Support Common Dreams Today
Journalism that is independent, non-profit, ad-free, and 100% reader-supported.
#
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
The wave of police killings triggered by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's murderous anti-drugs campaign continues to rage on, destroying lives and devastating communities, a report by Amnesty International reveals today. The UN must immediately open an investigation into gross human rights violations and possible crimes against humanity committed as part of the "war on drugs."
The new report, 'They just kill': Ongoing extrajudicial executions and other violations in the Philippines' 'war on drugs,' shows police operating with total impunity as they murder people from poor neighbourhoods whose names appear on manufactured "drug watch lists" established outside of any legal process.
President Duterte's 'war on drugs' continues to be nothing but a large-scale murdering enterprise for which the poor continue to pay the highest price.Nicholas Bequelin, Amnesty International's Regional Director for East and Southeast Asia
"Three years on, President Duterte's 'war on drugs' continues to be nothing but a large-scale murdering enterprise for which the poor continue to pay the highest price," said Nicholas Bequelin, Amnesty International's Regional Director for East and Southeast Asia.
"It is time for the United Nations, starting with its Human Rights Council, to act decisively to hold President Duterte and his government accountable."
The Philippine government has acknowledged at least 6,600 killings at the hands of police. Evidence points to many thousands more killed by unknown armed persons with likely links to the police.
Following the transfer of senior police officers from Metro Manila - until then the country's epicentre of killings - Bulacan province, in Central Luzon, is now the country's bloodiest killing field.
President Duterte has repeatedly defended his administration's "war on drugs," saying people involved in drugs are "criminals" and that their killing is "justifiable."
In its investigation, Amnesty International identified 20 cases in which 27 people were killed, many of which appear to be extrajudicial executions. These killings took place across Bulacan province between May 2018 and April 2019. In total, the organisation carried out interviews with 58 people, including witnesses of extrajudicial executions, families of victims, local officials and human rights activists, among others.
The report builds on a previous Amnesty International investigation, whose results were published in January 2017, that showed how the police had systematically targeted mostly poor and defenceless people across the country while planting "evidence," recruiting paid killers, stealing from the people they kill, and fabricating official incident reports.
"It is not safe to be poor in President Duterte's Philippines," said Nicholas Bequelin. "All it takes to be murdered is an unproven accusation that someone uses, buys, or sells drugs. Everywhere we went to investigate drug-related killings ordinary people were terrified. Fear has now spread deep into the social fabric of society."
In every police operation Amnesty International examined, police cited the same "buy-bust" justification: an undercover drug sting where suspects were armed and fought back, "prompting" the use of lethal force.
It's so consistent, it's a script. In fact, when you see the report, it looks like a template.A Filipino forensic expert interviewed by Amnesty International
Families and witnesses repeatedly refuted police accounts. In some cases the victim never owned a gun or was too poor to buy one, family members said. In other cases, victims of drug-related killings were first reported as missing, only to be suddenly and systematically classified by the police as "buy-bust" kills once the body was discovered.
A Filipino forensic expert interviewed by Amnesty International said that police reports of "buy-bust" operations she had examined did not meet the minimum standards of plausibility: "It's so consistent, it's a script. In fact, when you see the report, it looks like a template."
In one case, police claimed Jovan Magtanong, a 30-year-old father of three, fired at them, and that they recovered a .38 calibre gun and sachets of illicit drugs from the scene of the incident. Witnesses said he was sleeping alongside his children when officers knocked on his house door asking for another man. Jovan's family said he did not own a gun and had not used drugs for over a year.
"They killed him like an animal," a family member told Amnesty International.
In the majority of cases reviewed by Amnesty, those killed were said to have been on so-called "drug watch lists" compiled by the authorities outside of any legal process.
This insatiable and vicious system rewards blind compliance and murder.Nicholas Bequelin
These lists effectively serve as guides for the police of people to arrest or kill. Local officials down to the neighbourhood (barangay) level are pressured to show results by collecting the names of so-called "users," "pushers," "financiers," and "protectors" in their area. Amnesty International views these lists as unreliable, illegitimate, and unjustifiable. They provide further evidence of the government's targeting of poor and marginalised communities.
Amnesty International researchers interviewed local human rights investigators, barangay personnel, and others, who confirmed that there is no way to get de-listed, creating a system of perpetual surveillance and risk.
"The Duterte administration has created a deadly numbers game where officials must manufacture lists and monitor them, regardless of whether the individuals on it actually use or sell drugs. This insatiable and vicious system rewards blind compliance and murder," said Nicholas Bequelin.
The sharp rise in unlawful killings in Bulacan follows personnel transfers in the upper ranks of the police. Commanders who previously held posts in Metro Manila - formerly the deadliest region for drug-related killings - have been promoted to senior roles in Bulacan and the wider Central Luzon region.
The transfer of senior police officials to regions where killings then surged is an alarming indicator of impunity.Nicholas Bequelin
One of them is provincial director Senior Superintendent Chito Bersaluna, the police chief for Caloocan City at the time of the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos in August 2017.
Following global media attention to the case, Bersaluna was put on "administrative leave." No charges were filed against him but three junior officers under his command were prosecuted, and ultimately convicted and sentenced.
"The transfer of senior police officials to regions where killings then surged is an alarming indicator of impunity," said Nicholas Bequelin. "The Duterte administration's continuing efforts to deny and deflect responsibility are nothing short of mendacious."
With the single exception of the police officers convicted for the killing of Kian delos Santos, the Philippine authorities have failed to credibly investigate and prosecute those responsible for unlawful killings and extrajudicial executions in anti-drug operations.
Every time I see a photo of my son, I feel my heart being pierced.Mother of a 20-year-old victim
Amnesty International's new report contributes to a growing volume of evidence that human rights violations committed in the Philippines' murderous "war on drugs" constitute crimes against humanity.
The Philippine government has to date evaded all attempts to scrutinise human rights violations committed in the context of its widely-criticized "war on drugs." Although the International Criminal Court launched a preliminary examination into the anti-drug campaign in February 2018, President Duterte quickly announced that the Philippines would pull out of the court's statute, a withdrawal that came into effect last March.
Families of victims, witnesses, lawyers, religious leaders and others repeatedly expressed their despair at the obstacles stopping them from seeking justice, and the total climate of impunity within the country.
"Every time I see a photo of my son, I feel my heart being pierced," a mother of a 20-year-old victim told Amnesty International. "He wants me to fight for him, what do I do?"
Amnesty International also found that drug rehabilitation and treatment programmes for people who use drugs remain woefully inadequate. The organisation emphasises that the authorities must ramp up the availability of health and social services to reduce the risks and harms associated with drugs, and end its campaign based on violence and fear.
The organization is calling on the UN Human Rights Council to immediately initiate an independent, impartial and effective investigation into human rights violations in the "war on drugs," including the commission of crimes under international law.
Likewise, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court must expedite its examination into the situation and open a full and thorough criminal investigation.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
"Republicans have told us over and over again that they want to cut Social Security and Medicare," said the advocacy group Social Security Works. "One moment of applause doesn't change that."
Congressional Republicans made a show of jeering President Joe Biden Tuesday night when he said during his State of the Union address that some in their ranks have expressed support for cutting Social Security and Medicare—and even sunseting the programs completely.
"Liar!" Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) shouted from the audience in response to the president's comment.
After taking in the loud expressions of outrage from Greene and other Republicans in the House chamber, Biden said that "we all apparently agree, Social Security and Medicare is off the books now, right?"
"So tonight, let's all agree—and we apparently are—let's stand up for seniors," the president declared, sparking applause from Republicans and Democrats. "Stand up and show them we will not cut Social Security. We will not cut Medicare."
The exchange—and the bipartisan standing ovation that capped it off—became one of the most-discussed moments of the president's 73-minute address, but Social Security and Medicare defenders warned that it should not be taken as a sign that the programs are safe from Republican attacks.
"Even many Republicans stand for protecting Social Security and Medicare—but they've shown they can't be trusted to keep that promise," the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works tweeted late Tuesday. "Republicans have told us over and over again that they want to cut Social Security and Medicare. One moment of applause doesn't change that."
MoveOn, another progressive group, called the GOP show of support for Social Security mere "theatrics," pointing to Sen. Rick Scott's (R-Fla.) proposal to sunset all federal laws—including those authorizing Social Security and Medicare—every five years.
Beyond Scott's plan, the Republican Study Committee—the largest caucus of House Republicans—released a budget proposal last year that advocated gradually raising the retirement age, a change that would cut Social Security benefits across the board.
The Washington Postreported last month that some House Republicans have "resurfaced" the above plan and other possible changes—including bipartisan trust fund "commissions"—in recent days as they push for far-reaching federal spending cuts in exchange for any agreement to raise the U.S. debt ceiling.
As part of a speakership deal with far-right House Republicans, McCarthy agreed to advocate for a cap on federal spending at fiscal year 2022 levels, which would entail deep cuts to education spending, public health programs, and other critical areas.
In a statement ahead of Biden's speech, Alliance for Retired Americans executive director Richard Fiesta said that "we frankly don't believe" House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) when he insists the GOP has no intention of pursuing cuts to Social Security and Medicare as part of its austerity spree.
"More than 160 House Republicans endorsed a budget plan for fiscal year 2023 that increased the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age, privatized Social Security, and reduced Social Security benefits by changing the formula used to calculate them," Fiesta noted.
“Equally troubling is the recent letter two dozen Senate Republicans sent to President Biden on January 27," he added. "In it they vowed to vote against any bill to increase the debt ceiling that does not include 'real structural spending reform that reduces deficit spending and brings fiscal sanity back to Washington.' Seniors know that is code for Social Security and Medicare cuts."
In an op-ed for Common Dreams on Wednesday, Social Security Works president Nancy Altman wrote that "Democrats should make it clear to the American people which party supports Social Security by holding a vote on expanding, never cutting, Social Security’s modest benefits."
"Democratic legislators have already authored several plans to do just that. President Biden ran on a similar plan. Now, he should release an official White House plan that expands Social Security with no cuts and requires the wealthiest to pay their fair share," Altman continued. "Then, Biden should challenge Republicans to release their own plan for Social Security and hold a vote. Let the American people see, in the light of day, the plan that each party has for the future of our earned benefits."
"President Biden needs to stop approving fossil fuel infrastructure projects, end fossil fuel production on public lands and waters, and declare a climate emergency," said one climate campaigner.
President Joe Biden said during his State of the Union address Tuesday that the climate crisis is an "existential threat" and political leaders have an obligation to confront it.
Seconds later, the president briefly deviated from his prepared remarks to add, "We're still going to need oil and gas for a while"—prompting applause from Republican lawmakers.
To climate advocates, Biden's comments underscored the tension between the president's exhortations to treat climate change like the emergency it is and his continued approval of fossil fuel drilling projects that will spew millions upon millions of tons of planet-warming carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, making it more difficult to meet critical emission-reduction targets.
Biden noted accurately in his speech that the Inflation Reduction Act, which became law last year, is "the most significant investment" in the nation's history to combat the climate crisis, which is fueling increasingly extreme weather events that displaced more than 3 million adults across the U.S. in 2022—and tens of millions more globally.
But environmentalists said there's much more the president can do, unilaterally, to bring rising U.S. emissions into line with the administration's pledges and phase out fossil fuel production that is driving habitat destruction, species extinction, sea level rise, and other catastrophic outcomes.
"There is no denying that President Biden has made important strides to invest in renewable energy through the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act," said Jeff Ordower, 350.org's North America director. "However, we are not truly living up to real climate solutions if Biden continues to rely on the fossil fuel industry and allow them to pump more oil and gas."
"Biden casually suggested that the U.S. will 'need oil for at least a decade or longer'—this is unacceptable," Ordower added.
"When it comes to fossil fuel development on our public lands, President Biden must match his words with actions."
The State of the Union address came just a week after the Biden administration took a key step toward approving a massive ConocoPhillips drilling project on Alaska's North Slope. Even under the scaled-back version that the Bureau of Land Management has suggested, the Willow Project would emit an estimated 9.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year.
Ordower noted that, if granted final approval by the Interior Department, Willow "would be the largest oil and gas development on federal land."
"As long as the United States continues to green light fossil fuel projects like the ConocoPhillips Willow Project," he argued, "the U.S. will not be able to bring down emissions or meet its targets. President Biden needs to stop approving fossil fuel infrastructure projects, end fossil fuel production on public lands and waters, and declare a climate emergency to truly protect frontline and BIPOC communities and live up to his promises."
More than two years into his presidency, Biden has badly failed to meet his campaign pledge to end new oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters. According to one recent study, the Biden administration approved more fossil fuel drilling permits during its first two years than its openly industry-friendly predecessor.
Last month, more than 300 climate organizations outlined nine steps Biden can take without congressional approval to rein in climate-wrecking fossil fuel production, including halting "new exploration, development, and drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska."
Abigail Dillen, the president of Earthjustice, said in a statement Tuesday night that "when it comes to fossil fuel development on our public lands, President Biden must match his words with actions, which means saying no to greenlighting projects like Willow in the Western Arctic, which will harm fragile ecosystems already harmed by climate change, emit hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide, and further line the pockets of oil and gas companies who continue to rake in record profits."
Dillen went on to lament that "too many devastating Trump rules remain on the books." E&E Newsreported last month that "among the big-ticket environmental policy reversals the Biden team hasn't yet completed are regulations surrounding how government agencies consider the environmental impacts of their decisions, endangered species protections, and limits on power plants' emissions of greenhouse gases and air toxics."
"We need the Biden administration to finalize strong rules to hold polluting industries accountable and protect communities from pollution," Dillen said.
Varshini Prakash, executive director of the youth-led Sunrise Movement, said late Tuesday that while "we've heard a lot of good things" from Biden, "he must act on his words, use his full executive authority to stop the climate crisis, and deliver for our generation."
"Over 100,000 of our loved ones being lost to avoidable overdoses a year is not because of a lack of enforcement, it's a direct result of it," the director of the Drug Policy Alliance argued.
U.S. drug policy reform advocates condemned President Joe Biden's commitment to "accelerating the crackdown on fentanyl trafficking" as part of his administration's strategy for tackling the opioid crisis, a policy the White House announced in a preview of Tuesday night's State of the Union address.
Although the SOTU preview says the administration will be "expanding access to evidence-based prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and recovery," the document says Biden will "work with Congress to make permanent tough penalties on suppliers of fentanyl," fentanyl analogs, and fentanyl-related substances (FRS).
The outline states that Biden "looks forward to working with Congress on its comprehensive proposal to permanently schedule all illicitly produced FRS into Schedule I," the most severe Drug Enforcement Administration classification.
"The push to place all fentanyl-related substances in Schedule I is unfortunate and misguided. Schedule I is supposed to be for substances that we know to be harmful and not helpful."
"Traffickers of these deadly substances must face the penalties they deserve, no matter how they adjust their drugs," the preview asserts.
In response to the SOTU preview, Maritza Perez Medina, director of the office of federal affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, said in a statement that "we are glad to see President Biden continue to call for increased access to evidence-based treatment, harm reduction, and recovery services."
"But, his support for harsher penalties for fentanyl-related substances—which will result in broader application of mandatory minimum sentencing and disproportionately harm Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities—in the same breath is incredibly counterproductive and fails to recognize how we got to this place to begin with," she asserted. "Over 100,000 of our loved ones being lost to avoidable overdoses a year is not because of a lack of enforcement, it's a direct result of it."
\u201c\ud83d\udea8BREAKING\ud83d\udea8 @POTUS' State of the Union Comments on Fentanyl-Related Substances Run Counter to Commitments on Public Health and Criminal Justice Reform \ud83d\udce2 FULL QUOTE from @DrugPolicyOrg @DPA_OFA Director @MariPerMed IN THREAD \ud83d\udc47 https://t.co/kGYX8kQ1tx\u201d— Matt Sutton (@Matt Sutton) 1675810566
Gregory Dudley, who chairs the chemistry department at West Virginia University, argued that "the push to place all fentanyl-related substances in Schedule I is unfortunate and misguided. Schedule I is supposed to be for substances that we know to be harmful and not helpful."
"We don't know which of these substances would be harmful or helpful, and how could we without testing them?" Dudley asked. "Some of these substances could be lifesaving opioid antagonists like naloxone, or better. This proposal prioritizes criminalization over healthcare."
Susan Ousterman, who lost her son Tyler to an accidental overdose in 2020 and subsequently founded the Vilomah Memorial Foundation, said that "it's incredibly disheartening to see the president co-opting the grief of mothers like me in an attempt to increase penalties, rather than prioritizing the health measures that are desperately needed to save lives."
"Increased penalties for people who use or sell drugs, including fentanyl-related substances, would not have kept my son alive or the countless children of other mothers I have met," Ousterman stressed. "In fact, it's policies such as these that created the increased stigma and fear that kept our children from accessing help, and it's what has led to the increasingly dangerous drug supply that resulted in their deaths."
"It's time for the president and other policymakers to prioritize the lives of all humans by embracing a health approach rather than engaging in politics that only perpetuate this disastrous war on drugs," she added. "As a person who understands the profound impact both substance use and child loss have on families, I expected more."
Biden was one of the architects of the 1980s escalation of the War on Drugs. He coined the term "drug czar" while advocating the establishment of the cabinet-level position and was a key supporter of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, legislation that accelerated U.S. mass incarceration.