P.S. to Kian issue

IT looks like the Duterte administration has successfully weathered the storm called the Kian delos Santos slay by taking the initiative away from the protesters. The first act was President Rodrigo Duterte meeting Kian’s parents in Malacañang. The second act was the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) concluding that three Caloocan policemen murdered Kian and planted evidence on him.

Kian’s slay was part of the swirl that was the series of multiple killings in Luzon by policemen of people allegedly linked to the illegal drugs trade and who supposedly shoot it out with them. It started in Bulacan with 32 kills in what The Guardian news website described as the “bloodiest night of Duterte’s war on drugs. This was followed by Manila City with 25 people killed in 24 hours. In the Camanava (Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas and Valenzuela) area, 18 suspected drug users or pushers were killed, including Kian.

While those series of killings caught the attention of critics, it was Kian’s death that gave face to what was wrong with the said operations. For the first time, pieces of evidence and testimonies could be had proving that Kian was not only summarily executed but was innocent of the charges later hurled at him. The police and the Duterte administration was naturally put on the defensive.

I am therefore amused by the protestations of the likes of Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre that the opposition led by the “dilawans” exploited the issue for political ends. I mean, that was expected. The political opposition and militants may deny it but Kian’s slay was one issue that served their purpose of exposing what is wrong with President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs. For the first time, their street marches and criticisms had something concrete to latch on to. Not riding on the issue would be an abdication of their role as critics.

In much the same way that the Duterte administration owns the bragging rights to every success the police had in the war against drugs had, it should be prepared to accept the brickbats for the lapses. That’s what governance is about.

One point that was noticeable in the Kian episode is President Duterte showing he would listen to the noise created by his policies if this noise rises almost to a tumult. This was shown when, instead of defending the concerned policemen “by hook or by crook” like what he usually does, he initially kept silent and then issued the statement that if they are found guilty they would rot in jail.

The protesters, though, didn’t keep Kian’s parents within their sights. When the Public Attorney’s Office Chief Persida Acosta wiggled into the picture as a foil to Aguirre, that was when the tide began to shift in another direction. It became easy for them to convince Kian’s parents to steer clear of the protesters. It was Acosta and another Duterte supporter, Dante Jimenez of the Volunteers against Crime and Corruption that accompanied Kian’s parents to that meeting with the president.

In sum, Kian’s slay showed the Duterte administration that, at this stage, the backlash has become stronger for each of its major lapses. It also showed the protesters that, yes, the Duterte administration, under certain circumstances, can be responsive to criticisms and protests.