Extra-judicial killings

By Ermin Garcia Jr.

 

THERE’S been a lot of brouhaha over extra-judicial killings (EJK) lately that suddenly created doubts in the minds of overseas communities about how war on drugs in the country is proceeding. Why did it come to this?

Recall that when calls for “observance of due process” were raised by Mr. Duterte’s detractors, it didn’t create any traction in local and foreign media because a large majority of the populace said they trust the President. They believe he’s doing the right thing, pouncing on the drug lords and drug pushers and beating them to a pulp.  That monkey wrench fell by the wayside.

But soon, Mr. Duterte’s detractors saw another potential monkey wrench – EJK as a legitimate cause with the reported rise in number of summary executions by ‘vigilantes’ and deaths of suspects in buy-bust operations. The insinuation given is that the ‘vigilantes’ are, in fact, law enforcers. They insist the giveaway are the cardboard signs left on the hogtied bodies that usually read: “Ako ay pusher, huwag tularan.”

And in the case of deaths in buy-bust operations, they claimed victims were unarmed because no police operatives were being hit.

What total hogwash!

*          *          *          *          *

NEW ‘VIGILANTES’. Let’s look at reported summary killings.

1. All the ‘cardboard victims’ are confirmed low level drug personalities. These are drug personalities who could have been merely confronted by Double Barrel operatives, that if they had surrendered peacefully, they would still be alive, or if they decided to shoot it out, the operatives could have done away with in self-defense.
2. Law enforcers don’t need to eliminate the victims gangland style because their commander-in-chief is prepared to defend them in court in the event their case subjects are killed in the process.

So who could be the ‘vigilantes’ today? The best way to answer that initially is with more questions.

Who would want them killed and executed gangland style, and for what objective? Were the victims simply silenced forever since dead men tell no tales? Some of the victims had already surrendered earlier, was the execution necessary? Did the victims know something about the drug trade that the law enforcement agencies may not know or should not know? Were victims hogtied to instill fear in prospective drug pushers or to instill fear in drug personalities who surrendered or about to surrender? Aren’t the bloody encounters in public between law enforcers and drug suspects enough to instill fear in drug pushers?  

The alleged ‘vigilantes’ behind the summary executions point to the protectors and local kingpins of the drug trade in the communities. It’s about self-preservation that necessitates elimination of persons who could implicate them.    

*          *          *          *          *

LEGAL DEFFINITIONS. EJK ‘s definition by the United Nations Human Rights Council: An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process.

But the government went further with the definition through Administrative Order No. 35 (issued by the Aquino administration and crafted by then DOJ Sec. Leila de Lima’s group), EJKs are “killings, enforced disappearances, torture and other grave violations of the right to life, liberty and security of persons,” of following persons: 1) member of, or affiliated with an organization, to include political, environmental, agrarian, labor, or similar causes; or 2) an advocate of above-named causes; or 3) a media practitioner or 4. person(s) apparently mistaken or identified to be so.”

Other circumstances to be considered: “The victim was targeted and killed because of the actual or perceived membership, advocacy, or profession; the person/s responsible for the killing is a state agent or non-state agent; and the method and circumstances of attack reveal a deliberate intent to kill.”

Has there been any of the above-described persons killed by government operatives because of his/her involvement in illegal drug trade? None.

Yet, through it all, Duterte’s detractors (including Sen. De Lima and CHR’s Chito Gaston, both LP stalwarts) succeeded in making local and foreign media believe that EJKs are rampant in the country.  Even US President Obama fell for it.

*          *          *          *          *

COLLATERAL DAMAGE. Our upright law enforcers, at this stage, may be guilty of poor judgment on the ground and, yes, responsible for exacting collateral damage. But not EJK! That will take a lot of imagination to even suggest it.

The collateral damage (deaths of innocent bystanders) is largely caused by the fact that the operatives are simply not good marksmen. They can’t shoot at their targets accurately because they have had little or no practice at the firing range! That’s a fact.

*          *          *          *          *

HERE WE GO AGAIN. Here’s something that perhaps Executive Judges (EJ) of Regional Trial Courts in Pangasinan can act on to protect the public, specifically, over publication of legal notices emanating from their courts.

I’m raising this here because I continue to be asked by court litigants why other newspapers charge excessively for the publication of extra-judicial notices. My reply has always been: There is a law that regulates such publications.

I refer to the Presidential Decree 1079, entitled REVISING AND CONSOLIDATING ALL LAWS AND DECREES REGULATING PUBLICATION OF JUDICIAL NOTICES, ADVERTISEMENTS FOR PUBLIC BIDDINGS, NOTICES OF AUCTION SALES AND OTHER SIMILAR NOTICES.

Since the publication is mandatory, the law stipulates terms to ensure that litigants are protected and are not charged exorbitantly. In fact, litigants can complain if the rules are not complied with and the court can impose penalty on erring newspapers. For instance:

“Sec. 4. In the publication of the legal and judicial notices referred to above, newspapers or periodicals shall use less but not more than eight (8) points for the text, less but not more than ten (10) points for the heading, and more but not less than nine (9) ems column width; Provided, That the printing of the text and heading shall be solid, without slugs or leads between lines and margins;”

In brief, it means, no notice should take more space than necessary since charges are computed by the length of the publication.

To protect the public, the EJs can request a local printer to submit a sample of what the law requires: text body of notice printed in 8 points, and title in 10 points, both single-spaced; column width should not be less than (9)ems or (4cms).

Given that sample, the EJ can easily see who’s complying with the law.

Then, another section of P.D.1079 provides that a newspaper cannot charge more than 80% of its commercial advertising rates. To prove that, the EJ can require publishers to submit proofs of payment for their published commercial ads.

Perhaps the public, the EJs and publishers are not aware that there is a penalty for violating the P.D. 1079, to wit:

“Sec. 6. Violation of any provision of this Decree shall be punished by a fine or not less than five thousand pesos (5,000.00) nor more than twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) and imprisonment for not less than (6) months nor more than two (2) years. The offending executive judge or court personnel shall be perpetually disqualified from holding any public office in the government.”  

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments