Rights Committee on behalf of Mr. Pagdayawon Rolando, under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication, and the State party,

Adopts the following : Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol 1.1 The author of the communication is Pagdayawon Rolando, a Filipino national, currently detained at New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City. He claims to be a victim of violations of article 5, paragraph 2, article 6 paragraphs 1 and 2, article 7, article 9 paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, article 10, paragraph 1, and article 14 paragraphs 1, 2, and 5, of the Covenant. He is represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 22 November 1989.

1.2 On 28 August 2002, the Human Rights Committee, through its Special Rapporteur on New Communications, requested the State party, pursuant to Rule 86 of its Rules of Procedure, not to carry out the death sentence against the author whilst his case was before the Committee.

1.3 On 20 October 2003, following information to the affect that the State party intended to execute the author, the Human Rights Committee, through its Special Rapporteur on New Communications, reiterated its request, pursuant to Rule 86 of its Rules of Procedure, not to execute the author whilst his case is before the Committee.

The facts as presented by the author

2.1 In September 1996, the author was arrested and detained at a police station, without a warrant. He was told that he was being detained after allegations made by his wife of the rape of his stepdaughter. Before, the author was employed as a police officer. He requested to see his arrest warrant and a copy of the formal complaint, but did not receive a copy of either. He claims that he was not informed of his right to remain silent or of his right to consult a lawyer, as required under Article III, section 12(1) of the Philippine Constitution of 1987. On 1 November 1996, he was released. Throughout his detention, he was not brought before any judicial authority, nor was he formally charged with an offence.

2.2 On 27 January 1997, he was arrested again and charged with the rape of his stepdaughter Lori Pagdayawon, under article 335, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. He claims that he was not informed of his right to remain silent or his right to consult a lawyer. He also claims that the first opportunity he had to engage a private lawyer was at the inquest. The same lawyer represented him throughout the proceedings. On 27 May 1997, the Regional Trial Court of Davao City found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to death, as well as to pay the sum of 50,000 pesos to the victim. (1) According to the author, the death penalty is mandatory for the crime of rape; it is a crime against the person by virtue of Republic Act No. 8353.

2.3 On 15 February 2001, under its automatic review procedure, the Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence of the Trial Court but increased the author's civil liability to 75,000 pesos and "an additional award of 50,000 pesos by way of moral damages." (2) According to the author, the Supreme Court followed its usual practice of not hearing the testimony of any witnesses during the review process, relying solely upon the lower courts' appreciation of the evidence. It reiterated its position, established in previous case law, (3) about the weight given to the testimony of young women who make allegations of rape, by stating that "[t]he testimony of a rape victim, who is young and of tender age, is credible and deserves full credit, especially where the facts point to her having been the victim of a sexual assault. Certainly would not make public the offence and, undergo the trial and humiliation of a public trial if she had not in fact been raped." According to the author, the only effective test which the court has laid down to test the veracity of the alleged victim's allegation is the willingness of the victim to submit herself to a medical examination and endure the ordeal of court proceedings.

2.4 The author describes the procedure set out in paragraph 7(a) of EP 200, issued by the Bureau of Corrections pursuant to Republic Act 8177, for his execution. It provides that the condemned individual shall only be notified of the execution date at dawn on the date of execution and that the execution must take place within 8 hours of the accused being so informed. No provision is made for notifying the family of the condemned person. The only contact that the accused may have is with a cleric or with his lawyer. Contact can only take place through a mesh screen.

The Complaint

3.1 The author claims that his initial detention was illegal and in violation of article 9, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4. He claims that the failure to grant him access to a lawyer during this first period in detention amounts to a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, as it reduced his chances of receiving a fair trial.

3.2 The author claims that the Supreme Court's position, reiterated in the present case, to accept the rape victim's testimony as being true per se, constitutes a violation of the his right to be presumed innocent and equal before the courts, in accordance with article 14, paragraph 2. It also is said to constitute a violation of the equality clause of article 14, paragraph 1, as well as his right to a fair trial. It is submitted that the court's failure to observe the author's right to be presumed innocent and to "effectively reverse the burden of proof in favour of the prosecution" demonstrates a manifest violation of the obligation of impartiality on the part of the judge. He argues that, as the same position was adopted in this case by the Regional Trial Court the presumption of innocence was no longer effective and the author did not receive a fair trial.

3.3 The author adds that the Supreme Court's practice not to hear the testimony of any witnesses during the review process and therefore relying upon the lower courts' appreciation of the evidence, amounts to a failure to undertake a review within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant. In this current case one of the author's arguments to the Supreme Court was that the trial court erred in weighting the testimony of Lori Pagdayawon. In his view, in order to have undertaken an adequate review, the Supreme Court should hear the victim to test the veracity of her testimony.

3.4 The author claims that the extension of the death penalty to crimes such as rape by virtue of the 1997 Republic Act No. 8353 violates the State party's obligation to restrict the death penalty to the "most serious crimes", in accordance with article 6. He argues that according to the ECOSOC 1984 resolution on the "safeguards guaranteeing the protection of rights and freedoms of those facing the death penalty" adopted in 1984, the phrase "most serious crimes" must be understood as crimes not going beyond intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences. (4) The author refers to the growing international consensus against the death penalty and the fact that the statues of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, he International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court make no provision for the application of the death penalty.

3.5 He claims that if he were to be put to death, the procedure for executions in force in the Philippines, as set out in document EP 200, in which he would only be given a maximum of eight hours notice prior to execution, makes no provision to enable him to say his final farewell to family members, and only provides contact with his lawyer and cleric through a mesh screen, would subject him to inhuman and degrading punishment, and fail to respect the inherent dignity of the human person, guaranteed by articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. The author contends that such treatment is psychological/mental torture similar to the "death row phenomenon".

3.6 The author adds that by reintroducing the death penalty for "heinous crimes", as set out in RA 7659, the State party violated article 6 of the Covenant. He argues specifically that paragraphs 1, 2 and 6 of article 6 if read together, support the conclusion that once a State has abolished the death penalty, it is not open to that State to reintroduce it. Further an "extensive interpretation" of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Covenant which would allow a State party to reintroduce the death penalty would run counter to this provision.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

4.1 The communication with its accompanying documents was transmitted to the State party on 28 August 2002. The State party did not respond to the Committee's request, under rule 86/91 of the rules of procedure, to submit information and observations in respect of the admissibility and merits of the communication, despite several reminders addressed to it. The Committee recalls that it is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that a State party examine in good faith all the allegations brought against it, and that it provide the Committee with all the information at its disposal. In light of the failure of the State party to cooperate with the Committee on the matter before it, due weight must be given to the author's allegations, to the extent that they have been adequately substantiated.

4.2 Before considering the claims contained in the communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of the rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

4.3 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes that the State party has not claimed that there are any domestic remedies that could be exhausted by the author.

4.4 As to the claim that the author was denied the right to be presumed innocent, in accepting the testimony of the minor victim, the Committee notes that on a review of the judgments of the Regional Trial Court and the Supreme Court, the judiciary did take the minor victim's age into account in assessing her testimony and did consider that a rape trial is of such an ordeal that it would be unlikely to institute such proceedings if a rape in fact had not occurred. However, these were not the only considerations addressed by the Regional Trial Court and the Supreme Court. Both courts took into account, inter alia, medical evidence and witness statements in the evaluation of the facts and evidence in the case. The Committee has also noted the statement, in the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, which confirms that "on the whole, the evidence for the prosecution has overcome the accused's constitutional presumption of innocence. The prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the accused, consisting merely of denial, did not overcome the probative weight of the prosecution's evidence which established his guilty beyond reasonable doubt." The Committee reiterates its jurisprudence (5) that the evaluation of facts and evidence is best left for the courts of States parties to decide, unless the evaluation of facts and evidence was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. As the author has provided no evidence to demonstrate that the courts' decisions were clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, the Committee considers this claim inadmissible under article 2, of the Optional Protocol for non-substantiation for purposes of admissibility. For these reasons, the Committee concludes that this claim is inadmissible.

4.5 As to the author's claim that his rights were violated under article 14, paragraph 5, as the Supreme Court did not hear the testimony of the witnesses but relied on the first instance interpretation of the evidence provided, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that a "factual retrial" or "hearing de novo" are not necessary for the purposes of article 14, paragraph 5. (6) Accordingly, this part of the communication is therefore inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.

4.6 The Committee finds the remaining claims raised by the author to be admissible and therefore proceeds to a consideration of the merits of the claims relating to articles 6, 7; 10, paragraph 1; 9 and 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant.

Consideration of the merits

5.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.

5.2 The Committee notes from the judgments of both the Regional Trial Court and the Supreme Court, that the author was convicted of statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8353 (see footnote 2 below), which provides that "[t]he death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim............." Thus, the death penalty was imposed automatically by operation of article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the automatic and mandatory imposition of the death penalty constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life, in violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, in circumstances where the death penalty is imposed without any possibility of taking into account the defendant's personal circumstances or the circumstances of the particular offence. (7) It also notes that rape, under the law of the State party is a broad notion and covers crimes of different degrees of seriousness. It follows that the automatic imposition of the death penalty in the author's case, by virtue of the application of article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, violated his rights under article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

5.3 In light of the above finding of a violation of article 6 of the Covenant, the Committee need not address the author's remaining claims under paragraphs 1, 2 and 6 of article 6, which all concern the imposition of capital punishment in this case.

5.4 The Committee notes the author's claims of violations under articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, on account of the fact that he would not be notified of the date of his execution until dawn of the day in question, whereupon he would be executed within 8 hours and would have insufficient time to bid farewell to family members and organise his personal affairs. It further notes the State party's contention that the death sentence shall be carried out "not earlier than one (1) year nor later than eighteen (18) months after the judgment has become final and executory, without prejudice to the exercise by the President of his executive clemency powers at all times." (8) The Committee understands from the legislation that the author would have at least one year and at most eighteen months, after the exhaustion of all available remedies, during which he may make arrangements to see members of his family prior to notification of the date of execution. It also notes that, under Section 16 of the Republic Act No. 8177, following notification of execution he would have approximately eight hours to finalise any personal matters and meet with members of his family The Committee reiterates its prior jurisprudence that the issue of a warrant for execution necessarily causes intense anguish to the individual concerned and is of the view that the State party should attempt to minimise this anguish as far as possible. (9) However, on the basis of the information provided, the Committee cannot find that the setting of the time of the execution of the author within eight hours after notification, considering that he would already have had at least one year following the exhaustion of domestic remedies and prior to notification to organize his personal affairs and meet with family members, would violate his rights under articles 7, and 10, paragraph 1.

5.5 As to the author's claims under article 9, in light of the State party's failure to contest the factual submissions of the author, the Committee concludes that, upon arrest in September 1996, the author was not informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and was not promptly informed of the charges against him; that the author was arrested without a warrant and hence in violation of applicable domestic law; and that after his arrest, he was not brought promptly before a judge. Consequently, there has been a violation of article 9, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, of the Covenant.

5.6 As to the author's uncontested claim that he did not have access to a lawyer during his initial period of detention, and that during both periods of detention, he was not informed of his right to legal assistance, the Committee finds a violation of article 14, paragraph 3(d), of the Covenant.

6. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts as found by the Committee reveal a violation by the Philippines of articles 6, paragraphs 1, 9, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 and 14, paragraph 3(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7. Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 3 (a) of the Covenant, the Committee concludes that the author is entitled to an appropriate remedy including commutation of his death sentence. The State party is under an obligation to avoid similar violations in the future.

8. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a State party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognised the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 90 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to its Views. The Committee is also requested to publish the Committee's Views.

___________________________ [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the present communication: Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Mr. Nisuke Ando, Ms. Christine Chanet, Mr. Franco Depasquale, Mr. Maurice Glèlè Ahanhanzo, Mr. Walter Kälin, Mr. Ahmed Tawfik Khalil, Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah, Mr. Rafael Rivas Posada, Sir Nigel Rodley, Mr. Martin Scheinin, Mr. Ivan Shearer, Mr. Hipólito Solari-Yrigoyen, Ms. Ruth Wedgwood, Mr. Roman Wieruszewski and Mr. Maxwell Yalden.

The text of two individual opinions signed by Committee members Mr. Martin Scheinin, Ms. Christine Chanet, Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah, Ms. Ruth Wedgwood and Mr. Nisuke Ando. Individual Opinion by Committee members, Mr. Martin Scheinin, Ms. Christine Chanet and Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah (partly dissenting)

We are in full support of the Committee's finding of a violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, due to categorization of the author's mandatory death penalty as arbitrary deprivation of life. In this respect, the case affirms and builds upon the Committee's earlier case law, as established in Thompson v. St. Vincent and the Grenadines (Communication No. 806/1998), Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago (Communication No. 845/1998), Carpo et al. v. the Philippines (Communication No. 1077/2002) and Ramil Rayos v. the Philippines (Communication No. 1167/2003).

However, we dissent in respect of paragraph 5.3 of the Views where the Committee concluded that it need not address the author's other claims related to article 6. Although the majority also here follows the Committee's earlier Views in Carpo , decided on 28 March 2003, we are of the opinion that the time has come to address the question of the compatibility with article 6 of the reintroduction of capital punishment in a country that once abolished it. Since the decision in Carpo - in which we participated - two important developments have taken place, on the basis of which the issue now is in our view ripe for assessment by the Committee.

Firstly, in October 2003 the Committee considered the second periodic report by the Philippines, in which context the issue of capital punishment was addressed from various perspectives and the Committee's understanding of the law and practice of the State party was greatly enhanced (See, the State party report CCPR/C/PHL/2002/2, the Committee's summary records CCPR/C/SR.2138, 2139 and 2140, and the Committee's Concluding Observations CCPR/CO/79/PHL),

Secondly, already in the next session after the disposal of the Carpo case, the Committee addressed the compatibility with article 6 of the reintroduction of capital punishment, once abolished. This was done in the case of Roger Judge v. Canada (Communication No. 829/1998), decided on 5 August 2003, where the Committee held that Canada, despite having abolished capital punishment, violated article 6 by deporting the author of the communication to another country where he would face the risk of the death penalty. It is to be pointed out that the finding was not made on the basis that Canada was a party to the Second Optional Protocol, which it is not, nor on the basis that the author would risk a violation of article 6 in the receiving country. The issue was whether exposing a person to the risk of facing capital punishment in another country was per se in violation of article 6 when done by an abolitionist country.

The answer given by the Committee was affirmative:

'10.4 In reviewing its application of article 6, the Committee notes that, as required by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty should be interpreted in good faith and in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. Paragraph 1 of article 6, which states that "Every human being has the inherent right to life...", is a general rule: its purpose is to protect life. States parties that have abolished the death penalty have an obligation under this paragraph to so protect life in all circumstances. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of article 6 are evidently included to avoid a reading of the first paragraph of article 6, according to which that paragraph could be understood as abolishing the death penalty as such. This construction of the article is reinforced by the opening words of paragraph 2 ("In countries which have not abolished the death penalty...") and by paragraph 6 ("Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant."). In effect, paragraphs 2 to 6 have the dual function of creating an exception to the right to life in respect of the death penalty and laying down limits on the scope of that exception. Only the death penalty pronounced when certain elements are present can benefit from the exception. Among these limitations are that found in the opening words of paragraph 2, namely, that only States parties that "have not abolished the death penalty" can avail themselves of the exceptions created in paragraphs 2 to 6. For countries that have abolished the death penalty, there is an obligation not to expose a person to the real risk of its application . Thus, they may not remove, either by deportation or extradition, individuals from their jurisdiction if it may be reasonably anticipated that they will be sentenced to death, without ensuring that the death sentence would not be carried out.' (emphasis added)

To any reader familiar with the issue of capital punishment, it is clear that the Committee in the quoted paragraph decided not only its position in respect of "indirect" reintroduction of capital punishment, where an abolitionist country sending someone to face the death penalty in another country, but also what comes to direct reintroduction by allowing in its own law for the death penalty after first abolishing it.

Hence, the legal issue of whether reintroduction of capital punishment after once abolishing it is in breach of article 6 has been clarified after the adoption of the Committee's Views in Carpo . What remains undecided is the factual issue whether the constitutional and legislative changes made in the Philippines in 1987 amounted to the abolition of capital punishment. This is the issue that could - and in our view should - have now been addressed by the Committee. The majority of Committee members considered that there was no need to address the issue in the current case, without discussing its merits.

The Covenant entered into force in respect of the Philippines on 23 January 1987 without any reservations. From that date onwards it was bound by the full spectrum of obligations that stem from article 6 of the Covenant. Immediately on 2 February 1987, a new Constitution took effect following approval by the people consulted by plebiscite. That Constitution, in article 3(19)(1), removed the death penalty from the applicable law of the land in the following terms:

"Executive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua."

From 1987 to 1993, the legal order of the Philippines did not include a possibility to sentence a person to death, or even the institution of capital punishment. Hence, the situation was different from a mere moratorium where capital punishment remains in the law in books but its application is suspended in practice. On 13 December 1993, the Philippine Congress, by way of Republic Act No. 7659, adopted new legislation that again included the death penalty for a number of crimes. As is clear from the above-quoted provision of the Constitution, capital punishment could be brought back to application only through new legislative decision. Such decision was taken in 1993, and although the constitutionality of the measure was contested, it was, for the purposes of domestic constitutional law, as distinct from compliance with the Covenant, upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of People v Echegaray (GR No 117472, judgment of 7 February 1997). In this ruling the Supreme Court, by a majority, held that new laws authorising capital punishment were not unconstitutional. A part of the majority's reasoning was:

'Article III, Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution plainly vests in Congress the power to re-impose the death penalty "for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes". This power is not subsumed in the plenary legislative power of Congress, for it is subject to a clear showing of "compelling reasons involving heinous crimes." The constitutional exercise of this limited power to re-impose the death penalty entails (1) that Congress define or describe what is meant by heinous crimes; (2) that Congress specify and penalize by death, only crimes that qualify as heinous in accordance with the definition or description set in the death penalty bill and/or designate crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death in which latter case, death can only be imposed upon the attendance of circumstances duly proven in court that characterize the crime to be heinous in accordance with the definition or description set in the death penalty bill; and (3) that Congress, in enacting this death penalty bill be singularly motivated by "compelling reasons involving heinous crimes."'

What is clear to us on the basis of this and other passages of the ruling is that the Supreme Court's assessment was limited to the domestic constitutional issue and did not extend to the question whether the enactment of the 1987 Constitution amounted to an abolition in the meaning of article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, and what would be the consequences under the Covenant if it did. Nevertheless, we find it proper to quote also a particularly articulate minority opinion, also written in the framework of domestic constitutional law rather than international law:

"... the Constitution did not merely suspend the imposition of the death penalty, but in fact completely abolished it from the statute books. The automatic commutation or reduction to reclusion perpetua of any death penalty extant as of the effectivity of the Constitution clearly recognizes that, while the conviction of an accused for a capital crime remains, death as penalty ceased to exist in our penal laws and thus may no longer be carried out. This is the clear intent of the framers of our Constitution.'

In the above description of the sequence of events we have avoided expressing a position as to whether what happened in the Philippines in 1987 amounted to an abolition of the death penalty in the sense of article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. It is now time to answer that question.

As the Committee notes in paragraph 4.1 of its Views in the current case, the Philippines has not furnished the Committee with any submissions in response to the communication. This is of course regrettable but cannot prevent the Committee from establishing the facts in the light of the material it has in its possession.

In our view the distinction between abolition and a moratorium is decisive. In 1987 the Philippines removed capital punishment from it legal order, so that no provision of criminal law included a possibility to sentence any person to death. The death penalty could not be applied on the basis of the reference to it in the Constitution. On the contrary, the Constitution itself made it very clear that capital punishment had been removed from the legal order, i.e., abolished. The fact that the Constitution came to include a kind of domestic reservation, meaning that not every form of reintroducing capital punishment would be unconstitutional, has no relevance for the substantive contents or application of article 6 of the Covenant as an international treaty.

Hence, our conclusion is that, for purposes of article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, the Philippines abolished capital punishment in 1987 and reintroduced it in 1993. Subsequent to that, the author of the current communication was sentenced to death. This constituted, in our view, a violation of article 6 of the Covenant. This violation is separate from and additional to the violation of article 6 established by the Committee on the basis of the mandatory nature of the death sentence.

Our conclusion is supported by the State party's own arguments submitted to the Committee in the earlier Carpo case. Although the State party failed to cooperate with the Committee in the current case, it is of relevance now that before the Committee's disposition of Carpo , the State party argued as follows:

(1) 'That the Philippines, under the 1987 Constitution, had decided to abolish it [the death penalty] did not disable its legislature from again imposing such a penalty for the Constitution itself allows for its imposition.'

(2) '... the constitutionality of the death penalty law is a matter for the State party to decide. The Committee is not empowered to interpret the constitution of a State party for purposes of determining whether such State party is complying with its obligations under the Covenants.'

(3) Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant 'does not refer to countries that have once abolished the death penalty: it simply refers to countries that have existing death penalty statutes'.

Statement (1) is correct as a matter of Philippino constitutional law but at the same time amounts to an admission that the sequence of events should be categorised as abolition followed by reintroduction. Statement (2) is technically correct but does not affect the Committee's competence to interpret article 6 of the Covenant. Statement (3) is manifestly incorrect in the light of the opening words of article 6, paragraph 2: 'In countries that which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed...'

Over the more than 25 years of its existence, the Human Rights Committee has developed singularly important jurisprudence on the issue of the right to life and its effect of narrowing down any application of capital punishment. Although it is clear that the drafters of the Covenant could not reach agreement about outlawing capital punishment, they nevertheless included in the detailed provisions of article 6 a number of restrictions on the application of this ultimate punishment which many states, supreme or constitutional courts in various parts of the world, eminent jurists, academics and members of the general public regard as inhuman. Through a rigorous application of the various elements of article 6 the Committee has in its jurisprudence managed to develop international scrutiny over the application of the death penalty without, however, reading a total ban against it into article 6. Some of the most important dimensions of this voluminous jurisprudence relate to the effect of a violation of the right to a fair trial in proceedings leading to capital punishment constituting not only a violation of article 14 but also of article 6, to the categorization of mandatory death penalty for a broadly defined crime as arbitrary deprivation of life, to the scope of the notion of "most serious crimes" in paragraph 2 of article 6 and, in Judge, to the issue of indirect reintroduction of capital punishment through an abolitionist country deporting a person to face a risk of it elsewhere, as violations of article 6. Furthermore, with reference to article 7 of the Covenant, the Committee has also decided that certain forms of execution, as well as prolonged stay on death row if accompanied by "further compelling circumstances", constitute violations of the Covenant. All this jurisprudence has, together with the exclusion of certain categories of persons from capital punishment in the text of article 6, in effect narrowed down any use of capital punishment. It may well be that one day the Committee will find sufficient grounds to conclude that in the light of evolving public opinion, state practice and case law from various jurisdictions, any form of execution constitutes an inhuman punishment in the meaning of article 7.

Future cases will show whether this will indeed be the line of further evolution in the Committee's jurisprudence. Be it as it may, in our view the Committee should in the current case have followed its interpretation already expressed in Judge and addressed the question whether the Philippines violated article 6 by reintroducing capital punishment in 1993, after abolishing it in 1987. As explained above, our answer is affirmative.

[ Signed ] Martin Scheinin [ Signed ] Christine Chanet [ Signed ] Rajsoomer Lallah

[Done in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]

Individual opinion of Committee members Ms. Ruth Wedgwood and Mr. Nisuke Ando

Consistent with our separate opinions in Carpo v. Philippines, Case No. 1077/20002, 6 May 2002, we are unable to join in paragraph 5.2 of the Committee's Views. In addition, we do not agree with the dissenting views of Mr. Scheinin, Ms. Chanet, and Mr. Lallah in this case. The Committee has never suggested, and does not suggest in this case, that a state party should be thwarted in its reform of penalty provisions by an expansionist reading of Article 6(2) of the Covenant. The state party here has amended its national constitution to limit the death penalty to "heinous offenses" and has accordingly rewritten its criminal statutes. This was a good-faith attempt to abide by the Covenant obligation to use the death penalty "only for the most serious crimes." Protocol II of the Covenant provides a separate modality for those states willing to abolish the death penalty in all cases. It would only discourage amelioration of penalty provisions to suggest that even a temporary suspension during a period of legislative reform should prohibit a narrowed application of the death penalty. Such a reading is not supported by the language or travaux preparatoires of Article 6(2), and would defeat the very ends its proponents seek.

[ Signed ] Ruth Wedgwood [ Signed ] Nisuke Ando

[Done in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.] Notes

1. The judgment reads as follows: "The crime committed is statutory rape. The penalty imposable, considering the circumstances of relationship being present, is the supreme penalty of death. The court is left with no alternative but to obey the mandate of the law in the imposition of the penalty. In the language of the Supreme Court in People vs. Leo Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, June 25, 1996, "The law has made it inevitable under the circumstances of this case that the accused-appellant face the supreme penalty of death.""

2. The Supreme Court stated that the author was sentenced under section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, which states inter alia that "The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity with the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim............". The court stated that "The qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship that would warrant imposition of the death penalty were specifically alleged and proven."

3. People v. Tao, G.R. No. 133872, 5 May 2000; People v. Amigable, G. R No. 133857, 31 March 2000; People v. Sampior, G. R No. 117691, 1 March 2000.

4. Resolution 39/118 of 14 December 1984.

5. Ramil Rayos v. The Philippines , Case No. 1167/2003, Views of 27 July 2004.

6. Perera v. Australia, Case No. 536/93, and H.T.B. v. Canada , Case No. 534/1993.

7. Thompson v. St. Vincent & The Grenadines , Case No. 806/1998, Views of 18 October 2000; and Kennedy v. Trinidad & Tobago , Case No. 845/1998, Views of 26 March 2002, Carpo v. The Philippines , Case No. 1077/2002, Views of 6 May 2002.

8. Section 1, Republic Act No. 8177.

9. Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica, Case no. 210/1986 and 225/1987, Views adopted on 6 April 1989.

In this section

Views under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 3 November 2004

Document details

This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

• Subscribe Now

CHR finds ‘no human rights violation’ in NGO worker Elena Tijamo’s abduction

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

RALLY. Members of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas Cebu Chapter, Karapatan Central Visayas, and Farmers Development Center Central Visayas stage a rally in front of the Commission on Human Rights Central Visayas Regional Office in Cebu City protesting its findings on the abduction in 2020 of development worker Elena Tijamo, on August 29, 2024.

John Sitchon/Rappler

CEBU, Philippines – The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in Central Visayas was unable to find evidence of human rights violation in the abduction four years ago of development worker Elena Tijamo .

Tijamo, a 58-year-old program coordinator of the Farmers Development Center Central Visayas (FARDEC), was taken from her home in Bantayan Island, Cebu, on the evening of June 13, 2020. 

According to family members who were at the scene when the incident happened, unidentified men pointed guns at Tijamo and her sister before taking the former away. A year later, Tijamo’s corpse was found in a Mandaluyong hospital .

“There was an allegation of abduction and [the family] suspected that it was perpetrated by the government, particularly the police or the military. We did try to establish that fact but there was difficulty on the part of the CHR,” CHR Central Visayas Regional Director Arvin Odron told Rappler on Thursday, August 29.

According to Odron, any affront to the human rights of a person which is perpetrated by the government, state actors or by private individuals (if such private acts were tolerated by the government) constitutes a human rights violation.

Despite CHR investigators’ separate probe from the police’s investigation , Ordon said the human rights agency failed to gather sufficient evidence to link the abduction to state enforcers, and the perpetrators have yet to be identified.

“Considering that we failed to establish the link of the alleged abduction, we closed our investigation with the government. That’s why we closed our investigation without finding of human rights violation,” the regional director said.

“[Law enforcement] will be establishing the criminal liability of the perpetrator, but on the part of the CHR, we want to establish first whether the disappearance is in a form of human rights violation,” Odron added.

‘Not satisfied’

When asked how she felt about the result of CHR’s investigation, Tijamo’s daughter, Annika, told Rappler that it was anger rooted from disappointment.

Annika said, “It has been [four] years since that happened and that was the result of their findings? No human rights violations?”   

Tijamo’s daughter, who was still a minor the night her mother was abducted, stressed that her family was not satisfied with the results of the investigation, especially after learning that it was based on her affidavit and the text messages between her and her mother. 

In 2020, family members received a text message from Tijamo’s mobile number which stated that the development worker would be allowed to return home after 24 hours. She never got back.

On Thursday morning, Annika joined members of the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas Cebu Chapter, Karapatan Central Visayas, and FARDEC in a rally held in front of the CHR Central Visayas Regional Office in Cebu City.

Reinvestigate

In a statement posted on Facebook, rights group Karapatan Central Visayas denounced the results of the CHR’s probe.

“Regrettably, the CHR inquiry into this matter placed greater attention on the dubious instances when Elena Tijamo made phone calls and sent messages to her family without disclosing the details of her abduction and concealment of her location. This detracted from the urgency of the situation and the need for transparency in handling cases of missing persons,” the group said.

“As we mark the third death anniversary of Elena Tijamo, we reflect not only on her tragic loss but also on the disturbing rise in abductions and enforced disappearances targeting activists, development workers, and defenders of the environment and human rights,” Karapatan said.

The rights groups demanded a reinvestigation into Elena Tijamo’s case. Annika told Rappler that she was informed by CHR Central Visayas office that they would look into reopening the case. 

If the new probe yields the same results, the young Tijamo said, they would ask the CHR’s national office to act on the matter. – Rappler.com

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}, cebu is asia’s leading wedding destination at world travel awards 2024.

NBI: 16 foreigners caught in Cebu POGO hub charged with qualified trafficking

It was legal until it wasn’t? Cebu POGO hub controversy goes way back to 2019

Lapu-Lapu City mayor shuts down 6 businesses operating in Cebu POGO hub

IN PHOTOS: Tubo Cebu Art Fair 2024

Central Visayas

Watch: inside the illegal pogo hub in cebu.

Commission on Human Rights

Memorial body points to up as ‘cause of delay’ in martial law museum construction.

In joint position, worker and employer groups call for higher CHR budget

[The Slingshot] Leila de Lima’s supplemental communication to the ICC

Extrajudicial killings in the Philippines

This country spotlight refers to data published in 2019. For the most recent data, go to our Rights Tracker .

‘War on drugs’ is a denial of the right to life

Since the election of Rodrigo Duterte in June 2016, a violent ‘war on drugs’ has claimed upwards of 5,000 lives in the Philippines. Executions by police and militia groups that target drug dealers and users not only exacerbate the drug problem but constitute a violation of the right to freedom from execution by extrajudicial killing.

On July 1st 2016, Oliver Dela Cruz was shot to death in Bulacan province during a police sting operation. He was playing cards at a friend’s house when a group of armed men broke in, interrogated and executed him. Police denied any responsibility, blaming vigilante violence.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Philippines has signed, recognises the right to life. The death penalty was abolished in the Philippines in 1987, and the country signed the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, becoming part of the global movement against the death penalty.

Under the ICCPR, the right to be free from execution also covers arbitrary and extrajudicial killing. The Human Rights Measurement Initiative tracks the performance of countries around the world on upholding these rights.

The killings of Mr Dela Cruz and thousands of others are a denial of the right to life, the right to freedom from execution.

While the current administration is not directly responsible for the authorisation of these extra-judicial executions, Agnes Callamard, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Killings, blamed Duterte’s hard-line approach and rhetoric for exacerbating the violence and denounced the lack of investigation into the killings.

Police and militia groups are not being held to account for their actions. This is a rejection of the government’s obligation to investigate violations of the right to life and the right to freedom from extrajudicial killing.

The right to freedom from execution

According to international law, the right to be free from execution includes freedom from any arbitrary or extrajudicial deprivation of life, as well as freedom from the death penalty even with due process of law (ICCPR, Part III, Article 6; Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, Article 1).

This is a fundamental human right that must be respected and governments are legally obligated to do what they can to prevent such killings and hold those responsible to account.

HRMI’s Civil and Political Rights data collection

In 2019, we collected information on civil and political rights in 19 survey countries via a secure online expert opinion survey  (please note this is a link to a preview of the survey only, and any responses you make will not be collected).

These countries were selected based on the following two criteria:

• Sufficient interest from human rights experts in that country for inclusion (so that we could be sure to have sufficient numbers of survey respondents and active engagement during the survey).
• A sub-set of 19 countries that offered diversity of sizes, regions, cultures, income levels, degree of openness etc (so that we could learn how well our survey methodology worked in different contexts).

The graph below shows how the 19 countries in the HRMI survey performed on freedom from execution.

It seems likely that the Philippines would perform poorly relative to the survey countries, due to the number of unlawful executions carried out since 2016, but without data it is harder for human rights defenders to do their work and hold governments to account.

As soon as funding allows, we will extend our civil and political rights data collection to the Philippines and the rest of the world, and expand our full set of data to measure other rights protected by international law.

If you want to help fund our expansion to the Philippines, and all countries in the world, please contact us .

Who can use these data?

All of HRMI’s data are freely available to anyone. You can  explore our data site here , and even download the dataset.

We have data on seven  civil and political rights : as well as  five economic and social rights .

HRMI aims to produce  useful  data. Some of the people we expect will use our data are:

• Journalists, especially those reporting a particular country, and those focusing on human rights, politics, social issues or international affairs
• Researchers
• Government policy advisers
• Human rights advocates
• Human rights monitors within a region, and at the international level
• Companies, for decision-making, to minimise risk for investors, and direct capital flows ethically.

If you know anyone in those categories, please let them know about HRMI, in case our data can be useful to them.

HRMI’s data have been available for only a few months so far, but as different people use them, we want to share stories and case studies. Whenever you see our data in action, please tell us, and we’ll include a link on our website.

Thanks for your interest in HRMI. You are most welcome to follow us on  Twitter ,  YouTube ,  Facebook , and LinkedIn and sign up to receive occasional newsletters  here .

For any website to function, it is necessary to collect a small amount of user data, so by continuing to use this website, you are consenting to that. To find out more, please read our Privacy Policy

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

The Role of Human Rights Institutions In Tackling Climate Change: A Case Study of the Philippines

• Introduction

Earlier this year, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines released its final report detailing the findings of a groundbreaking inquiry ( In re Greenpeace Southeast Asia and Others ) into the responsibility of “ Carbon Majors ”—large global fossil fuel and cement companies—for the adverse effects of climate change on human rights.

Remarkably, the Commission found that Carbon Majors not only were well aware of the climate harms of fossil fuel products since 1965 but also engaged in wilful obfuscation and obstruction to delay meaningful environmental and climate action for decades (on climate misinformation, see the critical work of Benjamin Franta). The Commission also held that all businesses are responsible for undertaking due diligence to ensure that they are not violating human rights and providing remediation where abuses occur. This responsibility applies to all companies conducting business in the Philippines, and those present within the country by virtue of their value chain or any other reason.

The Commission’s findings are the culmination of a seven-year inquiry. In 2015, a series of particularly violent typhoons hit the Philippines. In the deadliest of them, Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda), over 6,000 people died, 28,000 were injured, and 1,000 were reported missing. In the aftermath of Haiyan and other typhoons, a number of non-governmental organizations and individuals filed a petition with the Commission with the support of over 30,000 Filipinos, asking it to investigate and hold 47 Carbon Majors accountable for human rights violations resulting from their role in causing and contributing to climate change. 

In this post, we take a closer look at the Commission’s momentous report and reflect on the role of the Commission and other national human rights institutions in climate change litigation. In doing so, we pay special attention to the procedure followed by the Commission and the novel recommendations the Commission formulated. 

• Procedural Innovations of the Commission’s Inquiry

The Commission’s report is unprecedented. In the beginning, the Commission notes that it could have followed the precedent set by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2005, when the latter rejected a petition brought by a group of Inuit people to assert the United States’ responsibility for human rights violations associated with climate change in the Arctic ( Petition To The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Seeking Relief From Violations Resulting from Global Warming Caused By Acts and Omissions of the United States ). Instead, in this case, the Commission decided to hear the petitioners’ case and conduct a massive inquiry into the role of 47 Carbon Majors in climate change.

It is interesting that the Commission assumed this role because it is not, strictly speaking, an adjudicative body. It does not have the power to make liability findings, nor can it compel parties to participate in its inquiry process. It also lacks enforcement powers. Case in point, only a handful of the 47 Carbon Majors actually chose to participate in the Commission’s inquiry, and most did so only selectively to argue against the Commission’s jurisdiction. However, this did not deter the Commission from moving forward. Instead, it argued that its constitutionally granted mandate to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights and to provide legal measures to protect the human rights of Filipinos residing both in the country and abroad (Article XIII, Sections 17(1), 18(1) and 18(3) of the Constitution of the Philippines ) provided it with the necessary authority to proceed with the inquiry. Notably, the Philippines Supreme Court has explicitly held the CHR’s jurisdiction is only limited to investigating civil and political rights (see Simon v. CHR (1991) (no power to investigate violations of economic, social, and cultural rights); Cudia v. Superintendent (2015) (no power to investigate violations of the right to education)). 

It is on this basis that the Commission took several innovative steps, including roundtable discussions with stakeholders, community dialogues, hearings on three different continents (in Manila, New York, and London), and consultations in other parts of the world. It also engaged with other human rights bodies such as the South East Asia NHRI Forum, the Asia Pacific Forum, and the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights. Moreover, the Commission designed its inquiry in a unique two-stage process: a consultation stage, including community dialogues, key informant interviews, focus group discussions and roundtable discussions; and a public hearing process. It also chose to use a dialogic approach in its hearings instead of the typical adversarial process, and to invite a wide variety of individuals and institutions to participate. Overall, the work put out by the Commission was both singular and colossal. It has been praised by the climate change community and serves as a role model for national human rights institutions in other jurisdictions. Additionally, the unprecedented amount of evidence of the Carbon Majors’ contribution to climate change brought forward by the Commission can be used in future litigation in the Philippines and elsewhere. 

• Recommendations of the Commission

Another exceptional aspect of the Commission’s final report consists of its tailored recommendations made to a variety of actors including governments, financial institutions, investors, other national human rights institutions, global citizens, NGOs, the government of the Philippines, and Carbon Majors themselves. For example, the Commission encouraged governments worldwide to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and concretize corporate climate responsibility. It also asked Carbon Majors, financial institutions, and investors to lead a just transition to clean energy by reducing further exploration of fossil fuels and investing in green projects.

The Commission’s  authority to provide recommendations to different actors is grounded in the Philippines’ Constitution, which allows it to: (1) provide appropriate legal measures to protect the human rights of all persons within the Philippines and Filipinos abroad; (2) establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for human rights; (3) recommend measures to Congress to promote human rights and provide compensation for human rights violations; and (4) request the assistance of any department, bureau, office or agency in the performance of its human rights protecting functions (Article XIII, Sections 18(3), (5), (6), (9) of the Constitution of the Philippines ).

All of the Commission’s recommendations are important and provide a model for climate actors globally. However, in our view, the most innovative recommendations the Commission made were to courts, the legal profession, and global citizens, three actors that are not always directly addressed when we think about climate action.

First, addressing courts, the Commission noted that “[j]udicial contribution to the development of the law and jurisprudence on various climate issues is indispensable to the success of the global climate action.” It encouraged adjudicative bodies across the world to embrace their power to influence and inspire governmental action and rise to their task in climate litigation by “inform[ing], determin[ing], explain[ing] and uphold[ing], through their decisions, the rights and obligations of parties concerning particular climate laws, policies and issues.”

Second, addressing the legal profession generally, the Commission endorsed the views of Justice Brian Preston, Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, in calling for a climate-conscious rather than climate-blind approach among lawyers, even those whose professional activities effectively impede meaningful climate action. As Justice Preston explains:

“A climate blind approach is where the outcome of the legal problem or dispute will have some impact on climate change issues, but legal advice is given or the dispute is litigated or resolved without any attention to climate change issues. A climate conscious approach requires an active awareness of the reality of climate change and how it interacts with daily legal problems. A climate conscious approach demands, first, actively identifying the intersections between the issues of the legal problem or dispute and climate change issues and, secondly, giving advice and litigating or resolving the legal problem or dispute in ways that meaningfully address the climate change issues.”

Finally, the Commission called upon all citizens of the world to think of themselves as “stewards of nature” in caring for our common home. It encouraged people to recognize over-consumption as an important contributor to climate change, to become better-informed actors (be it as consumers, shareholders, voters, or any other capacity), and to take conscious steps to reduce our carbon footprint for a more sustainable tomorrow.

• The Role of the Commission and Other National Human Rights Institutions

The peculiarities of the Commission’s role and powers, and of its long list of recommendations, spur at least two puzzling questions. First, why did the Commission undertake such a massive inquiry knowing that it does not have the power either to find any of the 47 Carbon Majors liable or to grant a legal remedy? Second, given this, is the Commission’s report an optimistic but meaningless exposition of Carbon Majors’ responsibility for climate change, or can it have a real impact?

In our view, national human rights institutions like the Commission, while not courts of law, can (and should) play an important role in the climate accountability space. This is so for at least three reasons.

First, by putting the spotlight on Carbon Majors and their actions, particularly the fact that they knew of the climate harms of their products since the 1960s and wilfully obfuscated scientific findings to delay meaningful climate action, the Commission’s report has three effects. It can lead individually-named actors to change their behavior out of fear of public backlash. Courts can draw inspiration from its findings in future actions and legislative bodies can further rely on it for policy reform. Most importantly however, by bringing to light the activities undertaken by Carbon Majors, including the deployment of a national communications plan to undermine climate science, the funding of “climatosceptic” politicians, the forging of letters to influence legislative votes and the fronting of groups to oppose climate regulations under the guise of grassroots support, the Commission’s report can fracture existing power relations and structures that have led to climate inaction and bring about political transparency and substantive political climate action.

Second, by virtue of their unique nature, national human rights institutions can develop innovative procedural designs, as discussed above. Such innovations have the potential to bring forward large amounts and novel types of evidence because they foster stakeholder participation in a way that courts cannot match. The Commission’s report tellingly illustrates this point considering the massive outreach to traditional sources of information (such as the parties to the dispute) as well as a wide variety of experts, NGOs, international human rights bodies, etc. Gathering such evidence is valuable for the findings of the Commission, and it also places in the public’s eye (and reach) large quantities of information that can help weave a counter-narrative to oppose the existing tale of Carbon Majors’ lack of accountability for climate change. This evidence can be used by other national human rights institutions, grassroot organizations as well as courts and legislative bodies to drive policy change.

Lastly and relatedly, legal change is about more than legislative reforms and accountability before courts. It also consists of changing legal actors’ understanding of existing rules and shaping the space of legal contestation, something that the Commission explicitly recognizes when it says: “[t]he challenge to [national human rights institutions] is to test boundaries and create new paths; to be bold and creative, instead of timid and docile; to be more idealistic or less pragmatic; to promote soft laws into becoming hard laws; to see beyond technicalities and establish guiding principles that can later become binding treaties; in sum, to set the bar of human rights protection to higher standards.” The Commission and other national human rights institutions may have a greater ability to develop and share novel and bold legal solutions to societal problems because of their unique nature.

• Concluding Remarks

National human rights institutions have the ability to be impactful actors in the global response to climate change. The Philippines Commission’s groundbreaking report is remarkable for what it says about climate accountability and the responsibility of Carbon Majors and other businesses for the harmful effects of climate change. Its specific focus on willful obfuscation is an important step toward legal accountability for decades-long climate misinformation by fossil fuel companies, and its detailed list of recommendations is a model resource for a variety of actors, from governments to individual (global) citizens. Other national human rights institutions around the world would be well guided in building on the Commission’s report by exerting their legal and para-legal influence to further climate justice.

* This blog post is part of the Sabin Center’s Peer Review Network of Global Climate Litigation and was edited by Maria Antonia Tigre . Antoine De Spiegeleir is the rapporteur for Belgium.

Maria Antonia Tigre

Dr. Maria Antonia Tigre is the Global Climate Litigation Fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.

• New Sabin Center Report Maps Climate Cases in the Global South
• Reparation for Climate Change at the ECtHR
• KlimaSeniorinnen and Gender
• Exploring the Intersection of Human Rights and the Climate Crisis: Insights from new “Advisory Opinion on Climate Change” Report

Antoine De Spiegeleir

Antoine De Spiegeleir is the Sabin Center's rapporteur for Belgium.

• The European Court of Human Rights’ April 9 Climate Rulings and the Future (Thereof)
• Sabin Center’s Network of Peer Reviewers Responds to African Commission’s Call for Comments on Climate Change and Human Rights
• The 2022 Qatar World Cup Was Greenwashed: The Swiss Fairness Commission Finds In Favor of Six NGOs Alleging Misleading and Unfair Advertisement by FIFA
• Climate Docket and the Future in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

You may also like

July 2019 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we […]

Social Dynamics and Climate Change

Last week, the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne hosted an official COP21 side event: Social Dynamics and Climate Change. The conference was […]

Guest Blog: Pioneering Decision from the Indian Supreme Court Recognizing Freedom from the Adverse Effects of Climate Change as a Fundamental Right.

Introduction Though environmental rights have long been recognized globally, they have undergone particularly notable evolution over the past half-century. India, surprisingly to […]

Doha COP Report: Wednesday, December 5

There are now less than 48 hours until negotiations in Doha are scheduled to conclude, on the evening of Friday, December 7.  […]

Narvskiy, Saint Petersburg

Saint Petersburg

Around the Globe

Hurricane tracker, severe weather, radar & maps, news & features, news / astronomy.

Asteroid burns up in Earth’s atmosphere over Philippines

A roughly 1-meter (3-foot) asteroid burned up in Earth’s atmosphere over the Philippines near Luzon Island early Wednesday afternoon, according to NASA.

By Monica Garrett and Steve Tuemmler, CNN

Published Sep 5, 2024 3:46 AM MSK | Updated Sep 5, 2024 2:40 PM MSK

A meteor put on a show for onlookers as it raced through the night sky over Cagayan, Philippines, on Sept. 4.

Editor's note:  Sign up for CNN’s Wonder Theory science newsletter.  Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more

(CNN) —  A roughly 1-meter (3-foot) asteroid burned up in Earth’s atmosphere over the Philippines near Luzon Island early Wednesday afternoon, according to NASA. The  European Space Agency  estimated the impact occurred at 12:39 p.m. ET (4:39 p.m. UTC).

A roughly 1-meter asteroid is set to strike Earth's atmosphere over the Philippines near Luzon Island on Wednesday. The fireball may be hard to see due to Typhoon Yagi, the European Space Agency said. (Photo caption: ESA via CNN Newsource)

The  Catalina Sky Survey  discovered the object, initially called CAQTDL2 but now named 2024 RW1, this morning. Asteroids around 1 meter in size are estimated to hit Earth about  every two weeks , according to the space agency, though they are very rarely spotted before making impact with the planet.

BIG NEWS! CSS observer Jacqueline Fazekas has just discovered a small meteoroid that will harmlessly impact with Earth's atmosphere in about 8 hours over the Western Pacific. The object (called CAQTDL2) is small, a few feet in diameter. Attached are the discovery images. pic.twitter.com/js7qHNiZq0 — Catalina Sky Survey (@catalina_sky) September 4, 2024

“This is just the ninth asteroid that humankind has ever spotted before impact,”  ESA tweeted.

The object was harmless as it was small enough to burn up in the atmosphere upon entry. Sky-gazers in the area posted video on social media that captured a spectacular fireball.

The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Weather News

Slow-moving tropical rainstorm to drench Houston to Tallahassee

Frightening moment as walls collapse from floodwaters in New York libr...

Weekend rain may dampen football games, outdoor plans in Northeast

AccuWeather Early

Hurricane center.

Top Stories

Trending Today

In memoriam, case studies, blogs & webinars.

Several tropical threats lurk in Atlantic amid historic lull

10 minutes ago

Weather Forecasts

Fall foliage 2024: Where weather will create stunning autumn colors

2 hours ago

3 hours ago

Featured Stories

Titanic's iconic bow is collapsing, new photos reveal

NASA may have created a meteor shower that will last 100 years

5-year-old boy attacked by mountain lion in California's Malibu Creek ...

First-of-its-kind climate migration map of land-hoofed mammals

22 hours ago

Researchers create robots controlled by a king oyster mushroom

We have updated our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy .