Dealing with criticisms over the war on drugs

THERE seems to be no doubt on the unwavering commitment of the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte to fulfill his campaign promise of going all-out against the drug menace, come hell or high water.

The campaign rhetoric had hinted how bloody the war against illegal drugs and criminality might be—like when then presidential candidate Duterte impressed upon the electorate that 100,000 criminals could die and their bodies dumped into Manila Bay to fatten the fish there—but the actual number of fatalities can still be very alarming, particularly to human rights advocates.

And equally alarming is how extensive the drug menace has become. The immensity of the drug situation that currently pervades various echelons of society all over the country has been repeatedly described by the President as not merely an epidemic but of “pandemic” proportions.

Indeed, there’s no escaping the fact that more than half a million confessed drug users and pushers have already surrendered to authorities in the first few weeks of the drug war, and the total number of addicts range from 1.8 million to 3.7 million, as estimated by the Dangerous Drugs Board and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

With such pandemic proportions, supporters of Duterte truly believe he’s right in making the current allout war against illegal drugs a top priority. He has vowed there will be no letup in the campaign until the entire apparatus of the drug trade is destroyed.

And Duterte seems unstoppable in his avowed mission. Not even Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno who is greatly concerned about rule of law could stop him. Not even Sen. Leila de Lima and top officials of the United Nations alarmed over extrajudicial killings could slow him down.

But many lament that those who must do the dying are mostly the poor, the small-time pushers and addicts whose ultimate fate ended in body bags, cardboard tags and packing tape, or in fiery shootouts with police as they purportedly resisted arrest.

Yet the killings have not ignited any collective uproar or massive protests. It might even seem there is strong public support for the extrajudicial killings, gauging from posts flooding social media. But not so in international media, as growing apprehensions over the many deaths have hugged the headlines in prestigious news organizations abroad—from the New York Times to CNN and BBC.

So far, more than 1,800 deaths have been counted since the Duterte administration took over the reins of government, according to the Philippine National Police. Of that figure, 756 died in encounters with police because they resisted arrest, PNP chief Ronald dela Rosa said in last Tuesday’s Senate inquiry. The rest are victims of unknown assailants and their cases are called by police as DUIs or deaths under investigation, instead of what media reports as summary executions or suspected vigilante killings.

Among the DUIs is that of a 5-yearold girl named Danica May who got hit in the head by a stray bullet on August 23 when a gunman shot and wounded her grandfather in Pangasinan. Her being the youngest fatality in the brutal drug war merited news headlines, yet no widespread public uproar was ignited.

Has the public somehow accepted the killings as collateral damage or what Economic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia termed as “necessary evil” to win the drug war? Have most people really become desensitized and unable to feel horrified by gross violations of human rights and rule of law? Or is support for the killings prompted by deep frustration over a flawed criminal justice system?

While the President’s men have stressed the point that the extrajudicial killings are not the work of government forces because the Chief Executive adheres to the rule of law and due process, the Duterte administration continues to get flak especially in international media.

Do the criticisms and negative perception show that the Presidential Communications Office is failing miserably to express the good points and highlight positive accomplishments that have been overshadowed by the drug war killings? Are Duterte’s spokespersons and communication team doing enough to get his message across and avoid putting him in a bad light? Or, are the frequent outbursts of Dela Rosa—like when he encouraged addicts to burn the houses of drug lords—sending mixed signals or eroding his credibility?

Summary executions, whether by lawmen or lawless elements, are no different from murders and assassinations which are heinous crimes. If government is indeed bent on curbing criminality and the disastrous effects of the drug menace, law enforcers ought to exert the same zealousness used against drug pushers and users in going after those responsible for extrajudicial killings. Otherwise, pronouncements on adherence to rule of law will be viewed as mere lip service.