Duterte’s war: Big kill of small fry, puny drugs haul, defies PNP rules

BANGKAY SA BANGKETA… kasi nga drug pusher ako.

This is the sad refrain in a sardonic poem that a young Filipina wrote and read in a video she posted last week on her Facebook page. It does not matter, she averred, that the so-called drug pushers falling by the dozens of late had not been read their rights or tried in court. Or even, that they had been killed by those who are supposed to protect them and enforce the law. Perhaps, she wrote, those who kill are drug pushers, too.

Indeed, a pall of death has cloaked the nation in mixed glee, grief, confusion, and anxiety in the first three weeks alone of the war on drugs of President Rodrigo R. Duterte, who will deliver his first state of the nation address today.

But who will be killed next is not quite clear as yet. In the meantime, the question of why the poor and puny pushers are dying in high numbers compared to just a handful of their rich counterparts, the drug lords, and their supposed coddlers in the police has been either inadequately answered or ignored.

By the data of the police — until now the singular source of information of the news media about the war on drugs — about 10 bodies have been showing up by the road and in the slums every day, or a total of 213 killed in Duterte’s first 21 days in office alone. The casualty toll includes 209 civilians and only four policemen that the police had tagged as alleged drug pushers.

Combatting drugs has always been a major police activity over the last seven years. Then and now, however, the PNP’s reports on the supposed “achievements” of the campaign have risen and fallen, across regions of the country.

By official PNP reports, Duterte’s war on drugs has netted much bigger numbers of those killed and arrested in its initial rollout period but also smaller seizures of drugs, by value and volume.

By all indications, however, Duterte’s war has assumed a random, free-for-all, brook-no-limits in law and due process, a kill-at-will campaign against mostly small-time drug suspects. This is happening despite the explicit rules of the 200-page Philippine National Police Handbook PNPM-Do-Ds-3-2-13 or Revised PNP Manual on Operational Procedures published in December 2013.

Cookie Diokno of the Free Legal Assistance Group of human rights lawyers says the big difference in the war on drugs then and now is this: Duterte’s war has flipped the “burden of proof” principle in the statutes inside out. In other words, says Diokno, “you are now presumed guilty, until proven innocent.”

Compared with data on the PNP’s anti-drug campaign in the 78 months from January 2010 to June 2016, Duterte’s three-week-old war has upped the numbers of alleged drug users and pushers killed and arrested multiple-fold.

The downside is Duterte’s war is unfolding with negligible documentation of the conduct of police operations and the death of suspects. In a majority of cases, the suspects were killed purportedly because they “resisted arrest” or tried to snatch the guns of and engaged arresting officers in a firefight.

Data from PNP’s Anti-Illegal Drugs Group (AIDG) in the 78 months before Duterte came to power, showed much lower numbers of casualties and arrests made, but also bigger values and volumes of drugs seized, compared to that recorded in the new government’s three-week war.

The 213 drug suspects killed under Duterte’s war from Jully 1 to 21, 2016 (an average of 10 persons a day) is a macabre figure compared to the 256 persons “killed in action” in the 78-month period or 2,336 days from January 2010 to June 2016 (an average of about one person every 10 days).

In the 78 months before Duterte, the PNP had conducted a total of 96,530 anti-drug operations, of which 46 percent were buy-bust operations; 28.4 percent “in flagrante” (the suspects were caught in the act); 16.1 percent via search warrant; 4.6 percent as checkpoint operations; 2.5 percent as “saturation drive”; 1.7 percent as “marijuana eradication” operations; 0.6 percent as “warrant of arrest”; and 0.1 percent as “interdiction.”

The PNP’s reports on Oplan Tokhang, though, do not offer data on how many of the various types of operations against illegal drugs have been conducted with mission orders, and which of these have been covered by search warrants or warrants of arrest. Many data fields in the PNP’s reports on the war on drugs prior to the Duterte administration do not appear anymore in its recent reports.

Yet another story should also raise grave concern among citizens. What drugs and substances, indeed, should be considered illegal?

Of the various types of drugs that the police had confiscated, over-the-counter substances and laboratory chemicals with legitimate but controlled uses have been enrolled, too. These include marijuana resin oil, rugby, Cytotec, ketamine, “Sulfuric,” sodium hydroxide, acetone, chloroform, palladium chloride, hydrochloric acid, Pseudoephedrine and Diazepam.

While most of the seized substances and drugs can only be bought in the black market, some items like hydrochloric acid (also known as muriatic acid), rugby, and acetone are easily available in sari-sari stores and hardware stores and are not on the list of illegal substances. Chemicals like chloroform and toluene are being used in research and industrial laboratories.— PCIJ, July 2016

When oligarchs go shopping…

CP 20 juillet 2016_EN

“IT IS a worldwide trend. From Turkey and Russia to China and India, new media empires are emerging, usually with governmental blessing. Their owners comply with capitalist laws of supply and demand and the need for technological development. But, at the same time, they take strict control of news coverage or replace journalistic content with entertainment.”

In its latest report, “When Oligarchs Go Shopping,” Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontieres) looks at this curious, dangerous phenomenon. Excerpts from the report follow:

IMAGINE a world in which the mass media were the exclusive property of a handful of people, all business tycoons. Many people think that world has already arrived. Businessmen of every kind have been seized by the disturbing desire to buy up large numbers of major newspapers, TV channels and radio stations around the globe. No country, no continent – neither India, China, the United States nor Europe – seems to escape the appetite of these new oligarchs for media acquisitions.

Their latest feats include Jack Ma’s purchase of the South China Morning Post, one of the last champions of the free press in Hong Kong, a newspaper that did not hesitate to criticize the government in Beijing. Ma is the owner of the Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba.

Where will these new media owners stop? Their ambition often matches their financial resources, which are limitless. In a recent book, Indian historian Nalin Mehta said his country, “the world’s biggest democracy,” has around 800 TV channels but all those that provide news coverage are owned by shadowy billionaires – including real estate barons, politicians and captains of industry – and that some of these channels are used to blackmail, promote personal interests and even launder money. “There is a coup underway in India,” writer and journalist Manu Joseph says. “Some people who are inconvenienced by democracy have taken over nearly all the country’s television news channels.”

Some of these billionaire businessmen boast of being able to make and unmake governments. Others enter into alliances with governments, offering them mass media support in return for economic favours. In all cases, their financial power combined with their control of media flagships gives them almost limitless influence, one far removed from the journalistic principles that their employees sometimes try to defend.

The victims of such unholy alliances include Turkey’s leading media, which are subjected to censorship that is much more insidious and sophisticated than the government’s usual repressive methods, censorship in which the oligarchs are accomplices.

“While the world is focused on the issue of jailed journalists in Turkey — almost all of whom are Kurds — the kiss of death to our profession has been bestowed by owners who consciously destroy editorial independence, fire journalists who voice scepticism and dissent and block investigative reporting3,” Yavuz Baydar wrote in 2013, while ombudsman of the daily Sabah after holding the same position with Milliyet.

Along with dozens of other journalists, he was fired for being too critical of the Erdogan government, which did not need to intervene because the media owners anticipated its wishes.

These new media oligarchs have prospered under Prime Minister and now President Erdogan, who anointed them and to whom they have remained loyal. “The problem is simple: one need only follow the money,” Baydar says. As in so many other countries, the leading media in Turkey have wound up in the pockets of businessmen active in such strategic sectors as telecommunications, banking and public works, a sector described by Baydar as a “fertile ground for carrot-and-stick policies.”

Media owners who support government policy can count on being rewarded with state contracts, licences, advertising and even tax concessions. The critical ones are silenced slowly and quietly. President Erdogan’s current “best friends” include such oligarchs as Ferit F. ?ahenk, the head of the very powerful Dogus Group (which controls NTV), Turgay Ciner, an energy sector billionaire who owns Haberturk TV and the Haberturk newspaper, and Yildirim Demirören, the CEO of an oil, gas, tourism and public works conglomerate who bought the prestigious big-circulation daily Milliyet in 2012.

Other media outlets have been bought up by pro-government oligarchs with disastrous consequences for media freedom. “Editorial content is strictly controlled by media bosses who have other business interests and are submissive to the government,” said Baydar. “With, or more often without, any direct government intervention, they impose self-censorship on a daily basis and silence colleagues who defend basic journalistic ethics.”

Furious with the way Milliyet “grovelled” before the government after it was taken over, the newspaper’s star columnist, Hasan Cemal, stormed out in 2013. The same year, thousands of Turks took to the street in protest against the government’s growing authoritarianism.

Dubbed “Occupy Gezi” after the Istanbul park that became its symbol, the protest movement held the international media spellbound for several weeks until forcibly crushed by the police. While all this was unfolding, Turkey’s leading TV channels contented themselves with broadcasting animal documentaries or debates on completely unrelated subjects. Their owners must have had other things on their minds.

Read RSF’s latest report “When Oligarchs Go Shopping” here.

Know, defend, assert our Rights!

* Inilathala ng Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) at isinalin sa Filipino ng Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ)

PCIJ Know Your Rights 4

ANUMAN ANG SITWASYON, NANANATILING LUBOS AT HINDI DAPAT YURAKAN ANG ATING MGA BATAYANG KARAPATAN. KABILANG DITO ANG MGA SUMUSUNOD:
(In any situation, you do not lose your basic rights, such as….)

Karapatang mabuhay (The right to life);

Karapatang hindi ma-torture o isailalim sa malupit, di-makatao, at kahiya-hiyang pakitungo o parusa (The right not to be trotured nor subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment);

Karapatang hindi sapilitang pagtrabahuhin (The right not to be subjected to forced labor)

Karapatang hindi makulong dahil sa hindi pagbayad ng utang (The right not to be imprisoned for non-payment of debt);

• Karapatang huwag maparusahan para sa mga gawaing hindi pa naisabatas na krimen nang ito ay mangyari (The right not to be punished for an act which was not yet a crime at the time of its commission);

Karapatan na kilalanin at tratuhin bilang tao (The right to be recognized and treated as a person); and

Karapatan sa malayang pag-iisip, konsiyensiya, at pananampalataya or relihiyon (The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion).

PCIJ Know Your Rights 2

Lubos o absolute ang lahat ng karapatang ito. Sa anumang kondisyon o pangyayari, hindi maaring pigilan o suspendihin ang pag-ako natin ng mga karapatang ito. Ito ay totoo kahit sa ilalim ng martial law o state of public emergency na naideklara ng pamahalaan. Ang mga karapatang ito ay “non-derogable” sa ilalim ng United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights na sakop ang pamahalaan ng Pilipinas bilang signatory.

(These rights ate absolute. Under no condition can their fulfillment or enjoyment be suspended. This is true even when martial law or any other state of emergency has been declared. These are non-derogable rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Philippines is a signatory.)

May iba pang mga karapatan na itinuturing na inalienable o inviolable o hindi maikakait at hindi dapat labagin kailanman kabilang na ang:

(There are other rights that are considered inalienable and inviolable, such as…)

* Karapatan na hindi halughugin ang iyong tahanan kung walang search warrant na pirmado ng isang hukom o judge, at karapatang huwag samsamin ang anumang gamit sa iyong bahay na hindi nakadetalye sa search warrant. Gayunman, kung ikaw ay nahuli ng ligal, ikaw at ang iyong immediate surroundings o kinalalagyan ay maaring ma-search para sa dangerous weapons o iba pang ebidensiya, at anuman ang makita sa iyong sarili at immediate vicinity ay maaring kunin ng mga otoridad kung ito ay ginamit diumano sa krimen na dahilan ng iyong pagkahuli.

(The right not to have your house searched without a search warrant issued by a judge, and not to have anything seized which is not specified in the search warrant. However, if you are legally arrested, your person and immediate surroundings may be searched for dangerous weapons, and any evidence found on your person or immediate vicinity (only on your person and immediate vicinity) which may have been used to commit the crime for which you are being arrested may be seized.)

* Karapatan na maging malaya at walang pangamba sa iyong personal na seguridad. Maari kang pagkaitan ng kalayaan ayon lamang sa mga batayan at proseso na nakatala sa Konstitusyon at batas.

(The right to liberty and security of person. You can be deprived of liberty only on grounds and procedures established by the Constitution and existing law.)

Ang Ating Mga Karapatan, 1, PCIJ, july 2016

* Karapatan na hindi arestuhin kung walang ebidensiya na may krimen nang naganap at diumano’y kalahok ka sa gawaing ito. Maari ka lamang arestuhin sa bisa ng isang arrest warrant na pirmado ng isang hukom o judge, liban na lang kung:

(The right not to be arrested except on evidence that a crime gas been committed and that you probably committed it. You may be arrested only on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by a judge, except:)

* Kung ikaw ay may ginawa o ginagawang krimen, o nagbabalak gumawa ng kasalanan (offense) sa batas, sa harap ng isang arresting officer;

(When you have committed, are actually committing, or are attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer);

* Kung, batay sa personal na kaalaman ng arresting officer sa mga pangyayari at datos ng kasalanang naganap, naniniwala siyang ikaw ang maysala;

(When an offense has been committed and the arresting office has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of the facts and circumstance, that you committed the offense);

* Kung ikaw ay tumakas mula sa kulungan o piitan, o habang inililipat ng kulungan;

(When you have escaped from prison or detention or while being transferred from one confinement to another.)

Isang sibilyan na prosecutor ang dapat magsuri sa isang inquest proceeding kung ligal o iligal ang iyong pagka-aresto. Sa inquest proceeding na ito, maaring magdesisyon ang prosecutor na:

(The legality of your arrest must be determined in an inquest proceeding conducted by a civilian prosecutor. The prosecutor, in a summary proceeding, can):

* Palayain ka (ito ay pwedeng maganap kahit man wala pang kumpletong preliminary investigation na naganap);

(Order your release [this may or may not be subject to a full-blwm preliminary invetsigation]};

* Ipagtibay na ligal ang iyong pagka-aresto at isampa ang kaukulang complaint o impormasyon laban sa iyo sa trial court;

(Affirm the legality of your arrest and prepare the corresponding complaint or information with the trial court};

* Isangguni sa nahuli kung nais niyang magkaroon ng preliminary investigation at pumirma sa isang waiver. Ito ay kadalasang nangyayari. Huwag pumirma sa waiver kung hindi nabigyan ng sapat na impormasyon ng kahihinatnan ng pagpirma nito. Ang pag-pirma mo sa waiver ay nangangahulugang pumapayag kang manatili sa kulungan, habang naghinihintay sa preliminary investigation. Ang pagpirma mo sa waiver ay maari ring ituring na wala kang planong magsampa ng kaso sa mga nanghuli sa iyo.

(Often the inquest prosecutor will ask the person arrested if s/he desires a preliminary investigation, in which case s/he will be asked to sign a waiver. Do not sign the waiver without beng fully informed of the nature and consequences of signing it. Signing the waiver may — and often does — mean that you are going to remain in detention, pending preliminary investigation. It may also mean that you are waiving your right to file cases against those who arrested you.)

Kapag na-aresto at habang nasa kulungan, at ikaw ay tinanong o inimbestiga ng mga pulis o sundalo, nananatiling lubos ang iyong mga karapatang pantao tulad ng:

(While under arrest or detention, if you are questioned or investigated by the police and military, you have the following rights:)

* Malinaw na masabihan at basahan ng iyong mga karapatan sa Konstitusyon, kasama na ang manatling tikom ang bibig;

(To be informed of your right to remain silent and other constitutional rights);

* Magkaroon ng mahusay at walang kinikilingang abogado, at mas maiman pa, personal mong pinili;

(To have competent and independent counsel preferably of your own choice; and)

* Bigyan ng abogado, kung hindi mo kayang kumuha ng sarili mong tagapatanggol;

(To be provided with counsel if you cannot afford one.)

PCIJ Know Your Rights 3

Sa lahat ng pag-uusig ng krimen, ito ang iyong mga karapatan:

(In all criminal prosecutions, you have the following rights:)

* Huwag piliting tumestigo laban sa sarili mo
(Not to be compelled to testify against yourself);

* Manatiling tikom ang bibig kapag nahuli at magkaroon ng abogado
(To remain silent and to counsel);

* Bigyan ng impormasyon ukol sa uri at dahilan ng akusasyon laban sa iyo
(To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against you);

* Magkaroon ng mabilis, bukas, at patas na pagilitis
(To have a speedy, public, and impartial trial);

* I-apela ang conviction order o desisyon ng korte na ikaw ay maysala
(To appeal any conviction);

* Ituring na inosente hangga’t hindi napapagtibay na ikaw ay maysala
(To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved);

* Harapin at madinig ka at iyong abogado sa paglilitis
(To be present and heard by yourself and counsel);

* Matulungan ng mga proseso ng korte pati na ang compulsory attendance ng mga testigo o witnesses at sa paglalahad ng ebidensiya laban sa iyo

(To avail yourself of court processes to secure the compulsory attendance of witnesses and the presentation of evidence in your defense);

* Makita nang harapan at ma-cross-examine ang mga testigo laban sa iyo

(To meet the witnesses face-to-face and to cross-examine them);

* Magkaroon ng preliminary investigation ng akusasyon laban sa iyo

(The right to a preliminary investigation;

* Huwag litisin at parusahan ng dalawang beses para sa parehong krimen

(The right against double jeopardy);

* Bago ma-convict, maglagak ng pyansa, liban na lang sa mga kasong may parusang bitay at malakas ang ebidensiya ng pagkakasala

(Before conviction, the right to bail except for capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong);

* Pakitunguhan sa paraang makatao at may paggalang

(The right to be treated with humanity and with respect for your personal dignity);

* Manirahan at maglakbay nang malaya

(The right to liberty of abode and the right to travel).

Know, defend, assert our Rights!

* Inilathala ng Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) at isinalin sa Filipino ng Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ)

PCIJ Know Your Rights 4

ANUMAN ANG SITWASYON, NANANATILING LUBOS AT HINDI DAPAT YURAKAN ANG ATING MGA BATAYANG KARAPATAN. KABILANG DITO ANG MGA SUMUSUNOD:
(In any situation, you do not lose your basic rights, such as….)

Karapatang mabuhay (The right to life);

Karapatang hindi ma-torture o isailalim sa malupit, di-makatao, at kahiya-hiyang pakitungo o parusa (The right not to be trotured nor subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment);

Karapatang hindi sapilitang pagtrabahuhin (The right not to be subjected to forced labor)

Karapatang hindi makulong dahil sa hindi pagbayad ng utang (The right not to be imprisoned for non-payment of debt);

• Karapatang huwag maparusahan para sa mga gawaing hindi pa naisabatas na krimen nang ito ay mangyari (The right not to be punished for an act which was not yet a crime at the time of its commission);

Karapatan na kilalanin at tratuhin bilang tao (The right to be recognized and treated as a person); and

Karapatan sa malayang pag-iisip, konsiyensiya, at pananampalataya or relihiyon (The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion).

PCIJ Know Your Rights 2

Lubos o absolute ang lahat ng karapatang ito. Sa anumang kondisyon o pangyayari, hindi maaring pigilan o suspendihin ang pag-ako natin ng mga karapatang ito. Ito ay totoo kahit sa ilalim ng martial law o state of public emergency na naideklara ng pamahalaan. Ang mga karapatang ito ay “non-derogable” sa ilalim ng United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights na sakop ang pamahalaan ng Pilipinas bilang signatory.

(These rights ate absolute. Under no condition can their fulfillment or enjoyment be suspended. This is true even when martial law or any other state of emergency has been declared. These are non-derogable rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Philippines is a signatory.)

May iba pang mga karapatan na itinuturing na inalienable o inviolable o hindi maikakait at hindi dapat labagin kailanman kabilang na ang:

(There are other rights that are considered inalienable and inviolable, such as…)

* Karapatan na hindi halughugin ang iyong tahanan kung walang search warrant na pirmado ng isang hukom o judge, at karapatang huwag samsamin ang anumang gamit sa iyong bahay na hindi nakadetalye sa search warrant. Gayunman, kung ikaw ay nahuli ng ligal, ikaw at ang iyong immediate surroundings o kinalalagyan ay maaring ma-search para sa dangerous weapons o iba pang ebidensiya, at anuman ang makita sa iyong sarili at immediate vicinity ay maaring kunin ng mga otoridad kung ito ay ginamit diumano sa krimen na dahilan ng iyong pagkahuli.

(The right not to have your house searched without a search warrant issued by a judge, and not to have anything seized which is not specified in the search warrant. However, if you are legally arrested, your person and immediate surroundings may be searched for dangerous weapons, and any evidence found on your person or immediate vicinity (only on your person and immediate vicinity) which may have been used to commit the crime for which you are being arrested may be seized.)

* Karapatan na maging malaya at walang pangamba sa iyong personal na seguridad. Maari kang pagkaitan ng kalayaan ayon lamang sa mga batayan at proseso na nakatala sa Konstitusyon at batas.

(The right to liberty and security of person. You can be deprived of liberty only on grounds and procedures established by the Constitution and existing law.)

Ang Ating Mga Karapatan, 1, PCIJ, july 2016

* Karapatan na hindi arestuhin kung walang ebidensiya na may krimen nang naganap at diumano’y kalahok ka sa gawaing ito. Maari ka lamang arestuhin sa bisa ng isang arrest warrant na pirmado ng isang hukom o judge, liban na lang kung:

(The right not to be arrested except on evidence that a crime gas been committed and that you probably committed it. You may be arrested only on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by a judge, except:)

* Kung ikaw ay may ginawa o ginagawang krimen, o nagbabalak gumawa ng kasalanan (offense) sa batas, sa harap ng isang arresting officer;

(When you have committed, are actually committing, or are attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer);

* Kung, batay sa personal na kaalaman ng arresting officer sa mga pangyayari at datos ng kasalanang naganap, naniniwala siyang ikaw ang maysala;

(When an offense has been committed and the arresting office has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of the facts and circumstance, that you committed the offense);

* Kung ikaw ay tumakas mula sa kulungan o piitan, o habang inililipat ng kulungan;

(When you have escaped from prison or detention or while being transferred from one confinement to another.)

Isang sibilyan na prosecutor ang dapat magsuri sa isang inquest proceeding kung ligal o iligal ang iyong pagka-aresto. Sa inquest proceeding na ito, maaring magdesisyon ang prosecutor na:

(The legality of your arrest must be determined in an inquest proceeding conducted by a civilian prosecutor. The prosecutor, in a summary proceeding, can):

* Palayain ka (ito ay pwedeng maganap kahit man wala pang kumpletong preliminary investigation na naganap);

(Order your release [this may or may not be subject to a full-blwm preliminary invetsigation]};

* Ipagtibay na ligal ang iyong pagka-aresto at isampa ang kaukulang complaint o impormasyon laban sa iyo sa trial court;

(Affirm the legality of your arrest and prepare the corresponding complaint or information with the trial court};

* Isangguni sa nahuli kung nais niyang magkaroon ng preliminary investigation at pumirma sa isang waiver. Ito ay kadalasang nangyayari. Huwag pumirma sa waiver kung hindi nabigyan ng sapat na impormasyon ng kahihinatnan ng pagpirma nito. Ang pag-pirma mo sa waiver ay nangangahulugang pumapayag kang manatili sa kulungan, habang naghinihintay sa preliminary investigation. Ang pagpirma mo sa waiver ay maari ring ituring na wala kang planong magsampa ng kaso sa mga nanghuli sa iyo.

(Often the inquest prosecutor will ask the person arrested if s/he desires a preliminary investigation, in which case s/he will be asked to sign a waiver. Do not sign the waiver without beng fully informed of the nature and consequences of signing it. Signing the waiver may — and often does — mean that you are going to remain in detention, pending preliminary investigation. It may also mean that you are waiving your right to file cases against those who arrested you.)

Kapag na-aresto at habang nasa kulungan, at ikaw ay tinanong o inimbestiga ng mga pulis o sundalo, nananatiling lubos ang iyong mga karapatang pantao tulad ng:

(While under arrest or detention, if you are questioned or investigated by the police and military, you have the following rights:)

* Malinaw na masabihan at basahan ng iyong mga karapatan sa Konstitusyon, kasama na ang manatling tikom ang bibig;

(To be informed of your right to remain silent and other constitutional rights);

* Magkaroon ng mahusay at walang kinikilingang abogado, at mas maiman pa, personal mong pinili;

(To have competent and independent counsel preferably of your own choice; and)

* Bigyan ng abogado, kung hindi mo kayang kumuha ng sarili mong tagapatanggol;

(To be provided with counsel if you cannot afford one.)

PCIJ Know Your Rights 3

Sa lahat ng pag-uusig ng krimen, ito ang iyong mga karapatan:

(In all criminal prosecutions, you have the following rights:)

* Huwag piliting tumestigo laban sa sarili mo
(Not to be compelled to testify against yourself);

* Manatiling tikom ang bibig kapag nahuli at magkaroon ng abogado
(To remain silent and to counsel);

* Bigyan ng impormasyon ukol sa uri at dahilan ng akusasyon laban sa iyo
(To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against you);

* Magkaroon ng mabilis, bukas, at patas na pagilitis
(To have a speedy, public, and impartial trial);

* I-apela ang conviction order o desisyon ng korte na ikaw ay maysala
(To appeal any conviction);

* Ituring na inosente hangga’t hindi napapagtibay na ikaw ay maysala
(To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved);

* Harapin at madinig ka at iyong abogado sa paglilitis
(To be present and heard by yourself and counsel);

* Matulungan ng mga proseso ng korte pati na ang compulsory attendance ng mga testigo o witnesses at sa paglalahad ng ebidensiya laban sa iyo

(To avail yourself of court processes to secure the compulsory attendance of witnesses and the presentation of evidence in your defense);

* Makita nang harapan at ma-cross-examine ang mga testigo laban sa iyo

(To meet the witnesses face-to-face and to cross-examine them);

* Magkaroon ng preliminary investigation ng akusasyon laban sa iyo

(The right to a preliminary investigation;

* Huwag litisin at parusahan ng dalawang beses para sa parehong krimen

(The right against double jeopardy);

* Bago ma-convict, maglagak ng pyansa, liban na lang sa mga kasong may parusang bitay at malakas ang ebidensiya ng pagkakasala

(Before conviction, the right to bail except for capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong);

* Pakitunguhan sa paraang makatao at may paggalang

(The right to be treated with humanity and with respect for your personal dignity);

* Manirahan at maglakbay nang malaya

(The right to liberty of abode and the right to travel).

President Duterte’s war on crime: A nuclear explosion of violence

By Atty. Jose Manuel ‘Chel’ I. Diokno
National Chairman, Free Legal Assistance Group
Trustee, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

———————————————————————————————————-

PRESIDENT DUTERTE’S war on crime has spawned a nuclear explosion of violence that is spiraling out of control and creating a nation without judges, without law, and without reason.

Do we really want to give the man with the gun the power to judge who are criminals and to kill them?

To decide who is bad and who is good, who deserves to live and who deserves to die? We might as well disband our courts, dissolve the Department of Justice, and abolish Congress. For there really is no need for law when the barrel of the gun dispenses justice.

The bandwagon that the President has created is a bandwagon of hate – a mob mentality that not only condones but encourages the taking of lives “because they deserve it.”

Yes, drug pushers destroy lives. Yes, criminals behave like animals. But are those who kill them any better? And will the killing stop there?

Our people have seen what a mob can do in the hands of a tyrant who knows no law but his own. Lest we forget, the first person that Marcos executed was a drug pusher. But did he stop there? By the time he was ousted, he was responsible for killing thousands upon thousands of people whose only fault was their belief in justice, the rule of law, and human rights.

President Duterte, do not kill in my name. That is not your mandate, that is not what you were elected for. Yes, go after the drug cartels and criminal syndicates, the corrupt, the criminals among us. But do it as an officer of the law you have sworn to uphold as a lawyer and a President. — July 8, 2016