In partial fulfillment of Legal Writing The Constitutionality of Oplan Tokhang and Extra Judicial Killings (EJKs) and the Importance of Knowing your Rights
Submitted by: Andrea Ivy R. Dy 1-JD, EH410
Submitted to: Atty. Joan Saniel Amit
Submitted on: March 28, 2017
Introduction
“If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself….” For quite some time now, our country has been under the spotlight and scrutiny in the international arena because of the rampant and infamous war on drugs spearheaded and ordered by our President Rodrigo Duterte. Numerous articles have been written and documentaries are currently being made to shed a light into the Philippines’ battle to eradicate illegal drugs and diminish drugrelated crimes. Since assuming into the presidency last June 30, 2016, President Duterte vowed and campaigned to kill tens of thousands of criminals in a relentless war on crime and to wipe out drug traffickers, even urging the population to kill addicts.1 True enough, this vow has been effected by the Philippine National Police (PNP) anti-drug operations and other vigilante-style or unexplained killings. As of March 24, 2017, over 7,000 deaths have been reported that are linked to the “war on drugs”; as of January 31,2017, 2,555 suspected drug personalities killed in police operations; as of January 9, 2017, 3,603 victims in cases of deaths under investigation and 922 victims in cases where investigation has concluded. 2 These operations have been heavily examined by the country, the world leaders and different human rights organizations. They believe that our President Duterte, in his forthright and outspoken endorsement of the war on drugs, implicates him and other high ranking officials in possible incitement to violence, instigation of murder, and in command responsibility for crimes against humanity.
1
Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte urges people to kill drug addicts, The Guardian, July 1, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/01/philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-urges-people-to-killdrug-addicts 2 Michael Bueza, In Numbers: The Philippines’ ‘war on drugs’, Rappler, September 13, 2016. http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/145814-numbers-statistics-philippines-war-drugs
The PNP’s efforts to effect President Duterte’s vision on the “war on drugs” is through “Oplan Double Barrel” and Project “Tokhang”. According to PNP Chief Superintendent Ronald dela Rosa, Oplan Double Barrel is where one touch of the barrel, two triggers will be set off. There would be a barrel that will target from above, the high-value targets, while the other will target from below, the street-level personalities. Project “Tokhang” on the other hand, was started in Davao City, during President Duterte’s reign as the Mayor of the City. Project “TokHang” is a contraction of Visayan words “toktok” and “hangyo” meaning “knock” and “request” respectively. This refers to the police’s nationwide strategy to go house-to-house in their respective jurisdictions and convince known drug pushers and users to surrender and change their ways. 3 From the very definition of these PNP operations, it would seem that it would implicate and incriminate the accused drug pushers and users, violating the rights that have been granted to them by the Bill of Rights under our 1987 Constitution. This paper aims to decipher and answer, whether or not the PNP Operations on the War on Drugs is constitutional under the 1987 Constitution. Further, this paper aims to stress the importance of knowing our rights that have been vested upon us by our Constitution. The scope of this paper would be limited to the recent events that revolve around the War on Drugs that is currently an infamous debate that has been shaking the world and being heavily scrutinized by the public. It will present the stance of the Duterte administration over the issue at bar and contrast it with the limitation set forth in the 1987 Philippine Constitution as well as to present the conflicting opinions of the opposition, the world leaders and organizations.
3
Ibid.
The Power of the Executive
In fulfillment of his campaign promise to eradicate drugs and lessen crime in the country, as President Duterte assumed position last June 2017 her ordered and set forth the Philippine National Police (PNP) to start the war on drugs. PNP then, in the execution of their Commander-In-Chief’s mandate carried out their plan entitled “PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Campaign Plan: Double Barrel” on July 1, 2016. To address the fight against illegal drugs, two projects under this campaign plan was effected: Project Tokhang (Lower Barrel Approach) and Project HVT (Upper Barrel Approach).
4
However, after months of operations, the PNP’s
campaign became the subject of public scrutiny by different groups such as human rights advocates, the academe, Congress, and well as local and international media because of the high amount of killings and claims that those who died during armed confrontations are victims of police abuses. Thus, they inculcated additional policies and guidelines to address the allegations that these police investigations and operations have been unlawful and are violating the rights of the accused. 5 Further, the police claim that the killings are merely carried out in self-defense. And with the full support, trust and confidence of the President on his people, the police are more encouraged and inspired. They maintain and assume the presumption of the regularity in the performance of their duties. 6 On January 19, 2017, South Korean businessman Jee Ick-joo was killed inside the headquarters of PNP in Camp Crame. 7 Allegedly a victim of “tokhang for ransom” and was killed for that very reason, increased the spotlight on PNP’s 4
Philippine National Police, PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Campaign Plan: "Double Barrel," CMC No. 16-2016 ( Jul. 1, 2016). Philippine National Police, “Additional Policies and Guidelines in the Conduct of P NP Anti -Illegal Drugs Campaign Plan: “Double Barrel”, CMC No. 2016 -12. 6 Rishi Iyengar, The Killing Time: Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s War on Dru gs, TIME, August 25, 2016. http://time.com/4462352/rodrigo-duterte-drug-war-drugs-philippines-killing/ 7 AJ Bolando, DOJ: Korean businessman killed inside Camp Crame, PhilStar, January 19, 2017. http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/01/19/1664148/doj-korean-businessman-killed-inside-camp-crame 5
Tokhang Operations. Thus, the PNP were ordered to put a halt on the War on Drugs. This order was however lifted on February 27 during a command conference by President Duterte allowing the police to implement the war on drugs again8. And to further instil peace and order but still effecting his plans to eradicate illegal drugs, the President in exercising his executive power issued Executive Order No. 15, creating an inter-agency Committee on Anti-Illegal Drugs (ICAD) that is composed of 21 government entities that will spearhead the fight against illegal drugs. The ICAD’s purpose of the “ensure the effective conduct of anti-illegal drug operations and arrest of high-value drug personalities down to the street-level peddlers and users.” 9 By virtue of the 1987 Constitution, as elected President of the Republic of the Philippines, President Duterte is vested with the executive power, where he has the mandate of power over different executive branches and bureaus, and is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. 10 Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. (1987 Constitution) Being the President of the Republic of the Philippines, there is no doubt then that President Duterte’s orders to the PNP and creation of d ifferent departments 8
Pia Ranada, Duterte allows PNP’s return to war on drugs, Rappler, February 28, 2017. http://www.rappler.com/nation/162840-duterte-allows-pnp-return-drug-war 9 Executive Order No. 15, s. 2017. “ http://www.gov.ph/2017/03/06/executive-order-no-15-s-2017/ ” 10 Sec 1, 17 and 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
to effect the pursuance of his campaign on the war on drugs, is by virtue, constitutional. He, being the chief executive, has the very power to order and make sure that the laws are effectively executed. However, as a democratic country, the executive’s powers are still subjected to the check and balance by the legislative and the judiciary.
Powers of the Legislative
Allegations of the war on drugs that the police operations are unlawful, thereby violating the rights of the accused, pushed the Senate committee on justive and human rights to conduct a probe into the spate of extrajudicial killings under the Duterte administration. This committee, headed by Senator Richard Gordon, emphasized that the Oplan Tokhang is unconstitutional as it violates the people’s constitutional rights. He further states that it is illegal for the authorities to ask alleged drug users and pushers to surrender and sign a waiver or document. By the rights granted by the Constitution (which will be discussed further below), a lawyer should be accompanying the accused when they sign documents that waive their rights and subject them to incrimination. However, as founded by the Senate investigations, some accused did not even surrender but were merely told to go to the police. This is subjecting the accused to a custodial investigation without proof that they have been granted their rights mandated by our Constitution. But despite the faulty and suspicious operations of the PNP, the Senate committee maintained that the president nor the state is sponsoring and promoting extrajudicial killings. 11
11
Camille Elemia, Draft Senate report on killings: Oplan TokHang unconstitutional, Rappler, December 07, 2016. http://www.rappler.com/nation/154738-draft-senate-report-extrajudicial-killings-oplan-tokhang-unconstitutional
Under Sec. 21, Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution, grants the Senate the power to conduct legislative inquiries in aid of legislation. SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. 12
This vested constitutional power is explained in Neri v. Senate Committee, where the Supreme Court stated that “this recognizes the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. This power is intimately connected with the express power of legislation and does not even have to be expressly granted.[5] Nonetheless, the drafters of the Constitution saw it fit to include a provision that would clearly spell out this power. The incorporation of the rule on legislative inquiry in the Constitution, however, was not intended to authorize the conduct of such inquiries but to limit them and to forestall possible abuse.” 13 This is reiterated by in Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, where the Supreme Court said that “in the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines, through its various Senate Committees, conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for, inter alia, the attendance of officials and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices including those employed in Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police (PNP).”14 Though the Senate has the power to conduct legislative inquiry, it should be emphasized that these are merely in aid of legislation. Senator Gordon may have
12
Sec. 21, Article VI, the 1987 Constitution Neri v. Senate Committee, GR. No. 180643, March 25, 2 008. 14 Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, GR. No. 169777, April 20, 2006. 13
stated that Oplan Tokhang is unconstitutional and violates the rights of the people, it is not their power to deem any action unconstitutional as it is only the Supreme Court, the Judiciary, who has the powers to do so.
Powers of the Judiciary
In furtherance of Oplan Tokhang, the rate of mortality related to drug killings have increased tremendously in the past few months. More and more people have grown terrified of their own lives and the lives of their family members, relatives and loved ones. One group of different families who are relatives of alleged drug suspects killed in anti-illegal drug operations last 2016, has already filed a case against the police, particularly against QCPD Station 6, where petitioners requested the Supreme Court to issue them a writ of amparo. On January 31, 2017, the Supreme Court granted and issued a temporary protection order (TPO) prohibiting the police officers from entering within a kilometer radius of the petitioners who filed the petition before the SC. 15 The Judiciary is bestowed the powers to exercise Judicial Review by the 1987 Constitution. Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
15
SC issues writ of amparo favoring anti-Oplan TokHang petitioners, Rappler, January 31, 2017. http://www.rappler.com/nation/160105-supreme-court-writ-amparo-anti-tokhang-petition
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. 16 In Biraogo v. the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, the Supreme Court reiterates the requisites and limitations of judicial review. “Like almost all powers
conferred by the Constitution, the power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.”17 Though the Supreme Court has issued a writ of amparo to one petitioner, this still does not equate that the Oplan Tokhang is an act that is unconstitutional. By virtue of the powers of the Judiciary, it is only through this branch where a question of constitutionality can be addressed, subject to the limitations of judicial review. It is required that for the judiciary to deem an act unconstitutional, an actual case of controversy must have been filed before them. Without a case or petition, there is nothing to review. Based from the different powers of the branches of Government, the PNP Operations seems legal and constitutional. The President’s orders are within his powers as the executive; the Congress, though deeming Oplan 16
Section 1, Article VIII, of the 1987 Constitution. Biraogo v. the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, GR. No. 192935-36, December 7, 2010.
17
Tokhang as unconstitutional during a legislative inquiry, this is merely in aid of legislation and nothing more; and the Judiciary may only review and determine acts as constitutional or not if there is in fact an actual case or controversy filed and petitioned before them. If this is the case, why then is there such a spotlight on the Philippines’ war on drugs, particularly the Oplan Tokhang?
The 1987 Constitution The Bill of Rights includes 22 other sections that declare a Filipino citizen’s rights and privileges that the Constitution is required to protect, no matter what. In furtherance of stressing the importance of the value and dignity of every human being to guarantee full respect of human rights, R.A. 7438 was enacted defining certain rights of person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation 18. By virtue of the Constitution, the Commission of Human Rights (CHR) was also created. However, their powers are limited as they only have the power to investigate human rights violations and has no power to resolve issues. This is explained in Carino v. CHR, where the Supreme Court stated that “… it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine causes) as courts of justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies do. To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. Whether in the popular or the technical sense, these terms have well understood and quite distinct meanings.” 19
18
Republic Act. No. 7438, “AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF” , April 27, 1992. 19 Carino v. the Commission on Human Rights, GR. No. 96681, December 2, 1991.
In its investigation regarding the Oplan Tokhang and extra-judicial killings, the CHR has founded the campaign of the PNP to be flawed and susceptible to abuse. The CHR chairperson stated that "it is a recognition that the campaign is fraught with flaws and susceptible to abuse. It underscores the need to ensure a highly professionalized and competent police force that will be cognizant of the rights of the citizenry it seeks to protect.” However, to reiterate Carino v. the CHR, the investigations of the CHR are merely investigations. They do not and cannot adjudicate and determine cases unlike the judiciary. Aside from various local laws, the Philippines also adheres to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). As signatories to these treaties, the Philippines is obliged to recognize and apply appropriate laws to ensure each rights’ fulfillment. Criminals, detainees, the accused or those in conflict with law, though limited, are still protected by rights. These rights are enshrined under the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, particularly Sections 11-22. 20 One section provides that every person under custodial investigation be informed of their rights and must have counsel, lest the testimony and evidence taken from the accused is deemed inadmissible. Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
20
Section 11-22, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families. 21 Under the PNP’s campaign plan against illegal-drugs, suspected drug personalities are to “voluntarily surrender” and are required to fill-out a voluntary surrender form, subscribed under oath before a notary public with the assistance of counsel. After, they are invited to the local police station to be interviewed and documented.22 For house visits, a drug watch list of suspected drug personalities is provided for by the barangays and local police stations. The data from these lists come from anonymous tippers or police “assets.” However, no procedure or standards are set to verify the list; neither is there recourse to clear one’s name from the list. Inferring from the circular that sets forth the PNP’s campaign plan of Oplan Tokhang, it would seem that this is a case of custodial investigation already. In Jesalva v. People, Supreme Court explained that “custodial investigation refers to any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. This presupposes that he is suspected of having committed a crime and that the investigator is trying to elicit information or a confession from him. The rule begins to operate at once, as soon as the
21
Section 12, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution. Philippine National Police, PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Campaign Plan: "Double Barrel," CMC No. 16-2016 ( Jul. 1, 2016). 22
investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, and direction is aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements. ”23 However, in the police operations conducted by the PNP, there is a violation of the rights vested to the accused. The rights of the accused during a custodial investigation is by operation of law, and cannot be dispensed with. In Oplan Tokang, there seems to be no lawyer present, and the persons arrested are not duly informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination, as well as their rights against rogue policemen. Precisely why these operations have been widely condemned because the process leads to the cause of abuses of some policemen resulting to alleged extrajudicial killings. 24
Impunity and Accountability
Since President Duterte assumed office, there has been a great spike in number of killings, particularly related to the anti-illegal drug operations. 25 Impunity and lack of accountability of authorities responsible for the killings create a huge concern to the public. Even so, progress of resolving extrajudicial killings is slow. There also has been a lack of action on the part of the government to investigate these killings. To add fuel to the fire, the majority of the public even appear to be desensitized to possible violations of human rights in these killings. This concern is closely related to the President’s vocal shoot-to-kill orders to police officers, especially in cases where arrested suspects violently resist. He also 23
Jesalva v. People, GR. No. 187725, January 19, 2011. Camille Elemia, Draft Senate report on killings: Oplan TokHang unconstitutional, Rappler, December 07, 2016. http://www.rappler.com/nation/154738-draft-senate-report-extrajudicial-killings-oplan-tokhang-unconstitutional 25 PNP killed 1,140 drug suspects since July, GMA NEWS, Sept. 18, 2016, available at http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/581817/news/nation/pnp-killed-1-140-drug-suspects-since-july 24
orders civilians to arrest and kill criminals under the principles of citizen arrest and self-defense. 26 What these orders promote is vigilantism, empowering the people to take the law into their own hands. As stressed by Justice Sereno in his dissenting opinion in League of Cities of the Philippines, et. al v. COMELEC , “Our system of democracy is committed irrevocably to a government of laws, and not of men. Laws give witness to societys moral values and are the depositories of what the sovereign as a whole has agreed to uphold as the minimum standards of conduct that will govern relationships and transactions within that society.” 27 Though there are remedies available to victims of human rights violations such as the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data, challenges in accessing these remedies remain. People do not know their rights. There is a lack of public knowledge on the existence of these remedies. Materials are given out by authorities as part of Oplan Tokhang that show guidelines in protecting constitutional rights to privacy and presumption of innocence, but no legal remedies are included to inform persons accused that these are available in case of violation of rights. Because of fear, parties affected pervades them to commence legal action.28 However, just last January 2017, the first writ of amparo was issued to an aggrieved relative who was a victim of such violation. 29 There are a few who outwit their fear, but most are still refuse to speak up. They believe that fighting for justice means the possibility of once again encountering the killer who could return and harm them. 30 It is a well-known fact that the justice system in the
26
Euan McKirdy, Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte: Public ‘can kill’ criminals, CNN, Jun. 6, 2016, avai lable at http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/06/asia/duterte-drug-dealers-lethal-force-vigilantism/ 27 League of Cities of the Philippines, et. Al. v COMELEC, GR. No. 176951, Dissenting Opinion, June 28, 2011. 28 Amita Legaspi, CHR chair Gascon: Families of Extrajudicial killing victims afraid to talk, GMA NEWS, Aug. 2, 2016, available at http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/576057/news/nation/chr-chair-gascon-families-ofextrajudicialkilling-victims-afraid-to-talk 29 http://www.rappler.com/nation/160105-supreme-court-writ-amparo-anti-tokhang-petition 30 Gabriel Cardinoza, 5 yr. old girl latest fatality in drug war, PHIL. DAILY INQUIRER, Aug. 25, 2016, available at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/809411/5-yr-old-girl-latest-fatality-in-drug-war
Philippines is expensive, protracted and inefficient. 31 Under the Duterte administration, there has not been a single case that has been resolved due to challenges in investigation. 32 Winning the war on drugs seems to be more heavily focused than investigating and preventing these killings. 33 Conclusion and Recommendations
President Duterte has made it clear that, “he does not care about human rights.”34 He further declares that the soaring number of killings of alleged criminal suspects is the very proof of success of his anti-drug campaign. 35 Further, PNP Chief Dela Rosa makes no indication that the deaths merit urgent investigation.36 From the foregoing discussion, the President’s orders, by virtue of his executive powers, are lawful orders. And without proof that these killings are state-sponsored, and as the President is immune from suit, the President does not seem to fear and consider the amount of impunity his campaign has caused and see no need to be accountable. The legislative and the judiciary can only do so much as their powers are limited. Despite the evident violation of human rights in the pursuit of the war on drugs, the government refuses to account responsibility. The path we can take for now is to heighten the awareness of rights, especially those who are accused. It also must be ensured that whatever actions the executive are taking, especially the 31
Erika Sauler et.al., Extrajudicial killing: Culture of impunity remains, PHIL. DAILY INQUIRER, Jul. 27, 2016, available at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/707946/extrajudicial-killings-culture-of-impunity-remains 32 2 Julianne Love De Jesus, PNP exec admits: Not one case of extrajudicial killing solved, PHIL. DAILY INQUIRER, Aug. 12, 2016, available at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/805693/pnp-exec-admits-not-one-case-of-extrajudicialkilling-solved 33 Summary and Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines, A Submission for th e Philippines’ UPR (3rd Cycle, 2017) , Ateneo Human Rights Center (AHRC). 34 Aljazeera and agencies, Rodrigo Duterte: ‘I don’t care about human rights’, ALJAZEERA, Aug. 8 2016, available at http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/rodrigo-duterte-human-rights-160806211448623.html 35 Phelim Kine, Philippine Police Killing Spree Demands Accountability, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, Aug. 22, 2016, available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/22/philippine-police-killing-spree-demands-accountability 36 Ibid.
PNP’s Double Barrel Project that these are not contrary to our Constitution and other domestic and international laws. The Government must be able to provide a framework to ensure the protection of people’s rights in the pursuit of their campaign. There must also be transparency in the collection and validation of information where identities and criminal activities of suspected illegal drug personalities are documented and verified by police officers. 37 The noise that this campaign has created will not stop any time soon. The amount of mortality is continuing to rise; someone has to be accountable. The international sector has heavily scrutinized and condemned the actions of the current Duterte administration in the pursuit to eradicate drugs. Each day, a comment is made by a world leader or a world organization. As citizens of the Philippines living in a democratic country, the supreme law is the welfare of the people. However, various opinions are contrasting – some believe that the best option is to kill and eradicate drug users and pushers, while others believe that human rights should be upheld at all cost. Despite the failure of previous administrations to fight for the welfare of the people, laws are put in place for the society to work. We are a government of law and not of men. We cannot put the law into our own hands. Though a faulty system that we have, the process is there for us to follow, for justice to be served. Human rights should be upheld no matter what – even to criminals, to accused to detainees or to those in conflict with the law. For now, as citizens, it is our duty to promote and raise awareness for human rights in light of current issue on the campaign on the war on drugs.
37
The Command Memorandum Circular No. 16-2016, also known as the PNO Anti-Ill egal Drugs Campaign Plan Project: "Double Barrel" provides — Sec. 5 (a) (1). The identity and criminal activities of each target must be properly documented and verified with all possible sources to equip the team with accurate and solid proofs when confronting suspects during house to house visitations.
"We must understand the role of human rights as empowering of individuals and communities. By protecting these rights, we can help prevent the many conflicts based on poverty, discrimination and exclusion (social, economic and political) that continue to plague humanity and destroy decades of development efforts. The vicious circle of human rights violations that lead to conflicts-which in turn lead to more violations-must be broken. I believe we can break it only by ensuring respect for all human rights."
38
Mary Robinson, Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
38
