A TOTAL of 3,257 extrajudicial killings (EJKs) were committed during the Marcos dictatorship.

In
contrast, there were 805 drug-related fatalities from May 10 (when Rodrigo Duterte emerged winner
of the presidential election) to Aug. 12, per the Inquirer count.
If the current rate continues, the total number of EJKs for the six years of the Duterte administration
will end up about 700 percent more than the killings committed during the 14 years of the Marcos
dictatorship.
President Duterte is either ill-advised or terribly underestimating the risk that he can be held liable at
the International Criminal Court, given the circumstances of the killings.
In 2011, the Philippines ratified the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court.
Under this treaty, every Filipino, including the President, can be tried by this Court which has
jurisdiction over crimes against humanity. The treaty provides that when murder is committed as
part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of
the attack, it becomes a crime against humanity.
The possibility that the current EJKs will be considered by the International Criminal Court as
amounting to a crime against humanity is a liability risk that our President is miscalculating.
Ruben Carranza, director of the New-York-based International Center for Transitional Justice, points
out that [w]hen over 500 civilians have been killed by both police and vigilantes with the clear goal
of targeting them in a war against drugs, with their impunity explicitly guaranteed by the president,
then the elements of EJKs as a crime against humanity of murder are already there(a)
widespread or systematic killings, (b) civilians are targeted, and (c) the perpetrators know or
intended their conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack.
On Aug. 11, Kabayan party-list Rep. Harry Roque delivered a privilege speech in which he said: It is
clear that the civilian population is being attackednews reports all around us overwhelmingly
establish that hundreds of Filipinos have been killed either directly by governmental forces or with
their support or tolerance.
Roque likewise said: It is also clear that the President is aware that these acts are ongoing. Even
without proof of a directive on his part, he has, in many instances, spoken about the use of violence
against drug syndicates.
Roque cited the decisions of international criminal tribunals which prosecuted political and military
officials for crimes against humanity committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. These
tribunals declared that it is not necessary to show that [the crimes committed] were the result of the

existence of a policy or plan and that the plan need not be declared expressly or even stated
clearly and precisely. It may be surmised from the occurrence of a series of events.
The party-list representative cautioned the President to be careful: While it would be imprudent for
me to say with certainty that President Duterte has already committed a crime against humanity, it
would be a disservice to this entire nation if I did not warn him to be careful. Neither the Rome
Statute nor general international law prescribes a minimum number of victims for an indictment. So
long as the [International Criminal Court] believes that the war on drugs is widespread and
systematic, [it is] likely to investigate.
The President enjoys immunity under Philippine law, but he has no similar immunity for crimes under
the International Criminal Courts jurisdiction. Carranza says the presidents of Sudan and Kenya
were charged in the court even during their incumbency. And there is no expiration of liability for ICC
crimes, so he can be charged even long after he leaves Malacaang.
The determination of Mr. Duterte to cleanse the country of the drug menace and his willingness to
risk his life, honor, and the presidency to achieve this goal are praiseworthy.
However, we are at that stage of our civilization where we have long abandoned the ancient practice
of relying on operatives to dispense justice through the smoking barrel of their guns. We have
advanced our civilization by relying on gun-wielding men to apprehend criminals, but have
separately assigned the task of listening to accusations of guilt and protestations of innocence to
men and women who mete out penalties.
It is true that our current justice system is notoriously imperfect and graft-prone. But we do not
improve our way of life by marching back to the Dark Ages where justice is made synonymous with
violence. We improve our defective justice system by fixing it, not by abandoning it.
It is true that the proliferation of drugs is partly due to corrupt judges. But it is also true that illegal
drugs proliferate because of a corrupt police force and a corrupt prosecution service, both of which
are executive agencies within the Presidents control to reform.
It is also true that before our children become drug dependents who clog police and court dockets,
there are the education, health, and social welfare departments which are executive agencies within
the Presidents control to tap for instructive, reformative, and curative solutions to the drug menace.
We want our President to succeed in his fight against illegal drugs. But in his haste and zeal, he may
end up accused of a crime more serious than the ones perpetrated by his archenemies. The last
thing our country needs is a President facing trial at the International Criminal Court.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/96518/extrajudicial-killings-crime-humanity