Right to life vs. right to live, 1

The controversy over the number of deaths being linked to the War on Drugs is explosive. But the process of determining who should be accountable for them is utterly vitriolic. In fact, for making a direct accusation, one lawmaker has paid the price with incarceration.

The scorching debate on this issue has found its way to my daily public commute. An Uber driver ferrying me to a meeting casually remarked the killings reminded him of the Metrocom reign of terror during Martial Law.

The Metropolitan Command (Metrocom) was one state instrument used by the Marcos dictatorship to “eliminate” those who oppose his rule. Accounts of assassinations and summary executions perpetuated by this group are well-documented. For exactly this reason, the Metrocom comparison is actually easy to make.

The concept of “state-sponsored targeted killing” denotes the use of lethal force, legally attributable to the state, with the intent to kill selected persons who are not in the physical custody of those targeting them. If we look at the news reporting on the War on Drugs, it is only natural to suspect that the deaths arising from this government effort falls within this category.

The Metrocom comparison also makes the interference of the international community inevitable. With the global attention given to the Martial Law atrocities, we should not be surprised that the outside world has taken notice of the gruesome deaths and the grieving families that have become media staples. The member-states of the United Nations (UN) expressing their deep concern about the impact of the War on Drugs on the general population is thus to be expected.

Furthermore, the UN already has a very clear view of the issue at hand. All acts and omissions of state representatives that constitute a violation of the general recognition of the right to life embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as other treaties, resolutions, conventions and declarations adopted by competent UN bodies, fall within their understanding of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

The underlying truth in this UN determination is that governments have the inherent obligation to protect the citizens’ right to life. Indeed, this mandate is part and parcel of the “social contract” in a constitutional democracy. All officials of government therefore, carry this mantel in the performance of their duties and functions. (To be continued)--