The Philippines:"a rights violating abyss"?

Photo Source @JireCarreon

What has been happening in the Philippines?

It has been confirmed two human rights activists in the Philippines and supporters of the same organisation have been shot dead in the space of two weeks.

The recent killing of paralegal for human rights group Karapatan Zara Alvarez on August 17th has been described as yet another cold-blooded targeted killing under President Duterte's administration. Gunned down in her home of Bacolod City Negros by masked assailants, Ms Alvarez was a dedicated social activist for human rights group Karapatan,stationed in the 'agricultural belt' of Negros where violence on activists has been primarily concentrated.

Ms Alvarez's murder fell on the same day that Randall Harris, a long time Philippines peasant leader and human rights activist was laid to rest after being tortured and stabbed to death a week earlier at his home in Quezon City. Mr Harris had also worked with Karapatan during his history of social advocating, in addition to being a peace consultant for the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (Philippines communist party.)

"That [Zara] was gunned down merely a week after Ka Randy was brutally tortured and murdered- and on the very day he was buried- strongly suggests that these senseless and cold blooded killings are part of an orchestrated murderous rampage to silence dissent, with human rights defenders as targets and fair game" observed Karapatan Secretary Cristina Palabay in a press release.

What is the motive behind these killings?

Both murders have been been condemned as components in a pattern of motivated killings by the Philippines authorities, following a policy of 'red-tagging' social activists under the guise of a newly implemented anti-terrorism law introduced in July. The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 which emerged as the predecessor of the 2007 Human Security Act, enables authorities to arrest without warrant and detain those branded as extremists or terrorists for up to 24 days.

So, how human rights friendly is the Anti-Terrorism Act?

In a statement issued by Amnesty International, Asia Pacific Regional Director Nicholas Bequelin described the law as "the latest example of the country’s ever-worsening human rights record. Once again, this shows why the UN should launch a formal investigation into ongoing widespread and systematic violations in the country.”

The recently adopted bill as of 18th July has been subject to severe internal and external criticism, notably from the United States Congress after raising concerns of its abuse in practice and theoretical abuse of constitutional rights. In response, the Philippines Foreign Ministry has maintained that, "The Anti-Terrorism Act itself strongly mandates that human rights be absolute and protected at all times."

One of the legislation's most controversial provisions is that persons arrested on the grounds of terrorism may be detained for up to 24 days without charge. From a human rights angle, this has the potential to invite horrendous violations, as detainees for this extended period of time are generally considered at higher risk of torture and degrading treatment.

In addition, should any person be found to be writing, using art or publishing works which the government deems sufficient evidence, a sentence of 12 years imprisonment may be imposed under the Act.

Whilst social activism in itself is not cited as a punishable offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act, leading human rights lawyer Neri Colmenares assures this does not exclude it from being treated as a form of terrorism under President Duterte's government as, "terrorism is any form of dissent."

The current abhorrent current treatment of Filipino activists as an international national security threat merely highlights a detail in the state's long history of human rights violations. Surges of numerous peoples rebellions led by peasants, communist rebels and political opponents in the name of economic aid and social freedoms have been consistently plagued with excessive and unreasonable use of military force, media censorship and extra judicial killings of journalists and activists have plagued the state since the 1960's.

Extra judicial killings and the war on drugs

In particular, May 2020 data released by Amnesty International has confirmed that the ongoing 'drug war' has claimed the lives of over 7,025 suspects of drug dealings under police investigations, including those that have died at the hands of masked gunmen suspected of acting on behalf of the government. President Duterte's anti-drug campaign ongoing since 2016 has followed routinely brutal practices against those alleged as supporting the illegal drug trade, encouraged by policy documents described by a U.N.Human Rights Office report as containing "ill-defined and ominous language, coupled with repeated verbal encouragement by the highest level of State officials to use lethal force, may have emboldened police to treat the circular as permission to kill."

President Duterte has been very vocal about this gruesome campaign. During his inauguration speech on the 30th June 2016, he exclaimed ‘If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself’.

Whilst officially, the Philippines does not impose capital punishment, the commonness of extra-judicial killings does suggest an informal practice. Notably, further controversy has been stirred by news that President Duterte is in government talks considering re-instating the death penalty, which in 2007 the Philippines ratified to abolish in accepting the Second Optional Protocol to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. To do so, asserts Human Rights Watchdog, would 'lead the Philippines to descend further into a rights violating abyss. And the government will lose credibility and leverage to negotiate on behalf of Filipinos who face execution abroad."

As the Covenant stands,ratifying states are prohibited from reversing their acceptance of the treaty and optional protocols. To do so otherwise would constitute a grave breach of their international legal obligations and give rise to state responsibility.

The Philippines' increasing support for the death penalty directly breaches the right to life, a Jus cogens peremptory norm in international law. Jus Cogens are rules of international law that have reached the highest status of being a general norm which is almost universally accepted as legally binding by the international community. No state may derogate from upholding the norm, and only a similar jus cogens has the power to modify another.

Which relevant human rights are at stake?

Manifest violations of the sanctity of life, freedom of expression, media, the right to assemble peacefully and the sanctity of human life are dominating the Philippines.

Key legal notes (International law)

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

Whilst the declaration does not have legally binding status, it operates as the cornerstone of international law, setting out the primary objectives of the UN as an international organisation.

(Philippines voted in favour of the declaration)

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

• International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights

*signed by Philippines 19th December 1966, entry into force January 1987*

Article 6, Right to life

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

2. In countries which have not yet abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.

Article 19, Freedom of expression

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of his choice.

Article 21, Right to freedom of assembly

1. The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognised. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

• Key Articles of the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 11

Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.