6-month deadline ups pressure to kill

RIGHT TO LIFE being inherent in the human person, the many believers in the sanctity of life are not likely to withdraw their call that suspected users of illegal drugs be given a chance to be heard before being silenced on the spot by a bullet.

There are many circumstances that an arresting police officer must sort out in his mind a split-second before pulling the trigger on a suspected drug-user/pusher who is still presumed innocent under the law.

Unfortunately for the officer and his quarry, that decision to kill had been made for him in advance by his superiors acting as God handing down a summary last judgment.

Why so, and – if we are not comfortable with the moral issue – what can be done about it?

President Rodrigo Duterte said in his State of the Nation Address last Monday: “My administration shall be sensitive to the State’s obligation to promote and protect, fulfill the human rights of our citizens, especially the poor, the marginalized and the vulnerable.”

We presume our President’s bona fides. Despite his tough exterior, most of us think Digong is mellow at heart, and means well.

The problem then could be that the Commanderin-Chief, who has inspired the extrajudicial killing of suspects now averaging 10 lives each day, is rushing to catch a self-imposed deadline based on his limited Davao experience. And that pressure is passed on to the national police.

Invoking human rights should not be regarded as a pretext to frustrate the administration’s anti-narcotics drive, or to “destroy the country” as Mr. Duterte puts it, but as a plea for putting things in proper order and in line with due process.

Having reiterated his promise many times, President Duterte may feel compelled to deliver on his pledge to put an end to crime, drug-abuse and corruption in “three to six months.”

With the targeted evils lurking everywhere nationwide, and with the police and the prosecution arm of government sorely handicapped, they might have found the six months allotted for the job too short.

Under deadline pressure, many police raiders may be taking the short-cut by just shooting dead the main or collateral targets. After all, the President has promised them protection, raises and rewards.

Let us then consider giving the police, and the President, reasonably more time – like maybe 10 months

instead of six – to neutralize criminals without violating due process, but making sure that the extra time does not upset the momentum of the chase.

The extension will also give the police, social welfare agencies and other cooperating entities more time to put up rehabilitation facilities for the throngs of drug users who have been surrendering or are being caught.

We understand that the desired end is not to kill drugusers but to rehabilitate them, as the President implied in his SONA:

“We will increase the number of residential treatment and rehabilitation facilities in all regions. The armed forces will facilitate the preparation for the use of military camps and facilities for drug rehabilitation.” • Watch the items on FOI blacklist ON FREEDOM of Information, the general rule under the Executive Order of President Duterte is that a citizen shall have reasonable access to official records of the Executive Department unless such files are listed as exceptions in the inventory still being drawn up.

While awaiting the list being made by the Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General, everything is on hold. It is not yet the season for submitting requests for specified records with Executive agencies.

In his SONA, the President said: “The Presidential Communications Office shall coordinate with the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Presidential Legal Counsel in implementing the EO on the Freedom of Information.” The PCO, OES and the PLC will draw up the implementing rules and regulations?

The EO says that requests for records will be submitted to and acted upon by the head of the office keeping the files, making the office head the gatekeeper. If the citizen is denied access and he disagrees, under the EO he can go to court.

In the FOI bill that the previous Congress did not pass because of its common fear with Malacañang of being scrutinized, these were some of the exceptions:

• Information relating to national security or defense, or pertaining to foreign relations when its disclosure may weaken the negotiating position of the government or compromise diplomatic relations.

• Records of minutes, advice given or opinions expressed during decision-making or policy formulation, invoked by the Chief Executive to be privileged.

• Information pertaining to defense, law enforcement and border control, when disclosure may compromise or interfere with any military or law enforcement operation, or lead to the revelation of the identity of a confidential source, or endanger the life or safety of an individual, or deprive a person of his right to a fair trial.

• Personal circumstances of an individual whose disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion of his or her privacy, unless it forms part of a public record, or the person is or was a government official.

• Trade secrets and commercial or financial information from a natural or juridical person obtained in confidence or covered by privileged communication, when its revelation would prejudice his/its interests in trade, industrial, financial or commercial competition.

• Records classified as privileged communication in legal proceedings by law or by the Rules of Court.

* * * ADVISORY: To access Postscript archives, go to

www.manilamail.com (if necessary, copy/paste the url on your browser’s address bar). Follow us on Twitter as @FDPascual. Email feedback to fdp333@yahoo.com H