Can states be tough on drugs, yet keep the rule of law?

PRESIDENT Duterte’s visits to Cambodia and Singapore yielded, among others, an agreement with their leaders to adopt “a tough approach” in the campaign against illegal drugs. They are one on toughness and, note this, on respect for rule of law.

A statement from Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay describes it:

“The method that we will be using in this fight against illegal drugs, for as long as we remain committed to the rule of law and ensure that due process and rights of everyone are respected, will have the fullest cooperation.”

Strip that to essentials and focus on key phrases: “rule of law” and “due process and rights.” The three countries will fully cooperate on the campaign as they remain, they pledge, “committed” to the basic precepts of democracy.

If the three countries wage the same “tough” campaign, why then is the Philippines solely getting international rebuke for its extrajudicial killings?

It must be partly due to Duterte’s statements during the election season and as president that, in effect, encourage the killing of drug traffickers and even drug users. He purportedly recognizes the law’s limits but often lip service to the law is obscured by the kill rhetoric and negated by the blood on the streets.

And, as most people must know, there have been a steady stream of media reports and images of casualties of the “war,” convincing the nation and the rest of the world that it’s real, deadly and costly.

Dispute, worry

The dispute is not on fact of deaths but on confusion as to which resulted from lawful encounter and which from illegal execution. The worry is over the rise in number of “collateral-damage” victims and “deaths under investigation,” with no clear indication of perpetrators suspects being charged.

What we may need to hear from our leaders, here and from other Asian countries, is how they can be tough on illegal drugs without the summary killings.