BANGKAY SA BANGKETA… kasi nga drug pusher ako.

This is the sad refrain in a sardonic poem that a young Filipina wrote and read in a video she posted last week on her Facebook page. It does not matter, she averred, that the so-called drug pushers falling by the dozens of late had not been read their rights or tried in court. Or even, that they had been killed by those who are supposed to protect them and enforce the law. Perhaps, she wrote, those who kill are drug pushers, too.

Indeed, a pall of death has cloaked the nation in mixed glee, grief, confusion, and anxiety in the first three weeks alone of the war on drugs of President Rodrigo R. Duterte, who will deliver his first state of the nation address today.

But who will be killed next is not quite clear as yet. In the meantime, the question of why the poor and puny pushers are dying in high numbers compared to just a handful of their rich counterparts, the drug lords, and their supposed coddlers in the police has been either inadequately answered or ignored.

By the data of the police — until now the singular source of information of the news media about the war on drugs — about 10 bodies have been showing up by the road and in the slums every day, or a total of 213 killed in Duterte’s first 21 days in office alone. The casualty toll includes 209 civilians and only four policemen that the police had tagged as alleged drug pushers.

Combatting drugs has always been a major police activity over the last seven years. Then and now, however, the PNP’s reports on the supposed “achievements” of the campaign have risen and fallen, across regions of the country.

By official PNP reports, Duterte’s war on drugs has netted much bigger numbers of those killed and arrested in its initial rollout period but also smaller seizures of drugs, by value and volume.

By all indications, however, Duterte’s war has assumed a random, free-for-all, brook-no-limits in law and due process, a kill-at-will campaign against mostly small-time drug suspects. This is happening despite the explicit rules of the 200-page Philippine National Police Handbook PNPM-Do-Ds-3-2-13 or Revised PNP Manual on Operational Procedures published in December 2013.

Cookie Diokno of the Free Legal Assistance Group of human rights lawyers says the big difference in the war on drugs then and now is this: Duterte’s war has flipped the “burden of proof” principle in the statutes inside out. In other words, says Diokno, “you are now presumed guilty, until proven innocent.”

Compared with data on the PNP’s anti-drug campaign in the 78 months from January 2010 to June 2016, Duterte’s three-week-old war has upped the numbers of alleged drug users and pushers killed and arrested multiple-fold.

The downside is Duterte’s war is unfolding with negligible documentation of the conduct of police operations and the death of suspects. In a majority of cases, the suspects were killed purportedly because they “resisted arrest” or tried to snatch the guns of and engaged arresting officers in a firefight.

Data from PNP’s Anti-Illegal Drugs Group (AIDG) in the 78 months before Duterte came to power, showed much lower numbers of casualties and arrests made, but also bigger values and volumes of drugs seized, compared to that recorded in the new government’s three-week war.

The 213 drug suspects killed under Duterte’s war from Jully 1 to 21, 2016 (an average of 10 persons a day) is a macabre figure compared to the 256 persons “killed in action” in the 78-month period or 2,336 days from January 2010 to June 2016 (an average of about one person every 10 days).

In the 78 months before Duterte, the PNP had conducted a total of 96,530 anti-drug operations, of which 46 percent were buy-bust operations; 28.4 percent “in flagrante” (the suspects were caught in the act); 16.1 percent via search warrant; 4.6 percent as checkpoint operations; 2.5 percent as “saturation drive”; 1.7 percent as “marijuana eradication” operations; 0.6 percent as “warrant of arrest”; and 0.1 percent as “interdiction.”

The PNP’s reports on Oplan Tokhang, though, do not offer data on how many of the various types of operations against illegal drugs have been conducted with mission orders, and which of these have been covered by search warrants or warrants of arrest. Many data fields in the PNP’s reports on the war on drugs prior to the Duterte administration do not appear anymore in its recent reports.

Yet another story should also raise grave concern among citizens. What drugs and substances, indeed, should be considered illegal?

Of the various types of drugs that the police had confiscated, over-the-counter substances and laboratory chemicals with legitimate but controlled uses have been enrolled, too. These include marijuana resin oil, rugby, Cytotec, ketamine, “Sulfuric,” sodium hydroxide, acetone, chloroform, palladium chloride, hydrochloric acid, Pseudoephedrine and Diazepam.

While most of the seized substances and drugs can only be bought in the black market, some items like hydrochloric acid (also known as muriatic acid), rugby, and acetone are easily available in sari-sari stores and hardware stores and are not on the list of illegal substances. Chemicals like chloroform and toluene are being used in research and industrial laboratories.— PCIJ, July 2016

By Karol Ilagan


UNITED FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. Students and environmental activists held placards with calls for change in environment policies addressed to President Rodrigo R. Duterte. Photo by Karol Ilagan/PCIJ

FRANCES Quimpo’s recollection of the country’s worst tragedies under a parade of Philippine presidents past reveals a singular pattern — death, devastation, and a dearth of lessons learned.

More than 200 people died when mounds of garbage at the Payatas dumpsite in Quezon City collapsed. Triggered by a typhoon, the landslide took place six months before Joseph Estrada’s ouster from Malacañang in January 2001.

During Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s nine-year presidency, a string of typhoons — Frank, Ondoy, and Pepeng, to name a few — flooded many parts of the country, taking hundreds of lives and damaging billions worth of properties. It was also under Arroyo when the government’s flagship mining project in Rapu-Rapu, Albay spewed out cyanide into the sea, causing massive fish kills.

Quimpo, executive director of the Center for Environmental Concerns-Philippines (CEC), said these disasters should have served Arroyo’s successor, Benigno S. Aquino III, important lessons. The political and economic policies that previous governments had pushed, she said, had put the environment at risk, and aggravated the impact of natural hazards in what was by then the climate-vulnerable state of the Philippines.

But in the next six years as president, Aquino saw the issuance of executive orders, which according to environmental advocates, did little to address the problems they were meant to solve. On top of these new policies are old laws that are either problematic to begin with or not enforced properly.

Frances Quimpo

A TRAIL OF DISASTERS. CEC Executive Director Frances Quimpo gives a rundown of calamities that had visited the nation since former President Joseph Estrada’s term.Photo by Karol Ilagan/PCIJ

Gathered at a forum Monday afternoon, environmental groups thus urged President Rodrigo R. Duterte to steer clear of the programs and policies of his predecessors that run counter to the protection of communities and natural resources.

Presenting CEC’s annual “State of the Philippine Environment” report, Owen Migraso, CEC coordinator for the Eastern Visayas Yolanda Recovery Program, said the Aquino government issued Industrial Forest Management Agreements in Northern Mindanao, Davao Region, and CARAGA, which were all recently hit by disasters. Multiple mining tenements have also been located on Luzon island, which hosts the greatest concentration of unique mammals.

Migraso cited Aquino’s Executive Order No. 23 on logging, Executive Order No. 26 or the National Greening Program, and Executive Order No. 79 on mining as problematic. These orders, he said, have turned forests and other resources into commodities at the expense of the lives and livelihood of poor and vulnerable communities.

The forum, co-organized by the CEC, Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE), and Eco-Challenge for Change coalition, also served as a venue to discuss the environmental challenges that the groups want Duterte to address.

Secretary Gina Lopez of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) was invited to speak at the forum but she failed to show up.

Clemente Bautista, Kalikasan PNE’s national coordinator, said that so far, their groups have not seen any actions from Duterte that would run against their environmental agenda; they have not also heard, however, of any pronouncements or seen any significant moves that would signal changes in the Aquino administration’s policies.
Clemente Bautista

IS CHANGE COMING? Kalikasan PNE National Coordinator Clemente Bautista posed this question to forum attendees on July 18. Photo by Karol Ilagan/PCIJ

A week before Duterte took his oath of office last June 30, the “Eco-Challenge for Change”, a coalition of environmental groups, including CEC and Kalikasan PNE, presented its 14-point agenda for the president to act on.

Signed by 41 groups, the coalition’s list of demands includes stopping illegal large-scale mining in environmentally critical areas and imposing a moratorium on the new construction and expansion of coal-fired power plants.

“Ang nakikita namin ngayon ay ang mahigpit na implementation ng mga environmental guidelines, pag-pepenalize ng mga violating private entities, at mga pangako na magkakaroon ng mabuting komunikasyon sa pagitan ng mga komunidad at mga organizations na tulad namin,” Bautista said. (What we are seeing now is strict implementation of environmental guidelines, penalizing of violating private entities, and promises that there will be good communication systems between communities and organizations like ours).

Since Lopez assumed leadership of DENR, work in at least four mining operations has been suspended. The department has likewise conducted an audit of mining activities.

Bautista said the coalition should be able to give a more thorough assessment of the Duterte administration after 100 days. “Sa ngayon, binibigyan namin sila ng puwang para patunayan ang kanilang tindig para sa kalikasan,” he said. (For now, we are giving them the chance to prove their stand for the environment)

While Duterte has shown a track record favoring environmental protection, the groups are also well aware of the former mayor’s support for the construction of a coal power plant and the establishment of palm oil plantations in Davao City.

On Monday, Duterte said he would not honor the Paris climate agreement, laying blame on developed countries for their bigger role in climate change. Signed by 178 countries, the historic deal is an effort to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by reducing carbon emissions.

Bautista said Duterte was right to demand greater responsibility from developed countries but that they hope, too, that the president would not support the expansion of coal-fired power plants as this would be counter-productive.

“Our renewable and indigenous energy resources such as hydro, geothermal, solar, and natural gas are more than enough to provide our energy needs now and in the future,” he said in a statement.

Environmental sociologist Patria Gwen M.L. Borcena, meanwhile, said DENR needs a “reform team” composed of members from civil society and the academe who will occupy key positions and help Secretary Lopez.

This, Borcena said, is another lesson that should be learned from the previous administration. To be fair, she said an environment agenda was included in Aquino’s “A Social Contract with the Filipino People” and later as one chapter in the 2011-2016 Philippine Development Plan. This, she said, was the first time for the country’s development plan to have an entire chapter devoted to environment and natural resources.

Borcena said the execution of these plans did not run well in large measure because DENR did not have a reform team. Former DENR Secretary Ramon Paje and his leadership team, she said, came from the bureaucracy.

Prior to his appointment in 2010, Paje was DENR undersecretary for field operations and executive director of the Minerals Development Council under the Office of the President.

Moreover, Borcena said DENR would benefit from promoting “participatory environmental governance at all levels,” which was absent during Paje’s term. This setup could help ensure a partnership between civil society organizations and DENR.

“It shouldn’t just be token partnership. It should be institutionalized,” she said.

Borcena is a co-convenor of the Citizens’ Environment Network. She was also involved in Aquino’s presidential campaign and later joined the Inter-Agency Technical Working Group that crafted the environment chapter in the Philippine Development Plan.

At the forum’s close, CEC’s Quimpo noted that environmental issues could not be separated from political and economic policies. Efforts such as tree-planting and coastal cleanups should go hand in hand with fixing problems at the policy level, she added.

Quimpo said the president has so far made pro-people policy pronouncements but the challenge is delivering results. “Let us use these to ensure that change will come by pressing the Duterte government to walk the talk.” < strong>– PCIJ, July 2016

CP 20 juillet 2016_EN

“IT IS a worldwide trend. From Turkey and Russia to China and India, new media empires are emerging, usually with governmental blessing. Their owners comply with capitalist laws of supply and demand and the need for technological development. But, at the same time, they take strict control of news coverage or replace journalistic content with entertainment.”

In its latest report, “When Oligarchs Go Shopping,” Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontieres) looks at this curious, dangerous phenomenon. Excerpts from the report follow:

IMAGINE a world in which the mass media were the exclusive property of a handful of people, all business tycoons. Many people think that world has already arrived. Businessmen of every kind have been seized by the disturbing desire to buy up large numbers of major newspapers, TV channels and radio stations around the globe. No country, no continent – neither India, China, the United States nor Europe – seems to escape the appetite of these new oligarchs for media acquisitions.

Their latest feats include Jack Ma’s purchase of the South China Morning Post, one of the last champions of the free press in Hong Kong, a newspaper that did not hesitate to criticize the government in Beijing. Ma is the owner of the Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba.

Where will these new media owners stop? Their ambition often matches their financial resources, which are limitless. In a recent book, Indian historian Nalin Mehta said his country, “the world’s biggest democracy,” has around 800 TV channels but all those that provide news coverage are owned by shadowy billionaires – including real estate barons, politicians and captains of industry – and that some of these channels are used to blackmail, promote personal interests and even launder money. “There is a coup underway in India,” writer and journalist Manu Joseph says. “Some people who are inconvenienced by democracy have taken over nearly all the country’s television news channels.”

Some of these billionaire businessmen boast of being able to make and unmake governments. Others enter into alliances with governments, offering them mass media support in return for economic favours. In all cases, their financial power combined with their control of media flagships gives them almost limitless influence, one far removed from the journalistic principles that their employees sometimes try to defend.

The victims of such unholy alliances include Turkey’s leading media, which are subjected to censorship that is much more insidious and sophisticated than the government’s usual repressive methods, censorship in which the oligarchs are accomplices.

“While the world is focused on the issue of jailed journalists in Turkey — almost all of whom are Kurds — the kiss of death to our profession has been bestowed by owners who consciously destroy editorial independence, fire journalists who voice scepticism and dissent and block investigative reporting3,” Yavuz Baydar wrote in 2013, while ombudsman of the daily Sabah after holding the same position with Milliyet.

Along with dozens of other journalists, he was fired for being too critical of the Erdogan government, which did not need to intervene because the media owners anticipated its wishes.

These new media oligarchs have prospered under Prime Minister and now President Erdogan, who anointed them and to whom they have remained loyal. “The problem is simple: one need only follow the money,” Baydar says. As in so many other countries, the leading media in Turkey have wound up in the pockets of businessmen active in such strategic sectors as telecommunications, banking and public works, a sector described by Baydar as a “fertile ground for carrot-and-stick policies.”

Media owners who support government policy can count on being rewarded with state contracts, licences, advertising and even tax concessions. The critical ones are silenced slowly and quietly. President Erdogan’s current “best friends” include such oligarchs as Ferit F. ?ahenk, the head of the very powerful Dogus Group (which controls NTV), Turgay Ciner, an energy sector billionaire who owns Haberturk TV and the Haberturk newspaper, and Yildirim Demirören, the CEO of an oil, gas, tourism and public works conglomerate who bought the prestigious big-circulation daily Milliyet in 2012.

Other media outlets have been bought up by pro-government oligarchs with disastrous consequences for media freedom. “Editorial content is strictly controlled by media bosses who have other business interests and are submissive to the government,” said Baydar. “With, or more often without, any direct government intervention, they impose self-censorship on a daily basis and silence colleagues who defend basic journalistic ethics.”

Furious with the way Milliyet “grovelled” before the government after it was taken over, the newspaper’s star columnist, Hasan Cemal, stormed out in 2013. The same year, thousands of Turks took to the street in protest against the government’s growing authoritarianism.

Dubbed “Occupy Gezi” after the Istanbul park that became its symbol, the protest movement held the international media spellbound for several weeks until forcibly crushed by the police. While all this was unfolding, Turkey’s leading TV channels contented themselves with broadcasting animal documentaries or debates on completely unrelated subjects. Their owners must have had other things on their minds.

Read RSF’s latest report “When Oligarchs Go Shopping” here.

* Inilathala ng Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG)
* Isinalin sa Filipino ng Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ)

PCIJ. Search Ops Know Your Rights 1

When your house or office is searched

What should you do?

* Ang bahay o opisina mo ay hindi pwedeng ma-raid o mahalughog kung walang search warrant na pirmado ng isang hukom o judge. Kung may valid search warrant, maari lang kunin ng search party ang mga bagay na partikular na nakalista sa search warrant, liban na lang kung pumayag ka, at mga bagay o kontrabando na hayag na nakita. Gayunman, kung ikaw ay inaresto, ikaw at ang kinalalagyan mo (immediate surroundings) ay maari ring halughugin para sa mga deadly weapon o anumang ebidensiya na may sangkot ka sa krimen na dahilan ng iyong pagka-aresto, at ang mga ito ay maaring kunin o masamsam ng search party.

* Your house or office cannot be searched without a warrant duly issued by a judge. When a valid search warrant is issued, the searching party can only seize those things that are particularly described in the search warrant, unless you consent, or the articles are contraband in plain view. However, if you are arrested, your person and immediate surroundings may be searched for dangerous weapons and evidence that you committed the crime for which you are being arrested; any evidence, which may be found on your person or immediate vicinity can be seized.

PCIJ. Search Ops. Know Your Rights 2
* A search warrant is valid if:

– Ito ay pinag-utos ng isang judge;
– Isang kasalanan lamang ang nakalista rito;
– Partikular na nakasaad ang eksaktong lokasyon o address ng lugar na dapat i-search at malinaw na nakalista ang mga bagay na dapat makuha o masamsam;
– Ito ay ginamit sa loob ng sampung araw matapos mapirmahan ng judge.

– It is ordered by a judge;
– It specifies one offense only;
– It describes with particularity the exact location and/or address of the place to be searched and lists down exactly what things are to be seized;
– It is used within ten days from issuance.

Dapat ay sa araw i-serve ang isang search warrant. Pero kung nakasaad sa mga salaysay o affidavit na sumusuporta sa search warrant na ang bagay na gustong masamsam ay personal na dala ng tao o nasa lugar na hahalughugin, maaring i-serve o gamitin ang search warrant ng mga otoridad anumang oras ng araw o gabi kung ito’s nakasulat sa warrant.

* A search warrant must be served during the daytime, unless the affidavits supporting it asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to de searched, in which case the warrant must specifically direct that it can be served at any time of the day or night.

Kung hindi valid ang warrant, ang search at seizure operation ay iligal at labag sa batas. Anumang ebidensiya ang makuha sa isang iligal na search ay hindi pwedeng gamitin sa anumang kaso o paglilitis. Maari kang tumanggi ng mahinahon nang walang nilalabag na batas sa isang iligal na search at seizure operation. Maari ka ring magsampa ng kasong criminal, civil o disciplinary action laban sa mga otoridad na nagsagawa ng search gamit ang isang hindi valid na warrant.

* If the warrant is invalid, the search and seizure is unlawful. Any evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure cannot be used as evidence in any proceeding. You may peacefully refuse, without liability, an unlawful search and seizure. You may also file criminal, civil, or disciplinary action cases against the officer serving an unlawful warrant.

Kung walang search warrant, huwag magboluntaryong sumailalim sa isang search. Agad na tumutol. Huwag pumayag na ma-search ngunit huwag din tumannggi sa paraang pisikal at marahas. Ang isang warrantless search na walang malinaw, pauna, at boluntaryong pagpayag mo ay iligal.

* When there is no search warrant, do not voluntarily submit yourself to a search. Object immediately. Do not agree to be searched but do not physically resist. A warrantless search without your express, prior, and voluntary consent is illegal.

PCIJ. Search Ops. Know Your Rights 3


Bago pumayag na ma-search ang iyong bahay o opisina, hingin at basahin ang search warrant. Masusing suriin ito at alamin kung:

– Nakasulat dito anmg iyong address;
– Nakalarawan dito ang partikular na bahay na dapat ma-search;
– Pirmado ito ng isang sibilyan na judge;
– Nakalista dito ang isa lamang offense or paglabag sa batas;
– Ginamit ito sa loob ng sampung araw matapos ma-issue ng judge.

* Before allowing your house or office to be searched, ask for and read the search warrant. Examine it carefully to see if it:

– states your address;
– describes the house to be seized with particularity;
– is signed by a civilian judge;
– specifies only one offense;
– is being used within 10 days from its issuance.

Kumonsulta agad-agad sa iyong abogado (sa pamamagitan ng telepono o text) at ipaalam sa kanya na may search na magaganap na sa iyong bahay o opisina.

* Contact your lawyer by the most expedient means (telephone, text message) and inform him/her that your home or office is about to be searched.

Matapos magbigay ng kaukulang notice ukol sa dahilan ng search at magpakita ng balidong warrant, maaring sirain ng search party ang anumang outlet o pintuan o bintana upang mag-search operation, kapag tumanggi ang maybahay o opisina na sila ay papasukin.

The search party has the right to break any outlet or inner door or window to effect the search if the search party is refused admittance to the place of the search after giving notice of the purpose and authority for the search.

Kung balido ang warrant, saka lamang maari mong payagan ang search operation. Pagkapasok sa iyong bahay o opisina ng search party, hingin mo ang kanilang mga pangalan, rank, at opisina at yunit na kanilang kinabibilangan. Kunin din ang pangalan at rank ng kanilang commanding officer.

* If it is a valid warrant, only then should you allow the search to be conducted. Upon letting the search party enter your premises, ask for their names, rank, and the office or unit to which they belong. Get the name and rank of the commanding officer.

PCIJ. Search Ops.Know Your Rights 4

Habang may search operation, subaybayan ang search team sa lahat ng pagkakataon. Ito ay upang makaiwas sa posibildad na magtanim ang search party ng anumang dokumento, armas, o ibang bagay sa iyong bahay o opisina.

* During the search, accompany the group conducting the search at all times. This lessens the possibility of their planting documents, weapons, or other materials in your home or office.

TANDAAN: Ang search party ay pwede lang magsagawa ng search operation sa harap ng ligal na occupant o miyembro ng pamilya na nakatira o may-ari ng bahay o opisina. Kung wala ang mga ito habang may search operation, ang search ay dapat maganap sa harap ng dalawang witness na may sapat na edad at kamulatan at nakatira sa lokalidad. Ibig sabihin, walang aumang kuwarto, cabinet, sulok o bahagi ng bahay o opisina ang pwedeng ma-search kung wala ang dalawang witness na ito.

REMEMBER: The search party is allowed to conduct the search only in the presence of the lawful occupant or any member of his/her family. If no occupant or family member is present, the search must be conducted in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion who reside in the locality. This means that every room, compartment, section or portion of the place cannot be searched unless the above witnesses are present.

Kung may nakuha o nasamsam sa iyong bahay o opisina, ang police officer na kukuha ng mga ito ay dapat bigyan ka ng detalyadong resibo. Bago mo pirmahan at tanggapin ang resibo:

(a) Basahin at suriin ito ng mabuti pang masiguro na tumpak ang pagkalista, pagsalarawan at bilang ng mga ito;

(b) Kung may espasyong blanko sa resibo na maaring gamitin ng mga tiwaling pulis para dagdagan ng mga bagay na hindi naman nakuha sa iyong bahay o opisina, sabihan ang police officer na sulatan ng linya ang espasyong blanko.

(c) Pilitin na bigyan ka ng kopya ng resibo; kapag pumayag ang search team,, siguruhing eksakto at tumpak ang kopya na ibinigay ng tulad sa orihinal na resibo;

(d) Kung mayroong bagay sa resibo na tila “incriminating”, sabihan ang search party na mayroon kang karapatan na sumangguni sa iyong abogado at karapatang huwag magbigay ng pahayag, at ayaw mong pirmahan ang resibo hangga’t hindi mo nakakausap ang iyong abogado.

* If anything is taken from your home or office, the officer seizing the property must give you a detailed receipt. Before signing the receipt:

(a) Go over it carefully to ensure its accuracy in designation, description, and quantity;

(b) If there are blank spaces that might be used by unscrupulous police officers to “add” items that were not actually found during the search, ask the officer to place a line across the blank space;

(c) Insist that you be given a copy of the receipt, if they agree, make sure that the copy accurately reflects the original;’

(d) if there is anything in the receipt that tends or appears to be incriminating, tell the searching party you are invoking your right to a lawyer and to remain silent and that you refuse to sign anything without talking to your lawyer first.

PCIJ. Search Ops Know Your Rights 6

Maaring humiling ang search party na pumirma ka sa isang katibayan na naging maayos ang search operation. Kung taliwas ang nangyari, huwag pumirma,. Ipahayag ang iyong pagtutol. Gayunman, basahing mabuti ang kasulatan at sabihan ang police officer na nais mong kumonsulta muna sa iyong abogado.

* You may be asked to sign an affidavit of orderly search. If the search was not conducted in an orderly manner, do not sign the affidavit. Instead, register your objection. In any case, read it very carefully and tell the police officers you want to consult your lawyer before you sign anything.

* Inilathala ng Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) at isinalin sa Filipino ng Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ)

PCIJ Know Your Rights 4

(In any situation, you do not lose your basic rights, such as….)

Karapatang mabuhay (The right to life);

Karapatang hindi ma-torture o isailalim sa malupit, di-makatao, at kahiya-hiyang pakitungo o parusa (The right not to be trotured nor subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment);

Karapatang hindi sapilitang pagtrabahuhin (The right not to be subjected to forced labor)

Karapatang hindi makulong dahil sa hindi pagbayad ng utang (The right not to be imprisoned for non-payment of debt);

• Karapatang huwag maparusahan para sa mga gawaing hindi pa naisabatas na krimen nang ito ay mangyari (The right not to be punished for an act which was not yet a crime at the time of its commission);

Karapatan na kilalanin at tratuhin bilang tao (The right to be recognized and treated as a person); and

Karapatan sa malayang pag-iisip, konsiyensiya, at pananampalataya or relihiyon (The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion).

PCIJ Know Your Rights 2

Lubos o absolute ang lahat ng karapatang ito. Sa anumang kondisyon o pangyayari, hindi maaring pigilan o suspendihin ang pag-ako natin ng mga karapatang ito. Ito ay totoo kahit sa ilalim ng martial law o state of public emergency na naideklara ng pamahalaan. Ang mga karapatang ito ay “non-derogable” sa ilalim ng United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights na sakop ang pamahalaan ng Pilipinas bilang signatory.

(These rights ate absolute. Under no condition can their fulfillment or enjoyment be suspended. This is true even when martial law or any other state of emergency has been declared. These are non-derogable rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Philippines is a signatory.)

May iba pang mga karapatan na itinuturing na inalienable o inviolable o hindi maikakait at hindi dapat labagin kailanman kabilang na ang:

(There are other rights that are considered inalienable and inviolable, such as…)

* Karapatan na hindi halughugin ang iyong tahanan kung walang search warrant na pirmado ng isang hukom o judge, at karapatang huwag samsamin ang anumang gamit sa iyong bahay na hindi nakadetalye sa search warrant. Gayunman, kung ikaw ay nahuli ng ligal, ikaw at ang iyong immediate surroundings o kinalalagyan ay maaring ma-search para sa dangerous weapons o iba pang ebidensiya, at anuman ang makita sa iyong sarili at immediate vicinity ay maaring kunin ng mga otoridad kung ito ay ginamit diumano sa krimen na dahilan ng iyong pagkahuli.

(The right not to have your house searched without a search warrant issued by a judge, and not to have anything seized which is not specified in the search warrant. However, if you are legally arrested, your person and immediate surroundings may be searched for dangerous weapons, and any evidence found on your person or immediate vicinity (only on your person and immediate vicinity) which may have been used to commit the crime for which you are being arrested may be seized.)

* Karapatan na maging malaya at walang pangamba sa iyong personal na seguridad. Maari kang pagkaitan ng kalayaan ayon lamang sa mga batayan at proseso na nakatala sa Konstitusyon at batas.

(The right to liberty and security of person. You can be deprived of liberty only on grounds and procedures established by the Constitution and existing law.)

Ang Ating Mga Karapatan, 1, PCIJ, july 2016

* Karapatan na hindi arestuhin kung walang ebidensiya na may krimen nang naganap at diumano’y kalahok ka sa gawaing ito. Maari ka lamang arestuhin sa bisa ng isang arrest warrant na pirmado ng isang hukom o judge, liban na lang kung:

(The right not to be arrested except on evidence that a crime gas been committed and that you probably committed it. You may be arrested only on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by a judge, except:)

* Kung ikaw ay may ginawa o ginagawang krimen, o nagbabalak gumawa ng kasalanan (offense) sa batas, sa harap ng isang arresting officer;

(When you have committed, are actually committing, or are attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer);

* Kung, batay sa personal na kaalaman ng arresting officer sa mga pangyayari at datos ng kasalanang naganap, naniniwala siyang ikaw ang maysala;

(When an offense has been committed and the arresting office has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of the facts and circumstance, that you committed the offense);

* Kung ikaw ay tumakas mula sa kulungan o piitan, o habang inililipat ng kulungan;

(When you have escaped from prison or detention or while being transferred from one confinement to another.)

Isang sibilyan na prosecutor ang dapat magsuri sa isang inquest proceeding kung ligal o iligal ang iyong pagka-aresto. Sa inquest proceeding na ito, maaring magdesisyon ang prosecutor na:

(The legality of your arrest must be determined in an inquest proceeding conducted by a civilian prosecutor. The prosecutor, in a summary proceeding, can):

* Palayain ka (ito ay pwedeng maganap kahit man wala pang kumpletong preliminary investigation na naganap);

(Order your release [this may or may not be subject to a full-blwm preliminary invetsigation]};

* Ipagtibay na ligal ang iyong pagka-aresto at isampa ang kaukulang complaint o impormasyon laban sa iyo sa trial court;

(Affirm the legality of your arrest and prepare the corresponding complaint or information with the trial court};

* Isangguni sa nahuli kung nais niyang magkaroon ng preliminary investigation at pumirma sa isang waiver. Ito ay kadalasang nangyayari. Huwag pumirma sa waiver kung hindi nabigyan ng sapat na impormasyon ng kahihinatnan ng pagpirma nito. Ang pag-pirma mo sa waiver ay nangangahulugang pumapayag kang manatili sa kulungan, habang naghinihintay sa preliminary investigation. Ang pagpirma mo sa waiver ay maari ring ituring na wala kang planong magsampa ng kaso sa mga nanghuli sa iyo.

(Often the inquest prosecutor will ask the person arrested if s/he desires a preliminary investigation, in which case s/he will be asked to sign a waiver. Do not sign the waiver without beng fully informed of the nature and consequences of signing it. Signing the waiver may — and often does — mean that you are going to remain in detention, pending preliminary investigation. It may also mean that you are waiving your right to file cases against those who arrested you.)

Kapag na-aresto at habang nasa kulungan, at ikaw ay tinanong o inimbestiga ng mga pulis o sundalo, nananatiling lubos ang iyong mga karapatang pantao tulad ng:

(While under arrest or detention, if you are questioned or investigated by the police and military, you have the following rights:)

* Malinaw na masabihan at basahan ng iyong mga karapatan sa Konstitusyon, kasama na ang manatling tikom ang bibig;

(To be informed of your right to remain silent and other constitutional rights);

* Magkaroon ng mahusay at walang kinikilingang abogado, at mas maiman pa, personal mong pinili;

(To have competent and independent counsel preferably of your own choice; and)

* Bigyan ng abogado, kung hindi mo kayang kumuha ng sarili mong tagapatanggol;

(To be provided with counsel if you cannot afford one.)

PCIJ Know Your Rights 3

Sa lahat ng pag-uusig ng krimen, ito ang iyong mga karapatan:

(In all criminal prosecutions, you have the following rights:)

* Huwag piliting tumestigo laban sa sarili mo
(Not to be compelled to testify against yourself);

* Manatiling tikom ang bibig kapag nahuli at magkaroon ng abogado
(To remain silent and to counsel);

* Bigyan ng impormasyon ukol sa uri at dahilan ng akusasyon laban sa iyo
(To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against you);

* Magkaroon ng mabilis, bukas, at patas na pagilitis
(To have a speedy, public, and impartial trial);

* I-apela ang conviction order o desisyon ng korte na ikaw ay maysala
(To appeal any conviction);

* Ituring na inosente hangga’t hindi napapagtibay na ikaw ay maysala
(To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved);

* Harapin at madinig ka at iyong abogado sa paglilitis
(To be present and heard by yourself and counsel);

* Matulungan ng mga proseso ng korte pati na ang compulsory attendance ng mga testigo o witnesses at sa paglalahad ng ebidensiya laban sa iyo

(To avail yourself of court processes to secure the compulsory attendance of witnesses and the presentation of evidence in your defense);

* Makita nang harapan at ma-cross-examine ang mga testigo laban sa iyo

(To meet the witnesses face-to-face and to cross-examine them);

* Magkaroon ng preliminary investigation ng akusasyon laban sa iyo

(The right to a preliminary investigation;

* Huwag litisin at parusahan ng dalawang beses para sa parehong krimen

(The right against double jeopardy);

* Bago ma-convict, maglagak ng pyansa, liban na lang sa mga kasong may parusang bitay at malakas ang ebidensiya ng pagkakasala

(Before conviction, the right to bail except for capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong);

* Pakitunguhan sa paraang makatao at may paggalang

(The right to be treated with humanity and with respect for your personal dignity);

* Manirahan at maglakbay nang malaya

(The right to liberty of abode and the right to travel).

PCIJ. Killed, July 1-13, 2016

BY OFFICIAL POLICE DATA, from July 1 to 13 this year, the Duterte administration’s war on crime has already chalked up big, if macabre, numbers: 135 persons killed or about 10 persons a day on average, and 1,844 arrested or about 141 persons a day on average.

In two weeks’ time, the campaign has also nudged the “surrender” of 60,393 alleged drug users and 5,914 alleged drug pushers, apart from 43,026 houses “visited” by local and village officials to target and flush out suspects, according to official police reports obtained by the PCIJ.

But the PNP data show a curious ratio: Only one “drug pusher” for every 10 “drug users” have been located or compelled to surrender to the authorities in the last fortnight.

In contrast to the big numbers of those killed, arrested, or have “surrendered,” the police also reported only pithy volumes and values of illegal drugs seized in the operation — sachets and kilos of shabu, a sprinkling of marijuana, and just one tablet of the designer drug “Ecstasy.”

The total amount of the seizure is listed at “146,345 by estimated DDB value,” which presumably translates to P146.3 million. The PNP report, however, does not show a peso sign; neither does it state if the amount is in the thousands of pesos or some other currency.

PCIJ asked the PNP to clarify the matter but the officers contacted could not give any explanation as of posting time.

Shabu, by the latest published estimates of the DDB, could fetch at least a million pesos a kilo.

Interviewed by the PCIJ and GMANewsTV’s Investigative Documentaries staff, PNP’s chief, Director General Ronald ‘Bato’ M. dela Rosa, said ‘Oplan Double Barrel’ is the Duterte administration’s blueprint for its war on drugs.

PCIJ asked for a copy of whatever PNP document has been issued clarifying the goals, scope, guidelines, and protocols for the implementation of the anti-drug war but did not get any from dela Rosa.

Instead, the PNP head said that President Rodrigo R. Duterte would issue shortly an executive order creating an inter-agency committee that will take charge of the police, legal, social, health, and other myriad aspects of the war on drugs.

Dela Rosa added that the PNP’s Internal Affairs Service has also started to investigate complaints of alleged abuses by the police and other officials in specific operations that had led to the death of some alleged drug users and pushers.

For now, dela Rosa said ‘Oplan Double Barrel’ is “the big picture” in the anti-drug war. It supposedly involves unleashing “the upper barrel” – ‘Oplan HVT’ — to snare “high-value” and supply-side targets; and “the lower barrel” or ‘Oplan Tokhang,’ to flush out “low-value” and demand-side targets.

‘Tokhang’ is a combination of Visayan words “toktok” or to knock, and “hangyo” or to plead or request. ‘Tokhang’ was first launched in Davao City in 2012 under then Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte.

Local government units have adopted the campaign, but some have infused it with their own branding. The Quezon City government calls its campaign ‘Oplan Kapak,’ or short for “katok” and “pakiusap.” In Tanuan, Batangas, the mayor has required alleged drug users and pushers to take their “walk of shame” across the city, with posters declaring “Drug Addict Ako: Huwag Pamarisan (I am a Drug Addict. Don’t Follow my Example)” either hanging from their necks or taped to their clothes.

PCIJ. Project Tokhang, july 1-13, 2016


As of July 13, 2016, reports of the National Operations Center (NOC) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) showed these “accomplishments” of the new administration’s two-week-old war on drugs.

• 135 suspects killed, including two PNP members;
• 1,843 arrested, including 1,836 civilians, 6 foreign nationals, and 1 “government/elected official”; and
• 4,016 “surrendered”, including 4,011 civilians, 3 “government/elected officials”, 1 policeman, and 1 security guard.

Of the country’s 18 regions, no killings have been reported as of July 13 in only seven regions: the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Western Visayas, Cagayan Valley, Zamboanga Peninsula, Mimaropa, Eastern Visayas, Northern Mindanao, and Negros Island Region.

In the 11 other regions, however, the PNP reports showed that the bodies of alleged drug pushers have shown up in alarming numbers, notably:

• 55 killed in Central Luzon;
• 44 in Metro Manila;
• 17 in Calabarzon;
• 6 in Ilocos Region;
• 5 in Soccsksargen;
• 3 in the Bicol Region;
• 2 in Central Visayas;
• 1 in the Cordillera Administrative Region;
• 1 in the Caraga Region; and
• 1 in the Davao Region.

PCIJ. Drug War, Arrested, kuly 1-13, 2016

‘Hostile’ and ‘killed’

Media reports have quoted police authorities as saying that the drug suspects ended up dead because they resisted arrest or fought back – “nanlaban.” Two PNP reports on Oplan Tokhang in fact show a match between the figure of those killed and that of drug pushers who were “hostile” or had denied they were involved in the illegal trade.

Interestingly, the NOC report on its “Monitoring on Project Tokhang,” show “hostile” drug pushers in only four areas: Metro Manila, Ilocos Region, Mimaropa, and Cordillera.

But according to another NOC report, “Monitoring on the Anti-Illegal Drugs Accomplishment,” which covers Oplan Tokhang during the same period, the fatalities are spread across 10 areas – which even excludes Mimaropa, which had the highest number of “hostile” drug suspects (124).

Metro Manila, which had only seven drug suspects listed as “hostile” in one report ended up with 44 fatalities under Oplan Tokhang in the other document. Central Luzon and Calabarzon also had no “hostile” drug suspects listed in the “Monitoring on Project Tokhang” report, yet according to the other NOC tally, they had the second and third highest number of dead respectively under the same police operation.

Alleged drug pushers

In any case, the PNP says that Project Tokhang has snared 5,914 “drug pushers” from July 1 to 13, including:

• 5,693 listed under the category of “voluntary surrender”;
• 86 under the category of “surrender of drugs”; and
• 135 under the category of “hostile/denial.”

In the meantime, a “surrenderees” tally of 4,016 is enrolled in “Monitoring on the Anti-Illegal Drugs Accomplishment.”

But the supplementary “Monitoring on Project Tokhang,” which draws the participation of local government units and barangay councils, showed much bigger numbers of “surrenderees.”

In this second report, the NOC said that from July 1 to 13, 2016, a total of 60,393 “drug users” have been located in the 18 regions of the country, but only 5,914 “drug pushers.”

The numbers indicate that only one “drug pusher” for every 10 “drug users” have been covered by Project Tokhang in the first two weeks of the government’s war on drugs.

In addition, the report said that as of last July 13, a total of 43,026 houses have been “visited” as part of Project Tokhang.

PCIJ. Drug War, Surrendered, july 1-13, 2016

Alleged drug users

The 60,393 “drug users” who have been located or identified across the country in the last two weeks, included:

• 2,903 in areas covered by the National Capital Region Police Command (Metro Manila);
• 1,348, Police Regional Office 1 (Ilocos Region);
• 416, PRO 2 (Cagayan Valley);
• 6,650, PRO 3 (Central Luzon);
• 1,075 PRO 4A (Calabarzon);
• 391, PRO 4B (Mimaropa);
• 1,553, PRO 5 (Bicol Region);
• 307, PRO 6 (Western Visayas);
• 4,472, PRO 7 (Central Visayas);
• 962, PRO 8 (Eastern Visayas);
• 5,869, PRO 9 (Zamboanga Peninsula);
• 20,061, PRO 10 (Northern Mindanao);
• 4,801, PRO11 (Davao Region);
• 338, PRO 12 (Soccsksargen);
• 5,700, PRO 13 (Caraga);
• 921, PRO-Cordillera (Cordillera Administrative Region);
• 153, PRO-Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao; and
• 2,473, PRO 18 (Negros Island Region).

PCIJ. Project Tokhang - Houses Visited,july 1-13, 2016
Houses ‘visited’

The 43,026 “houses visited” under Project Tokhang consisted of big numbers for certain areas:

• 7,663 houses in Zamboanga Peninsula;
• 5,939 in Northern Mindanao;
• 4,672 in Central Luzon;
• 4,233 in Metro Manila;
• 4,077 in Caraga;
• 2,971 in Central Visayas;
• 2,249 in Calabarzon; and
• 2,227 in Eastern Visayas.

In contrast, fewer houses have been “visited” in these regions from July 1 to 13, 2016:

• 1,712 houses in Bicol Region;
• 1,704 in Ilocos Region;
• 1,530 in Davao Region;
• 1,239 in the Cordillera Administrative Region;
• 668 in Mimaropa; 541 in Negros Island Region;
• 474 in Western Visayas;
• 442 in Cagayan Valley;
• 416 in Soccsksargen; and
• 269 in ARMM.

Drugs seized

Finally, as part of the “results of operation” of its war on drugs, the various PNP regional offices reported the seizure or surrender of relatively small volumes of illegal drugs during the same period. These included:

• 2,906 sachets of shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride;
• 230 kilos of shabu;
• 1,094 grams of shabu;
• 26 packs of shabu;
• 57 sachets of marijuana;
• 42 marijuana leaves;
• 33 marijuana rolls;
• 10 marijuana plants; and
• 1 Ecstasy tablet.

The PNP report put the “estimated DDB value” of this cache of seized illegal drugs at only “146.345.

All the PNP regional offices reported that they had seized sachets of shabu, which is also known as the accessible drug of choice of the less affluent.

Yet the 230 kilos of shabu listed in the report were apparently confiscated from only two operations conducted in Metro Manila (50 kilos) and in Cagayan Valley (180 kilos).

The seizure of the single tablet of Ecstasy — “the drug of choice of the rich” — was credited to the PNP regional office in Calabarzon. — PCIJ, July 14, 2016

By the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

THE WAR on drugs in the last nine weeks — or even before Rodrigo R. Duterte took his oath as president a fortnight ago on June 30 — has yielded ever bigger numbers of casualties, arrests, and “surrenderees,” and a volume of cases filed in court.

This is according to the Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management (DIDM) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) that has been monitoring the conduct of anti-drug operations from May 10, 2016 — or the day after the last elections.

A copy of DIDM’s report to PNP Director-General Ronald “Bato” de la Rosa that PCIJ obtained showed that from May 10 to July 10, 2016, police operations against illegal drugs have yielded the following results:

• 192 persons killed;

• 8,110 persons arrested;

• 3,001 cases “referred”; and

• 3,477 cases “filed in court.”

The report also said that from May 10 to July 11, a total of 35,276 persons have “surrendered” to the authorities.

The DIDM report is a separate dataset from that produced by the PNP National Operations Center (NOC) on its “Monitoring of the Anti-Illegal Drugs Accomplishment” that covers the period from July 1 to July 13, 2016.

Getting the numbers right in the PNP’s war on drugs is hampered in large measure by the fractious but parallel agencies assigned to operations and case monitoring.

In this instance, the DIDM and the NOC reports seem to be focused on the same monitoring pegs — numbers of people killed, arrested, surrendered, etc. — but across different time frames.

But if their numbers are correct and identical, except for the covered periods in their respective reports, a comparison of their data would yield clustered numbers for the period before the birth of the Duterte administration, and in the two weeks since it assumed power.

Thus, from May 10 to June 30 — the day Duterte took his oath as President — and again from July 1 to 13, 2016, the war on drugs, according to the PNP’s DIDM and NOC, yields these clustered numbers:

• 57 killed from May 10 to June 30; 135 killed from July 1 to 13, 2016.

• 6,266 arrested from May 10 to June 30; 1,844 arrested from July 1 to 13, 2016.

• 31,260 “surrendered” to the PNP from May 10 to June 30; 4,016 “surrendered” to the PNP from July 1 to 13,2016.

Note that in addition to the number of suspects who reportedly surrendered to the police, the PNP NOC, in a separate report, said that more than 60,000 “drug users” and about 6,000 “drug pushers” had been located or had “surrendered” to local and barangay officials under ‘Oplan Tokhang,’ the anti-drug war operations on the village level.

What the PNP’s NOC reports do not reveal, though, are the numbers of cases “referred” and “filed in court” that the DIDM report shows.

What the DIDM report does not offer, and which the PNP’s NOC reports enroll are the number of “houses visited” under ‘Oplan Tokhang.’ – PCIJ, July 14, 2016