Narco candidates in Cebu ‘include political heavyweights.’ Really.

The new list, DILG chief says, can help guide voters whom to reject in the May elections. But specifics must be given. Otherwise, publication would be as flat as the release of that list before the 2018 barangay-SK polls.

Since early last year, Interior and Local Government Secretary Eduardo Año has been pushing for the release of the names of politicians allegedly engaged in drug trafficking.

Even before that, Sen. Chiz Escudero noted, just a few months after President Duterte’s term started on June 30, 2016, they’ve already been talking about the “narco list.” Last Nov. 12, Escudero too pressed for publication.

But first, which list?

Old dossier, new list

President Duterte is known to be carrying with him a list of suspects in the illegal drugs trade. At least whenever Duterte would talk about illegal drugs in speeches across the nation, he’d call out a person or persons in the locality who are in his list. In Cebu, he would pounce on a retired police general, now a mayor-on-leave of his town. Each time, the President would refer to his narco list, at times even summoning an aide to show a file folder.

There must be a new listing. PDEA must have a new one, updated and “validated,” whatever that means since the narco list seems to have been used largely to threaten people, not for filing charges before prosecutors and the courts.

As Secretary Año did just before the barangay and youth polls in 2018, this time, last Dec. 28, he said he wanted the list published because of the coming midterm elections. And to boost his argument, he said the list “will guide the public on who to vote for, as many of the politicians listed are running.”

Must not just be names and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM): “mayors, vice governors, congressmen and municipal councilors.”

The Cebu element surely whets curiosity and interest of Cebuanos. Año’s description (“heavyweight”) and promise of the list’s capacity to influence this May’s vote must drive us to chant with others agitating for publication, “Get the list out!”

But wait. Unless the public is convinced that the information is believable or plausible, even if not the technical “probable cause” lawyers cite, the release of the list would fall flat. There has to be enough detail for people to decide fairly whether to reject the listed candidate. Not just names in the list, which the President did in his public shaming of the suspects.

Legality, fairness

Normally, publication of the names of suspects-based on raw or lean data, with no evidence that will stand in court--violates a person’s right to his reputation. It’s also basically unfair. But who has challenged in court any public official who demolished reputations and endangered lives that way? The President cannot be sued during his term and it is doubtful if one can succeed to pin legal liability on police or PDEA officials, despite what the Supreme Court has said about people’s right to a good name.

Then there’s the suspicion that administration candidates might exploit the list to weaken election rivals and boost their own chances of winning.

Imagine a candidate for mayor or governor in a tight race publicly accused by the government of protecting a drug lord, being hooked on drugs, or engaging in the drug trade. How would even stout denials sound?