Fr. Flavie’s Program Paghilum

Dutch ambassador gives ashes to son of the victim. Photo by Vincent Go.

“I think he is into drugs.”

Fr. Flavie Villanueva was referring to Sen. Christopher Lawrence “Bong” Go, who suggested on May 23 that former president Rodrigo Duterte be named as anti-drug czar. Duterte’s presidency was notorious for the brutal drug war that killed more than 20,000 (official police figure is more than 6,000) persons.

Thankfully, Duterte shot down immediately his former aide-turned-senator’s idea, saying that it is President Marcos Jr.’s call now and he should be given “the greatest elbow room, leeway to do his job.”

Fr. Flavie does not buy the line that the Duterte administration’s murderous war against illegal drugs is much more effective than the current government’s strategy, given the recent expose of police involvement in illegal drug trafficking. “Ang mga nahuhuli nila noon ay mga nasa laylayan. Ang mga nahuhuli nila ngayon ay malalaking isda.”

(The ones they caught before were those in the low fringes of society. The ones caught now are the big fishes.)

Fr. Flavie knows the heavy toll of Duterte’s “kill, kill, kill” formula, having taken care of hundreds of orphans, widows and widowers left behind by the victims of those bloody operations.

At the time of the interview, Fr. Flavie was officiating the blessing and turnover of urns to the families of six victims at the Sacred Heart of Parish Shrine in Quezon City. The event was part of Program Paghilum (Healing), which helps widows and orphans of EJK victims in rebuilding and re-creating their lives.

Fr. Flavie blesses the urns containing the ashes of the EJK victims. Members of the victims’ families join him in prayers. Photo by Vincent Go.

Under “Project Arise,” the remains of the victims of extra-judicial killings, which are buried in apartment-tombs that are for lease for a limited period, are exhumed. Scientific autopsy is conducted as part of the families’ search for truth and justice.
The remains are then cremated, put into urns and turned over to the families. Later, the remains are laid to a permanent and dignified resting place.

The six victims remembered and blessed last March 23 were Jaime Alcover, 25; Henerciso Amper,50; Erwin Garzon, 37; Florencio Tion, 60; Jampol Barros, 26; and Pablo Cabangon, 46.

Each of those urns contains stories of pain and anguish that Program Paghilum is helping the survivors in turning them into testaments of faith and courage.

Normie Alcober, sister of the victim, remembers the midnight of Oct. 05, 2017 when they were awakened by the loud banging on their door in their house in Tondo. When they opened the door, they were confronted by armed men who ordered her and her children out of the house. Inside the house were Jaime, who was still asleep, her father, her uncle and cousins.

After a few hours, the intruders brought out two dead bodies wrapped in blankets and dumped them in the compartment of a waiting vehicle. The two bodies were those of Jaime and her uncle. Her father was jailed and was not allowed to visit Jaime’s wake.

Henerciso Amper’s partner, Nancy Imbat, said that on July 23, 2018 he told her he was going to the market to buy food. He never came back.
Nancy learned that while Henerciso was buying food someone approached him and shot him to death. This happened in Camarin, Caloocan City.
On Sept. 14, 2016, two unidentified masked men barged into the home of Erwin Garzon in Bagong Silang, also in Caloocan City, and shot him on the head. He died instantly.

His death certificate states he died of pneumonia.

Marie Tion said that on the evening of July 29, 2018, she knew her husband Florencio was having a drink with his kumpare. After a while, a neighbor told her that Florencio was shot. She brought him to the hospital where he died 20 days later.

Medarda Barros said that on March 7, 2018, her son Jampol stepped out of their house in Camarin, Caloocan City. Then she heard shots. When she went out looking for her son, she saw him lying on the ground, face down, soaked in his own blood.

Witnesses said Jampol was just sitting when two men on a motorcycle came, shot him and sped away.

Pablo Cabangon from Bagong Silangan, Quezon City was killed on December 02, 2016 and is believed to be a victim of a deplorable police practice of palit-ulo ( head exchange).

Pablo’s daughter, Princess, said the police went to someone in their community who pleaded for his life and offered to lead them to another person, who turned out to be her father.

The police barged into their home and shot Pablo on the head. They also shot her brother who luckily managed to escape.

Dutch Ambassador Marielle Geraedts, who witnessed the turnover of the remains, said she was “in awe and perplexed by the massive disruption and impact the war on drugs has had on the lives of the families.”

At the same time, she said she saw hope and inspiration from the courage of the families of the victims: “Truly, the fight for accountability and justice may be a long one, but it is one that you have all chosen to take on.”

She then shared: “For the Netherlands, we do not only believe that human rights are the cornerstone of democracy and peace, but also that lasting peace must be based on justice. There can be no justice without accountability. We believe in the value of rule of law and accountability. There must be a focus on inclusive involvement and a voice for victims at all stages of the accountability process: documentation, evidence gathering, prosecution, sentencing and redress.”

She expressed admiration for the work Fr. Flavie was doing: “You have created a caring community that gives hope amidst uncertainty and fear. And for that, we thank you for your service and leadership.”

Speaking to an eight-year-old son of one of the victims who was hugging tightly the urn containing his father’s ashes, Fr. Flavie said: “Huwag ka nang umiyak. May paglalagyan na sa kanya. Wala na diyan si Tatay. Malaya na siya ngayon sa langit.” (Don’t cry. Your father is not there anymore. He is now in heaven where he is free.)

Can the U.S. invoke MDT if its vessel is attacked while aiding Taiwan vs China?

U.S. President Joe Biden receives President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. at the White House.Malacañang photo.

Number 14 in the United States and Philippines Bilateral Defense Guidelines, forged on May 3 during the official visit of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to Washington D.C, states, “An armed attack in the Pacific, to include anywhere in the South China Sea, on either Philippine or U.S. armed forces – which includes both nations’ Coast Guards – aircraft, or public vessels, would invoke mutual defense commitments under Article IV and Article V of the MDT.”

The first paragraph under Article IV of the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty states, “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.”

Article V states that “for the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean, its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.”

With these commitments, can the United States invoke the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty to be allowed to use the EDCA sites in Cagayan, just about 600 kilometers to Taiwan, to launch attacks to stop the Chinese from taking over Taiwan?

I posed this question to retired Supreme Court justice Antonio T. Carpio at the sidelines of the forum “Modernizing Philippine defense capabilities and elevating security partnerships,” organized by the Stratbase ADR Institute at the Manila Golf Club last May 3.

Carpio said it is a gray area. He immediately added, “No.” He explained that the authority of EDCA is derived from the MDT, the purpose of which is “to resist armed attacks.”

He said this was underscored in the 2016 Supreme Court decision on the petitions questioning the constitutionality of EDCA.

EDCA stands for Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement between the Philippines and the United States. Signed in 2014, it established “agreed locations” in the country where the U.S. Armed Forces can have access on a rotational basis.

Under EDCA, “the Philippines authorizes the United States forces, United States contractors and vehicles, vessels and aircraft operated by or for United States forces may conduct the following activities with respect to Agreed Locations: training, transit, support and related activities; refueling of aircraft, bunkering of vessels; temporary maintenance of vehicles, vessels and aircraft; temporary accommodation of personnel; communications; prepositioning of equipment, supplies, materiel; deploying forces and materiel and such other activities as the Parties may agree.”

Always, what we have in mind is that the Americans are coming to aid the Philippines in case of what we-pray-it-won’t-happen scenario of an armed confrontation with China over our conflicting claims in the South China Sea.

The U.S.-PH Bilateral Defense Guidelines, signed by Defense Secretaries Carlito Galvez and Lloyd J. Austin III, underscores the obligations of both parties to each other: “An armed attack in the Pacific, to include anywhere in the South China Sea, on either Philippine or U.S. armed forces – which includes both nations’ Coast Guards – aircraft, or public vessels, would invoke mutual defense commitments under Article IV and Article V of the MDT.”

With the rising tension between China and Taiwan, we raise a scenario which, a few years back, we thought was farfetched: If the U.S intervened in a China-Taiwan armed conflict and an American ship got attacked by China, would that be considered an armed attack on Philippine metropolitan territory or in one of its islands and justify U.S. operationalization of the MDT and the use of the EDCA sites, two of them in Cagayan “only a stone’s throw away from Taiwan,” as described by Chinese Ambassador Huang Xilian, to launch an attack against Chinese forces?

Carpio said that would not be within the coverage of the MDT.

The president himself, in his talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on May 4, said, “Should there be such an attempt to use such – the EDCA sites for offensive action, then that would be outside the parameters of what we had discussed and what the EDCA sites are.”

To be fair, he added, “the United States has never brought up the possibility –– that we will use – that the United States will use the EDCA states as staging areas for any offensive action against any country.”

Marcos was also asked: Has the U.S. asked your government to contribute Philippine military troops to combat operations should a war break out between the U.S. and China over Taiwan?

Marcos replied: “No.”

China takes the offensive


It was short and clear. And combative.

In 10 paragraphs, Chinese Ambassador Huang Xilian made known last Sunday, April 16, his government’s anger over the decision of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. allowing the United States military to preposition and store defense equipment, supplies and materiel in sites “only a stone’s throw away from Taiwan.”

He warned what China, which boasts of the strongest military in Asia and third in the world, might and can do: “… we will not renounce the use of force, and we reserve the option of taking all necessary measures.”

He laid out to the Marcos government how it could be affected adversely in case armed hostilities erupt in Taiwan, where over 150,000 Filipinos work, and what it should do to help prevent that situation from happening: “The Philippines is advised to unequivocally oppose ’Taiwan independence’ rather than stoking the fire by offering the U.S. access to the military bases near the Taiwan Strait if you care genuinely about the 150,000 OFWs.”

Two weeks earlier, when the pre-dominantly Catholic Filipinos were starting their observance of the week-long Holy Week retreat, the government released the location of the additional four EDCA sites: Lal-lo Airport in Cagayan; Camilo Osias Naval Base in Santa Ana, Cagayan; Camp Melchor dela Cruz in Gamu, Isabela; and Balabac Island in Palawan.

EDCA stands for Enhanced Cooperation Agreement between the Philippines and the United States signed in 2014 which established “agreed locations” in the country where the United States Armed Forces can have access on a rotational basis.

Under EDCA, “the Philippines authorizes the United States forces, United States contractors and vehicles, vessels and aircraft operated by or for United States forces may conduct the following activities with respect to Agreed Locations: training, transit, support and related activities; refueling of aircraft, bunkering of vessels; temporary maintenance of vehicles, vessels and aircraft; temporary accommodation of personnel; communications; prepositioning of equipment, supplies, materiel; deploying forces and materiel and such other activities as the Parties may agree.”

The four new sites bring to nine the EDCA sites in the country. The five earlier agreed locations are Cesar Basa Air Base in Pampanga, Fort Magsaysay Military Reservation in Nueva Ecija, Lumbia Air Base in Cagayan de Oro, Antonio Bautista Air Base in Puerto Prinsesa and Mactan Benito Ebuen Air Base in Cebu.

The two sites that are driving China up the wall are Lal-lo Airport in Cagayan, which is 590 kilometers to Taiwan, and Camilo Osias Naval Base in Santa Ana, Cagayan, which is 623 km to Taiwan.

The ambassador explained: “Obviously, the U.S. intends to take advantage of the new EDCA sites to interfere in the situation across the Taiwan Strait to serve its geopolitical goals, and advance its anti-China agenda at the expense of peace and development of the Philippines and the region at large. Many Filipino politicians and ordinary Filipino people are questioning whether opening new bases will serve the national interests of the Philippines. ’Why are the new EDCA sites only a stone’s throw away from Taiwan?’ ‘How will the Philippines effectively control the prepositioned weapons in the military bases?’ ‘Why will the Philippines fight for another country through the new EDCA sites?’ These are soul-searching questions of the Philippine people and also doubt by people in China and across the region.”

That’s when he raised the worrisome possibility: “But we will not renounce the use of force, and we reserve the option of taking all necessary measures. This is to guard against external interference and all separatist activities. The Philippines is advised to unequivocally oppose ’Taiwan independence’ rather than stoking the fire by offering the U.S. access to the military bases near the Taiwan Strait if you care genuinely about the 150,000 OFWs.”

On April 10, Marcos said he will not allow the EDCA sites to be used in any offensive attack. He added in Filipino, “If no one attacks us, they don’t need to worry because we won’t fight them.”

Taiwan is one of China’s core issues. Since 1949 when the then Mao Tse Tung-led Communist Party of China took over the mainland after more than two decades of civil war and pushed the Chiang Kai shek-led Nationalist Party of China to Taiwan – an island about 100 miles away – the Beijing government has made the One-China Policy a pre-requisite in its relations with other countries.

Under the One-China Policy, which the Philippines, the U.S. and more than 180 countries have adopted, the Beijing-based People’s Republic of China is the legitimate government of China and Taiwan is a province of China.

For many years, the world has seen peace under a delicate situation of “no unification, no independence, and no use of force” policy. In recent years, however, Beijing finds Taiwan under President Tsai Ing-wen leaning more towards independence.
Two years ago, I asked a Chinese journalist about the possibility of an armed confrontation over Taiwan, he said, “Not in our lifetime.”
Last month, I asked him the same question. His answer: “I’m not sure anymore.”

Marcos’ PH roadshow and the ICC probe

If you listen closely to Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla’s strident reaction to the decision of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to resume the investigation into the killings related to Duterte’s war on drugs, he didn’t completely rule out allowing the ICC to come into the country.

“Definitely I do not welcome this move of theirs and I will not welcome them in the Philippines unless they make it clear that they will respect us in this regard,” he said in a press conference.

He added: “I will not stand for any of these antics that will question our status as a sovereign country. We will not accept that.”

Remulla knows his international law. He knows that a state’s sovereignty – the supreme right of the state to command obedience within its territory – allows it to enter into treaties. We exercised our sovereign right when we signed the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, on Dec. 28, 2000 and ratified it by the Senate on Aug. 30, 2011. Our accession to the treaty took effect on Nov. 1, 2011.
We knew the provisions in the treaty.

The Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC initiated by former president Rodrigo Duterte took effect on March 17, 2019.

We are sure Remulla is aware of Article 127, paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute which states that a country’s withdrawal “”shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.”

Last Jan. 26, ICC’s Pre-trial Chamber I (Court) granted Prosecutor Karim Ahmad Khan’s request to resume investigation in connection with the charge of crimes against humanity arising from the killings that happened during a specific period in Duterte’s war on drugs.

It is understandable that Remulla would be offended by the ICC’s decision and the reason that was given: it doesn’t believe the Philippine government is “undertaking relevant investigations that would warrant a deferral of the Court’s investigations on the basis of the complementarity principle.”

It means that the ICC believes that the Philippine government is “unable or unwilling” to prosecute those responsible for the killings, the estimate of which varies from the government’s number of 6,000 to the human rights groups’ more than 20,000.

In their insistence that the country’s judicial system is functioning and ICC’s probe is unwelcome, Remulla’s DOJ as well as during the term of Menardo Guevarra (now solicitor general) points to convictions of policemen involved in the 2017 killings of teenagers Kian de los Santos, Carl Arnaiz and Reynaldo de Guzman.

The ICC, however, is not easily impressed by the “deliberate focus of proceedings on low-level or marginal perpetrators.” It wants to make sure that national investigations or prosecutions focused “on those most responsible for the most serious crimes committed.”

The DOJ never investigated Duterte and the chief implementor of his bloody war-on-drugs, now Sen. Ronald Dela Rosa.

It is noted that Remulla added a conditionality in his public statement on not welcoming the ICC investigators: “… unless they make it clear that they will respect us in this regard.”

There is no reason for Remulla to be worried about it. Since the ICC does not have its own police force, it relies on the cooperation of States and international organizations to arrest and surrender the persons they are investigating.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has not said anything about the latest development from the ICC. During the election campaign, he said that he would only allow ICC probers to come in as tourists.

Many things have changed since then. He is now president, made possible by an alliance with Sarah Duterte, the former president’s daughter.

In the seven months of his presidency, he has been working hard in selling the country as a stable and dynamic investment area. He has impressed the international community as a leader far decent from his predecessor.

In his speech at the 77th United Nations General Assembly last year, he declared: “We need to reaffirm the wisdom of the founders of our United Nations. This means transcending our differences and committing to ending war, upholding justice, respecting human rights, and maintaining international peace and security.”

Surely, he won’t undo all those gains by not allowing the ICC to investigate what has been an extremely traumatic experience for tens and thousands of Filipinos.

Marcos’ PH roadshow and the ICC probe

If you listen closely to Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla’s strident reaction to the decision of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to resume the investigation into the killings related to Duterte’s war on drugs, he didn’t completely rule out allowing the ICC to come into the country.

“Definitely I do not welcome this move of theirs and I will not welcome them in the Philippines unless they make it clear that they will respect us in this regard,” he said in a press conference.

He added: “I will not stand for any of these antics that will question our status as a sovereign country. We will not accept that.”

Remulla knows his international law. He knows that a state’s sovereignty – the supreme right of the state to command obedience within its territory – allows it to enter into treaties. We exercised our sovereign right when we signed the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, on Dec. 28, 2000 and ratified it by the Senate on Aug. 30, 2011. Our accession to the treaty took effect on Nov. 1, 2011.
We knew the provisions in the treaty.

The Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC initiated by former president Rodrigo Duterte took effect on March 17, 2019.

We are sure Remulla is aware of Article 127, paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute which states that a country’s withdrawal “”shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.”

Last Jan. 26, ICC’s Pre-trial Chamber I (Court) granted Prosecutor Karim Ahmad Khan’s request to resume investigation in connection with the charge of crimes against humanity arising from the killings that happened during a specific period in Duterte’s war on drugs.

It is understandable that Remulla would be offended by the ICC’s decision and the reason that was given: it doesn’t believe the Philippine government is “undertaking relevant investigations that would warrant a deferral of the Court’s investigations on the basis of the complementarity principle.”

It means that the ICC believes that the Philippine government is “unable or unwilling” to prosecute those responsible for the killings, the estimate of which varies from the government’s number of 6,000 to the human rights groups’ more than 20,000.

In their insistence that the country’s judicial system is functioning and ICC’s probe is unwelcome, Remulla’s DOJ as well as during the term of Menardo Guevarra (now solicitor general) points to convictions of policemen involved in the 2017 killings of teenagers Kian de los Santos, Carl Arnaiz and Reynaldo de Guzman.

The ICC, however, is not easily impressed by the “deliberate focus of proceedings on low-level or marginal perpetrators.” It wants to make sure that national investigations or prosecutions focused “on those most responsible for the most serious crimes committed.”

The DOJ never investigated Duterte and the chief implementor of his bloody war-on-drugs, now Sen. Ronald Dela Rosa.

It is noted that Remulla added a conditionality in his public statement on not welcoming the ICC investigators: “… unless they make it clear that they will respect us in this regard.”

There is no reason for Remulla to be worried about it. Since the ICC does not have its own police force, it relies on the cooperation of States and international organizations to arrest and surrender the persons they are investigating.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has not said anything about the latest development from the ICC. During the election campaign, he said that he would only allow ICC probers to come in as tourists.

Many things have changed since then. He is now president, made possible by an alliance with Sarah Duterte, the former president’s daughter.

In the seven months of his presidency, he has been working hard in selling the country as a stable and dynamic investment area. He has impressed the international community as a leader far decent from his predecessor.

In his speech at the 77th United Nations General Assembly last year, he declared: “We need to reaffirm the wisdom of the founders of our United Nations. This means transcending our differences and committing to ending war, upholding justice, respecting human rights, and maintaining international peace and security.”

Surely, he won’t undo all those gains by not allowing the ICC to investigate what has been an extremely traumatic experience for tens and thousands of Filipinos.