Article III: Bill of Rights

1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE III, BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful
order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
rights.
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be
impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the
interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access
to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be
denied to any person by reason of poverty.
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.
(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.
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and
shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face,
and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in
his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused:
Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion
or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted.
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes,
the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee
or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by
law.
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act.
Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

A NEW LOW

Where were you on Wednesday afternoon, when President Duterte assassinated the character of
Sen. Leila de Lima in a speech in Camp Crame? Chances are, you will not soon forget the words the
President used to attack his critic:
Heres a senator complaining. One day I will tell you that her driver himself, who was a lover, was the one
collecting money for her during the campaign, the President said, without offering a shred of proof to back
his claim.
An immoral woman, insofar as the drivers wife is concerned, its adultery, he continued. Heres a
woman who funded a house of a lover and yet we dont see any complaint about it, he said. Those
[monies] came readily from her. The intercept between Muntinlupa and the driver were far beyond making
sure that somebody was involved, he added, cryptically.
Was the President certain, beyond any doubt, that the money allegedly collected by the driver went
directly to De Lima? He said: But in fairness, I would never say that the driver gave [the money] to her,
but by the looks of it, she has it.
In other words, the Presidents attack against the chair of the Senate committee on justice and
human rights, who will begin an investigation into the spate of extrajudicial killings that have marked the
start of the Duterte administration, is based, not on proof that she was receiving money from drug lords,
but only on her being allegedly an immoral woman.
This is a little rich, coming from a President who is quite happy to talk about his philandering ways,
even during the election campaign. The argument on adultery is shockingly sexist; real men like Mr.
Duterte are immune to criticism about their many affairs and dalliances. On the other hand, paint a woman
with the brush of rumor and innuendo, and the Presidents supporters will conflate alleged immorality with
alleged corruption.
But the real reason that President Duterte is ready to believe these rumors and innuendoes about
De Lima is the personal hurt he apparently continues to nurse, about De Limas investigation of the so-
called Davao Death Squad in the city over which he presided for decades. Even to this day, the President
will recall the details of the investigation, mimicking the English accent of De Lima, who was then chair of
the Commission on Human Rights. Add the senators recent privilege speech about the extrajudicial killings
and the committee investigation, and we can begin to understand why Mr. Dutertes alarm bells have gone
off.
The language that Mr. Duterte used, however, is decidedly unpresidential. Then again, perhaps we
should not wonder, considering his offensive remarks during the election campaign: his cursing of Pope
Francis for one, his gratuitous comment about having sex first, by rights, with a gang rape victim, for
another. But stripped to its essentials, what is the Presidents case against De Lima? Alleged immorality.
We are hard-pressed to think of another example, from previous presidencies, about language from
the President that, if used by a senator, would immediately be deemed unparliamentary, or, if used by an
ordinary citizen, would be grounds for slander. This is truly a new low. (And marking his 50th day in office,
too.)
And despite promising last week that he would destroy a female official, the attack against De Lima last
Wednesday was hardly the open-and-shut case he pledged. In the same way that his so-called narco-list
is riddled with errors, the attack against De Lima is full of holes, too. If this is the best that the President of
the Philippines can do, in marshalling government resources against a person he considers an enemy, then
there is really nothing against De Lima.
Heros burial for a hero-maker

WE LIVE by symbols. We make meaning through themwe are homo significans.

The battle for the public meaning of the Libingan ng mga Bayani has now reached Padre Faura,
threatening to become the first confrontation between the Duterte administration and the Supreme Court.
The challenge for the various petitioners in these cases is how to couch their moral and political
outrage into legal arguments so the Court can avoid making pure value judgments and decide on the basis
of legal principles. It is how to translate the national cognitive dissonance created by the administrations
decision to bury and, therefore, consecrate Marcos as a public, official hero into a legal wrong cognizable
by courts.
At bottom, the case against Marcos burial at the Libingan may be framed into an apparent conflict
between rules, on one hand, and standards, on the other. Ordinarily, rights- or benefits-conferring statutes
provide an enumeration of who qualifies (rules) and the conditions for their qualifications (standards).
Rules are generally objective, whereas standards require some exercise of discretion.
The statutory basis for the creation of the Libingan is found in Republic Act No. 268 which seeks
[t]o perpetuate the memory of all the Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots for the
inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn This proviso simultaneously
incorporates a rule and a standard.
The case for the administration rests on a straightforward application of the rule allowing all
presidents burial access to the Libingan. While there is no denying that Marcos is a former president, that
is only half of the analysis.
The balance of the law requires compliance with the standard: for the inspiration and emulation of this
generation and of generations still unborn. This standard is legally enforceable. In plain terms, the law
never envisioned the burial of a president who is not worth emulating. The Libingan is the Republics holy
grounds for its secular gods; it is not for those who make martyrs out of themit is for heroes, not hero-
makers.
One might think that the legal standard is vague or purely hortatory. After all, ones capacity to
inspire is subjective and people can have legitimate disagreement about their idols. This may be true, but
this is also incontrovertibly not the case when it comes to Marcos.
The assertions that Marcos plundered the nation and violated the most basic rights of his citizens
are not mere claims made on Facebook or over dinner conversations. They are, under the law of evidence,
legislative facts that courts of law must accept as true, regardless of politics or even ones preferred
version of history. What this means is that given the status of our laws with respect to Marcos, there can be
no debate that he plundered the nation and violated human rights on a scale that required remedial action
from the state.
First. The laws creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the
Sandiganbayan set up an administrative and judicial mechanism for recovering moneys stolen by Marcos
and his cohorts. The fact that billions of pesos have been recovered here and abroad validates the
decades-long effort to recover the Marcos loot. The PCGG is still going after the Marcos billions and the
Sandiganbayan is still trying ill-gotten wealth cases. The Supreme Court itself, in various decisions, has
recognized the thievery of the Marcos regime, characterizing it as a well-entrenched plundering regime of
twenty years.
Second. Congress also passed RA 10368 or An Act Providing For Reparation and Recognition of
Victims of Human Rights Violations During the Marcos Regime. The state, in recognition of the horrors of
martial law, has enacted a policy of using public funds to pay for Marcos use of state machinery to inflict
violence on Filipinos. We can complain about human rights abuses under any presidency, but it is only with
respect to the Marcos regime that the state has owned up to the scale and intensity of abuses during that
period by offering reparations.
Thus, regardless of the administrations views about the meaning of moving on, or any citizens
(including President Dutertes) views about Marcos, the Court, as a matter of law, must take judicial notice
of these laws which incorporate a legislative determination of factsthat Marcos plundered and murdered.
To question these legislative facts is to consider the recovery of the Marcoses ill-gotten wealth as nothing
less than state-sponsored robbery of the Marcos familys legitimate wealth, and the payment of public
funds to martial law victims as mere state-sponsored scheme to divert such funds into private hands.
The point here is that if the question is whether Marcos, as a dead president, is compliant with the
standard that he be inspiring and worthy of emulation, then the clear answer is that it has been the
consistent policy of the statethrough legislation, executive action, and judicial enforcementthat he is
not. This makes the decision to bury him at the Libingan an act that can be legally prohibited by the
courts.
And lest we forget, our constitutional framework rests on a backdrop of rejection of almost
everything Marcos was infamous for. It is no exaggeration to declare that the 1987 Constitution is our
countrys most powerful symbol against the evils of his regime.
The day we bury Marcos at the Libingan will be the day he rises as a hero. If that happens, we
might as well bury the Constitution with him.

When a leader betrays his people

WITH THE controversial decision to bury the remains of Ferdinand Marcos in the Libingan ng mga
Bayani, the truth is again under siege.
The sentiment behind the move, allegedly to allow the nation to move on, is both misguided and
dangerous. By interring the dictators remains in the national cemetery for heroes, the first casualty will be
the truth, or, more precisely, the historical truth: Marcos betrayed our people on a grand scale, and in the
most cynical ways possible.
Truth in a democracy is sacred; it is the basic operating principle of our system of government. This is why
truth is a core value at home and in school, church, and workplace. This is why it is a convention in our
political and judicial proceedings to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We live and die by the
truth.
To erect a shrine to the dictators memory on sacred ground will obliterate the historical truth. How
do we teach our children not to steal when the greatest thief in Philippine history lies there in honored
glory?
How do we nourish our moral life and sustain the majesty of our laws when we blur the lines
between what is right and what is wrong, between what is virtue and what is evil?
How do we raise the younger generations to believe that honesty, hard work, and right conduct
must be the cornerstones of everyday life when a disgraced leader who personified greed, dishonesty, and
corruption is honored with a state funeral?
Truth as a social value flourishes among a people with a strong sense of morality. But morality is not
innate; it is learned. A people cannot build the habits, civility and discipline without the skills of moral
reasoning. And we cannot create a more civil national culture by belittling or avoiding what is morally
required of us.
The power conveyed by the Marcoses infamous, unearned wealth enables them to adjust to
political tides and currents. They will never account for that wealth which will provide them continuing
access and influence in future governments. And so we still hear the refrain of Marcos pa rin (Marcos
still) echoing faintly, the way fanatical Peronistas, ignoring the excesses of Argentinas criminal in chief,
chanted Mujeriego y ladron, pero queremos a Peron! (Philanderer and thief, we still want Peron!).
Burying Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani is the first step in his family members plot to
perpetuate their outrageous claims. Once this step is accomplished, they can leisurely proceed to their
endgame: to bury Imelda, when her time comes, beside her husband, reminiscent of Jacqueline Kennedy
beside JFK at Arlington in the glow of an eternal flame.
The historical truth will then be irrevocably distorted, and the supreme irony for Filipinos is that
history will appear to sustain the side of the disgraced.
As the ranks of martial law victims and the anti-martial law opposition are decimated by attrition,
the Marcoses calculate that the passions of the Edsa Revolution will soon fade.
After all, three decades since they fled Malacaang, the Marcoses and their cronies have not been found
guilty of any crime in spite of the fact that the Presidential Commission on Good Government has
recovered $3.7 billion of an estimated loot of $10 billion.
What is deeply disturbing about President Dutertes decision is the clear disconnect between his
rhetoric and reality. On one hand, he is pursuing a devastating campaign against criminality and
corruption; on the other, he is coddling the memory of a tyrant whose crimes and corruption stagger our
imagination.
On one hand, he is attacking oligarchs who accumulated wealth over decades; on the other, he is praising
a discredited leader who became the countrys greatest oligarch overnight by illegally seizing the assets of
the elite.
Marcos rise to power started with a lie, and he prevailed for so long through the legislative and executive
branches of government largely on his capacity to manipulate or conceal the truth. It started with his
claims of heroic exploits as a soldier in World War II, claims found fraudulent and without a scintilla of
evidence in US Army archives.
Employing these improbable claims, he captured the central seat of power. Thus, the disingenuous
argument goes, Marcos is qualified to rest with our heroes. The trouble with this argument is that, bereft of
moral reasoning, it is blind to the infinite harm Marcos inflicted on the social fabric.
It smirks at the historical truth: Marcos wanton violation of the Constitution, the brutality of his
regime, the astronomical external debt he incurred, the collapse of our economy, and the stunning wealth
he stole to become the worlds second most corrupt leader of all time.
As flagrant and unconscionable as these atrocities may be, they were not the worst. The most
damning was that Marcos derailed the hopes and aspirations of at least three generations of Filipinos,
deepening our despair and our desperation.
Death cannot be a cleansing sacrament to alter Marcos sordid and bloody legacy. The impunity of
Marcos long despotic rule will burden our sense of national dignity for generations to come. And how we
reckon with this design to rehabilitate Marcos as a national hero has enormous implications on our values
as a people, on the nature of our future, and on the efficacy of our political culture.
To bury Marcos in the heroes cemetery mocks the valor, dignity, and sacrifice of martyred Filipinos.
But even more, it mocks our national esteem and our shared civic values as a democratic society.

Can Etta and Barry block Marcos burial?

SHOULD ABSTRACT, broad language in our Constitution block the burial of former president
Ferdinand Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayaniwithout a more specific law?

A former chair of the Commission on Human Rights and a martial law victim, Etta Rosales, thinks
so. Ahead of the Aug. 24 and 26 hearings, Supreme Court watchers will focus on her petition, written by
former Akbayan representative Barry Gutierrez III and lawyers Ma. Concepcion Mendoza Baldueza and
Darwin Angeles. Forget other leftists who repeatedly file baseless Supreme Court cases as publicity stunts.

Our 1987 Constitution is painfully verbose, with self-contradictory aspirational statements on

everything from nuclear weapons to sports. Because Philippine legal education is overly literal,
memorization-oriented and bar exam-focused, we accept taking a single word from our lengthy
Constitution and stretching it as far as one can.

This led to bold judgments in the 1990s. The 1993 Oposa case allowed unborn generations of
Filipinos to question logging licenses, using a constitutional provision on balanced and healthful ecology.
The 1997 Manila Prince Hotel case blocked the historic hotels sale to a foreign group due to a provision of
preference for Filipinos.

The 1997 Taada case, however, rejected blocking the Philippines accession to the World Trade
Organization due to a provision on an independent national economy.

In the 2010s, we treat these long-winded provisions as guiding principles, and ask petitioners to
base their claims on more specific laws that flesh out these principles.

The 2013 Reproductive Health Act hearings reprised this debate. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes
Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Justice Marvic Leonen thumbed down vague claims
that the Constitution prohibits contraception. They emphasized that a court is not an arbiter of morality,
theology, technology or population statistics.

In the 2015 Torre de Manila hearings, Justice Francis Jardeleza proposed that the building violates a
constitutional provision on conserving cultural heritage. Carpio questioned how one would know where not
to build, as the alleged prohibition is based on a single word in the Constitution.

Gutierrez now raises the stakes and argues: It is not a mere burial. It is, on the contrary, a
complete reversal of the very policy that forms part of the core of the Constitutionthat Marcos was a
dictator guilty of numerous abuses, and that his like must never again be allowed to hold power over
Filipinos. It takes away the very historical basis on which so much of our present Constitutional order
was anchored, by design.

It is well documented that the 1987 Constitution was drafted to reject martial law. Gutierrez thus
argues that the burial undermines a constitutional provision that educational institutions should foster
appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country and other
provisions on full respect for human rights, youth patriotism and nationalism, integrity in the public
service and prohibit political dynasties.

Gutierrez further posits that the burial would violate the principles of the fundamental International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The burial would undermine the required full and effective
reparation to victims of systemic abuses, recognition of the abuses that took place, and the prevention of
impunity in future abuses.

As a secondary argument, he cites how Republic Act No. 289 created the Libingan: To perpetuate
the memory of all the Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots for the inspiration and
emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn. He argues Marcos is not worthy of emulation.

Further, Armed Forces Regulation No. 131-373 disqualifies those convicted of an offense involving
moral turpitude or dishonorably discharged from service from burial in the Libingan. Gutierrez argues that
Marcos should be treated as disqualified given how various laws and even foreign court decisions state
that he was forced out of office, amassed ill-gotten wealth and committed countless human rights abuses.

As compelling as Gutierrezs appeal to the spirit of the law is, I hesitate to go so far beyond its
letter. People need to know what the law says, what is prohibited and what is authorized. Law is beautiful
philosophy when we talk of human rights and social justice, but it must be practical and clear in most
contexts.

Todays students are wary of old decisions like Oposa and Manila Prince Hotel because our verbose
Constitution can be used as a pretext for just about anything. With such an open-ended approach to law,
why bother passing a law in Congress when one may petition the Supreme Court for an instant solution?

It is ironic to short-circuit democratic process arguably to save democracy by stopping Marcos

burial in the Libingan.

I am likewise wary of invoking the purpose of RA 289. Judges should not be deciding who is worthy
of emulation. If one accepts this argument, law could likewise be bent to do anything. Our Securities
Regulation Code, for example, prescribes a socially conscious free market and democratization of
wealth, but these aspirations should not trump finance principles in regulating financial transactions.

Arguing over AFP Regulation No. 131-373 is pointless because the President as commander in chief
may change it anytime.

Gutierrez has at least uplifted the Aug. 24 hearing into a credible discussion. He will likely try to
persuade Jardeleza, the Courts greatest liberal and progressive who called for broad interpretations of
constitutional principles in recent hearings. It will be fun to see how far the Court will go.

Death penalty will set PH in wrong direction, says AI

CANBERRASince President Duterte took office on June 30, this country has seen so many people killed by
vigilante death squads. The kill list tallied from that time by the Philippine National Police presents an
appalling death toll of 465 extrajudicial executions.

The President has acknowledged abuses in the war on drugs, but is not backing down from a shoot-to-kill
order against drug dealers. He has also ordered the reinstatement of the death penalty as a deterrent to
crime, which he has pledged to eradicate in the first three to six months of his presidency.
Mr. Duterte has explained these draconian measures that have given the Philippines the
international reputation of being Asias latest killing field, reminiscent of the genocidal slaughter of up to
half a million Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge when they occupied Phnom Penh in 1975.
He has justified these massacres, saying that most drug dealers and addicts slain in gun battles had
put up a fight, but he was sure some were salvageda local term for extrajudicial killings by law
enforcers. The excuse has alarmed human rights activists who denounced it as at least, legally
questionable, as an attempt to whitewash law enforcement agents involvement in the killings, or to look
for scapegoats in the witch-hunt for those responsible for the summary executions.
 Mr. Duterte has been battling with international organizations condemning his controversial crime
war that has claimed 1,000 lives. He hit out on Wednesday at stupid UN criticism, warning it not to
interfere in Philippine domestic affairs. Why should the United Nations be so easily swayed in the affairs of
this republic? There were only 1,000 killed, he said.
Whats the problem? You inject politics. Only 1,000 died, and you put my country in peril, in
jeopardy? he said. He should have been asked: Why are you not bothered by the killings of Filipinos on
the basis of nothing more than suspicion of having committed crimes. He told foreign human rights
watchdogs not to investigate us as though we are criminals and warned they would not be treated well in
the Philippines.
Amnesty International (AI) has told Mr. Duterte he must fulfill his inauguration pledge to uphold the
countrys commitment to international law and lead a break with the countrys poor human rights record.
Lend substance to words
President Duterte was elected on a mandate to uphold the rule of law, the London-based AI said.
t is encouraging that he spoke of honoring the Philippines obligations under international law in his
inauguration speech. But now that he is in power, he needs to lend substance to those words and break
with his earlier rhetoric. Throughout his campaign, the President made inflammatory remarks that, if
translated to policy, would mark a sharp deterioration in the already problematic human rights situation in
the Philippines. President Dutertes promises to adhere to the rule of law must be translated into actual
policy and implemented in practice, AI said.
Since winning the election, AI noted, Mr. Duterte has triggered widespread alarm by calling for the
restoration of the death penalty, vowing to preside over a wave of extrajudicial executions, threatening
journalists and intimidating human rights defenders.
Regional leader
This is a context where a climate of impunity for human rights violations prevails in the Philippines,
including for torture and ill treatment. Only one police officer has ever been brought to justice under laws
criminalizing torture, and few have been held accountable for killing journalists
Among President Dutertes many troubling positions is his intention to restore the death penalty.
Doing so would reverse a decade-long ban in the Philippines of this cruel and irreversible punishment. For
this [position] the Philippines is a regional leader, as it went against the grain of other countries in the
region.
President Duterte has said that he intends to apply the death penalty to a range of crimes
including offenses that do not meet the threshold of most serious crimes, which is the only category of
crimes for which international law allows the death penalty.
There is no evidence that the death penalty serves as any more of a deterrent than prison. At a
time when this cruel and inhuman and degrading punishment has been abolished in the majority of the
worlds countries, reimposing it will set [the Philippines] in the wrong direction.

Uphold due process, defend the Constitution

ALL FILIPINOS, whether public officials or ordinary citizens, have the right to due process. It is a human
right guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution that President Duterte swore to uphold and defend.
It is sorely disappointing to see the President disregard this constitutional right as he voices no objection to
the killing of suspected drug pushers by the police or by vigilantes, and accuses police officers, local
executives, judges and other officials of being drug lords or their protectors without the benefit of a
thorough, completed criminal investigation. Without presenting solid evidence to back up his public
allegations, President Duterte, the most powerful public official of our land, has embarked on a chilling,
sickening name-and-shame campaign that is in effect an unjust, unlawful and unconstitutional trial by
publicity.
The most recent target of this campaign of the President is newly-elected and installed Sen. Leila de
Lima. He has publicly accused her of having links to the illegal drugs trade and he has insinuated that her
election campaign was funded with drug money.
 This public shaming came on the eve of a Senate investigation that Senator De Lima had called to
look into the spate of extrajudicial killings that have been spurred by the Presidents declaration of war on
drugs. The figures are simply too disturbing: 665 killings by the police, 889 by unknown assailants in a
span of six weeks, per the Inquirers report (UN exec accepts Palace challenge to visit PH, Front Page,
8/20/16), and counting.
The accusation smacks of vindictiveness. It may be recalled that when she was still justice
secretary and, before that, head of the Commission on Human Rights, Senator De Lima called for a probe
on the vigilante killings by a group called the Davao Death Squad which was linked to President Duterte
who was then mayor of Davao City. Of course, she was just doing her job as mandated by law. We thus find
it alarming that she is now being publicly humiliated and pilloried precisely for doing her job.
The public shaming which, to repeat, is trial by publicity, does have a chilling effect on free and
intelligent discourse which is essential to democracy.
President Duterte himself recently upped the stake in favor of freedom of information by signing an
executive order binding on all officials and employees in the executive branch of the Philippine
government, for them to make accessible public documents to the people. We thus expect him to be the
first to uphold the law and allow the free market of ideas to flourish to better build an informed citizenry.
Muzzling contrary opinions has no place in a democratic and civilized society such as ours.
We stand by the Senate of the Philippines as it pursues its mandate and duty to check and
balance the executive branch, and to conduct, as part of its oversight function, investigations in aid of
legislation on matters of public interest.
We stand by Sen. Leila de Lima in her decision to proceed with the Senate inquiry into the
extrajudicial killings associated with the campaign against illegal drugs, and in her advocacy to protect
human rights, including the right to due process.
We support our law enforcers who risk their lives to maintain law and order and protect our lives
and property and human rights.
But we urge President Duterte to refrain from using his office to intimidate those who dare disagree
with him; to conduct himself like a true statesman; to respect the privacy of individuals, including public
officials; and to elevate the quality of public discourse. The presidency should never be used as a platform
for revenge; it demeans the highest office of the land, and diminishes its dignity and credibility.
As well, to impugn a womans character by the same actions that would otherwise elevate a mans
status in society, and to apply a different standard of morality on a lady senators alleged extramarital
relations from that of a Presidents own well-known dalliances, is to box ones self in stereotypes and sexist
attitudes. Surely, with a daughter in public office, President Duterte knows better than to confine women in
his box of antiquated roles and expectations.
We call on all Filipino men and women of good will to be discerning in responding to intemperate reports
and issues raised, especially in social media. Let not these reports and issues bring out the worst in us. Let
us pursue our discourse in a manner worthy of emulation by our youth and children.
Despite severe pressure from several quarters, let us be steadfast in respecting the rule of law; let
us uphold due process and defend our Constitution, in words and in deeds.

The price we pay

How difficult it is to move to other subjects without being drawn back to the drugs issue. There are
many competing controversies, each worthy of focused attention, but each quickly falling to the wayside
when the news or conversation turns back to drugs.
I have written three articles in the last four weeks about the drug scourge from several angles. And
I know there are several more that I can cover, especially how one drug addict can trigger so much misery
in a family. Considering that a conservative estimate today is already three million, that can conceivably be
three million families. The more aggressive estimate is double that or six million. And six million families
mean one-third of the Philippine population of families.
I would like to open new fronts for thought and discussion, for issues like constitutional change,
federalism, the Marcos burial, China and its territorial claims, peace talks with the Left and with the
Muslims in Mindanao, even the horror of mindless and greedy urban development known as Metro Manila
and its attendant traffic nightmare. Most of all, I wish to direct more attention to poverty, to landlessness
and homelessness, to hunger.
The reality is, though, that drugs will remain central in our national attention for some time, and it
rightly belongs there. Because we did not care enough before, because its consequences are catching up
with us, and because it will not take long before it reaches our doorsteps. It is already out there, in full
force, so much so that the poor whom it affects the most simply caved in before its powerful onslaught, in
muted silence and resignation as they are prone to do even in the face of creeping death. The 600,000
drug dependents and pushers who surrendered, arguably part of a market ten times its number, are
mostly poor. That is why we did not do enough against the threat of drugsbecause they threatened the
people we never enough cared about.
It would be very amusing if it were not so grotesque that much focus and debate center around
drug-related killings. This just shows how largely ignorant we remain to be about what illegal drugs are to a
society that has been overtaken by these. It just shows we have very little understanding of what a narco-
state is all about beyond two words put together by politicians or government politicians who know enough
about it.
It will take too long for me to describe what a narco-state is all about. It does not take long to know
its essence, though, for those interested. The powerful world of the internet and Google can educate you
fast enough, if you really want to know and get a glimpse of what a president who understands better
must feel. I am sure that, in his mind, he is scared silly about life in a narco state, not just what drugs do to
the physical and mental health of victims, the emotional and financial turmoil of their families, the
hundreds of billions generated in its manufacture, trade band distribution, and the corruption it encourages
and thrives on. Lets go to what has recently shocked us the mostthe drug-related killings, extrajudicial
or not.
Killings and a narco-state are one and the same. If we do not prevent ourselves from becoming a
narco-state, then we must learn to expect the killings, more and more of them as the process of cooptation
by the drug trade deepens. The closer we really are to being a narco-state can eventually be measured by
the violence it inflicts on our society, physically, psychologically and spiritually.
Let us take a few examples of what a narco-state can be, the more popular ones so any of us can
research them quickly. Let us limit ourselves to just two for the momentColombia and Mexico.
Drugs have penetrated Colombia and Mexico for decades, and the fight goes on, the fight of society
to survive without illegal drugs and drug lords taking over nations, and the fight by drugs and drug lords to
dominate their countries enough to spread their business and control to other countries. As of 2012 or
2013, drug-related deaths in Colombia have reached over 450,000, and in Mexico, over 220,000. As I said,
the drug wars continue, and so will the killings. And where are we today1,000 plus?
The pressure alone induced by a relentless war against drugs will induce killings, just like what has
been happening in Colombia and Mexico. I dont believe that all the presidents of these countries in over
20 years loved killing, or that their citizens wanted the violence. Colombia now has halved the killings
because it has seriously tried to address poverty. But it has to take the killings even at reduced levels until
antipoverty efforts succeed.
We, too, and not only government, must aggressively address poverty. We understand that poverty is the
major cause why our poor comprise the bulk of drug dependents and pushers. How long, then, will it take
for poverty to be reduced substantially? Meanwhile, how else can we reduce the march of narcotics before
it takes over our whole society? Who has a brilliant suggestion?
We have had cancers in our midst called poverty and corruption. The price we keep paying for them
has been rebellion and secession. Now, another cancer called drugs is growing, and violence, too, is its
price. How easy it is to say we do not agree with extrajudicial killings, but how bereft we are of doable
solutions on how these can be stopped.
Unless President Duterte will tell drug lords, their protectors in the police, the judiciary and all others from
government that they dont have to be afraid anymore because it will be business as usual, the way it was
when we did not know what we know today. But let us not hold our breath because he will never do that.