The

Constitution

The Constitution of the Philippines ordains that

judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and such lower courts as may be
established by law. [Section 1, Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution).
The

Law

the Shari'a Circuit Courts which were established

in
certain
municipalities
in
Mindanao.
There are five Shari'a District Courts and fifty one
Shari'a
Circuit
Courts
in
existence.
V.

Court

of

Tax

Appeals

Under Philippine laws [Judiciary Reorganization

Act of 1980 (Batas Pambansa Bilang 129) which
took effect on January 18, 1983 and other laws]
the Philippine judicial system consists of the
following
courts:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A special court, the Court of Tax Appeals,

composed of a Presiding Judge and two Associate
Judges, is vested with the exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over appeals from the decisions of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the
Commissioner of Customs on certain specific
issues.

Lower

VI.

Courts

I. Municipal Trial
Circuit Trial Courts

Courts

and

Municipal

Every municipality in the Philippines has its own

Municipal Trial Court. It is referred to as such if it
covers only one municipality; otherwise, it is
called Municipal Circuit Trial Court if it covers two
or
more
municipalities.
II. Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal
Trial
Courts
in
Cities

Sandiganbayan

A special court, the Sandiganbayan, composed of

a Presiding Justice and eight Associate Justices,
has exclusive jurisdiction over violations of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act [Republic Act
No. 3019], the Unexplained Wealth Act [Republic
Act No. 1379] and other crimes or felonies
committed by public officials and employees in
relation to their office, including those employees
in
government-owned
or
controlled
corporations.
VII.

Municipal Trial Courts in the towns and cities in

the Metropolitan Manila area, as distinguished
from the other political subdivisions in the
Philippines, are referred to as Metropolitan Trial
Courts.
In cities outside Metropolitan Manila, the
equivalent of the Municipal Trial Courts are
referred to as Municipal Trial Courts in Cities.
III.

Regional

Trial

Courts

Regional Trial Courts were established among the

thirteen regions in the Philippines consisting of
Regions I to XII and the National Capital Region
(NCR). There are as many Regional Trial Courts in
each
region
as
the
law
mandates.
IV.

Shari'a

Courts

Equivalent to the Regional Trial Courts in rank are

the Shari'a District Courts which were established
in certain specified provinces in Mindanao where
the Muslim Code on Personal Laws is being
enforced.
Equivalent to the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts are

Court

of

Appeals

The Court of Appeals, composed of one Presiding

Justice and sixty eight Associate Justices is
vested with jurisdiction over appeals from the
decisions of the Regional Trial Courts and certain
quasi-judicial agencies, boards or commissions.
The

Highest

Court

Supreme

Court

The Supreme Court is the highest Court in the

Philippines. There is only one Supreme Court
composed of one Chief Justice and fourteen
Associate Justices. It is the final arbiter of any and
all judicial issues. When so deciding, it may
sit en banc or in divisions of three, five or seven
members.

The

usual

way

civil

case

proceeds

[1] The plaintiff files the complaint against the

defendant and pays the filing fees with the clerk
of court. The case is raffled off to a specific court
branch.
[2] The process server or the court sheriff serves
the summons by handing it personally to the
defendant, or if he refuses to receive and sign for
it, by tendering it to him. In certain cases,
summons may be published in a newspaper.

(Please

read

Rule

14

- Summon.)

[3] The summons is not served because:

(a) the plaintiff loses interest in pursuing the case
by
filing
a
notice
of
dismissal;
(b) the defendant cannot be located at the
address stated in the complaint (the court may
then issue an alias summons).
[4] Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired by
his receipt of the summons. If it cannot be
served, the court provisionally dismisses the case
(that is, without prejudice to its revival once the
defendant
is
located).
[5] Defendant may file either (a) an answer or (b)
a motion to dismiss. This must be submitted
within fifteen days from receipt of the summons.
The period to answer however may be extended
by the court upon motion. (Please read Rule 11
- When
to
file
responsive
pleadings.)
[6] If the court denies the motion to dismiss, the
defendant must file his answer within the
remaining time (which must not be less than five
days from his receipt of the notice of denial). The
practice of some judges is to require the
defendant to file an answer and not a motion to
dismiss. In such a case, the defendant must
allege the grounds for dismissal as affirmative
defenses
in
his
answer.
Additional

things

to

consider

(a) Before filing an answer, the defendant may

file a bill of particulars pointing out defects in
the complaint, the details desired, the vague
allegations, etc. (Please read Rule 12 - Bill of
particulars.)
(b) Husband and wife generally shall sue or
be sued jointly since both are co-administrators
of the community property or the conjugal
partnership property. (Please read Rule 3 - Parties
to
civil
actions.)
(c) The requirements for a class suit are
common or general interest in the subject matter
of the case, and the affected persons are so
numerous that it is impracticable to join them all
as
parties.
(d) In case of transfer of interest, the action
may be continued by or against the original
party, unless the court directs the transferee to
be substituted in the action or joined with the
original
party.
(e) The complaint must contain a certification
against forum shopping. If there is none, the
court
will
dismiss
the
complaint
(f) The venue of personal actions is the court
of the place where the plaintiff (or any of the
principal plaintiffs) resides, or where the
defendant (or any of the principal defendants)
resides, at the election of the plaintiff.
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, and
those involving title or possession of real property
with an assessed value of Php 50,000. (in Metro
Manila) shall be tried in the MTC wherein the real

property involved or a portion thereof is situated.

The rules on venue however shall not apply in
cases where a specific rule or law applies, and
when the parties have validly agreed in writing
before the filing of the action on the exclusive
venue thereof. (Please read Rule 4 - Venue of
actions.)
(g) Venue: Where should the case be filed if
there
are
several
complainants?
The Supreme Court ruled in Irene MarcosAraneta, Daniel Rubio, Orlando G. Reslin, And Jose
G. Reslin, Petitioners, vs. Court Of Appeals, Julita
C. Benedicto, And Francisca Benedicto-Paulino,
Respondents that the case must be filed in the
proper court of the residence of the principal
complainant, as Sec. 2 of Rule 4 provides. The
Court
ruled:
Irene was a resident during the period material of
Forbes Park, Makati City. She was not a resident
of Brgy. Lacub, Batac, Ilocos Norte, although
jurisprudence[44] has it that one can have
several residences, if such were the established
fact. The Court will not speculate on the reason
why petitioner Irene, for all the inconvenience
and expenses she and her adversaries would
have to endure by a Batac trial, preferred that her
case be heard and decided by the RTC in Batac.
On the heels of the dismissal of the original
complaints on the ground of improper venue,
three new personalities were added to the
complaint doubtless to insure, but in vain as it
turned out, that the case stays with the RTC in
Batac.
Litigants ought to bank on the righteousness of
their causes, the superiority of their cases, and
the persuasiveness of arguments to secure a
favorable verdict. It is high time that courts,
judges, and those who come to court for redress
keep this ideal in mind.
(h) Difference between personal action and
real
action:
In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the
recovery of personal property, the enforcement of
a contract, or the recovery of damages.
Real actions, on the other hand, are those
affecting title to or possession of real property, or
interest
therein.
In accordance with the wordings of Sec. 1 of Rule
4, the venue of real actions shall be the proper
court which has territorial jurisdiction over the
area wherein the real property involved, or a
portion
thereof,
is
situated.
The venue of personal actions is the court where
the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides, or where the defendant or any of the
principal defendants resides, or in the case of a
non-resident defendant where he may be found,
at the election of the plaintiff. (Irene MarcosAraneta vs. CA)
(i) Rules on indigent litigants (Spouses Algura
v. The Local Government Unit of the City of Naga,
et al. GR No. 150135, October 30, 2006)

Who is an indigent under Section 19 of Rule 141?

(1) The applicants gross income and that of the
applicant's immediate family do not exceed an
amount double the monthly minimum wage of an
employee;
and
(2) The applicant does not own real property with
a fair market value of more than Three Hundred
Thousand
Pesos
(PhP
300,000.00).
If the trial court finds that the applicant meets the
income and property requirements, the authority
to litigate as indigent litigant is automatically
granted and the grant is a matter of right.
If the applicant for exemption meets the salary
and property requirements under Sec. 19 of Rule
141, then the grant of the application is
mandatory. On the other hand, when the
application does not satisfy one or both
requirements, then the applicant should not be
denied outright; instead the court should apply
the indigency test under Section 21 of Rule 3
and use its sound discretion in determining the
merits of the prayer for exemption.
1997

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure

Rule 1 General Provisions

Rule 2 Cause of action
Rule

Parties

Rule
Rule

4
5

Venue

Uniform

Rule

Rule

procedure

Kinds

actions

of

actions

in

of

of

Effect

civil

of

Parts

Rule 8 Manner
pleadings
Rule

to

courts

pleadings
a

making

of

trial

Sadly, the Philippines in the eyes of the

international community has a very poor human
rights record due to its alarming incidence of
extrajudicial
killings
and
unexplained
disappearances/abductions of private individuals
without anyone being held accountable. And now,
various sectors of the society are prodded to seek
for viable solutions to address the poor human
rights problems of the country.
We sincerely believe that the root of the problem
is not really much on the laws related to curbing
and punishing human rights violators. Actually, it
has always been the implementation of these
laws. As part of the judicial institution whose
power is drawn from the pen, we are here to
present some issues to be mulled over.
1. There is a need for a clear-cut definition of
what extrajudicial killing is, for homicide and
murder are extrajudicial killings too. The name is
a misnomer since every killing, outside of the
death penalty, is extrajudicial. Shouldnt the
crime be called a political killing instead? When
will a case fall under extrajudicial killings in
order that the special court can assume
jurisdiction?
Thus,
the
motive
must
be
determined during investigation. This is relevant
in the light of the existence of special courts to
handle such cases. A categorical definition would
pinpoint who are to be held liable and who are
the victims.
An international NGO observed that such
extrajudicial killings in the Philippines show a
common pattern:

Surveillance and threats to the victims

presumptively by officers;

Finding their names in an Order of Battle

by military commanders;

Victim has an affiliation with lawful activist

or leftist movements and political parties
(including labor, journalism, women,
peasants,
environmental
and
other
sectors);

Assassination (often in front of the families

and friends) by hooded persons often
driving motorbikes or unlicensed vehicles;

Scant investigation;

Witness intimidation
witness murder.

pleading

allegations

failure

by: PJ Ruben T. Reyes and J. Mariano C. Del

Castillo

to

in

plead

Rule 10 Amended and supplemental pleadings

Rule 11 When to file responsive pleadings
Rule

12

Bill

Rule 13 Filing and

judgments
and
Rule
Rule

of

particulars

service of
other

14
15

pleadings,
papers
Summon
Motions

sometimes

The above traits, however, may also be present in

killings made by groups like the Abu Sayaff, MILF,
or even political opponents. How then do we
distinguish
these
crimes,
especially
in
determining jurisdiction of special courts?

Rule 16 Motion to dismiss.

Thoughts
on
Extrajudicial
Unexplained Disappearances

and

Killings

and

2. The investigation, evidence-gathering, and the

witness protection program of the State must be
strengthened. A speedy and full investigation on
the part of the police must be done. Also, the

witnesses to these human rights crimes must be

encouraged to testify, for they will have to go up
against the police and the military. They must be
assured that they will be protected during the
investigation and the trial proceedings.

Lacson dared the authorities to answer and prove

the veracity of their narrative that Espinosa and
Yap were the ones who first fired their guns,
causing the police to retaliate which led to the
inmates' deaths.

3. The possibility of putting up a multisectoral

agency composed of representatives from the
NGOs, civil society, military, police, church,
media, and the judiciary. Such will focus solely on
investigating such human rights crimes and serve
as prosecutor. And this agency can report its
findings to the court handling the case.

"I think that incident is the biggest challenge to

the credibility of the PNP (Philippine National
Police) that could affect even the other operations
involving drug suspects killed under similarly
suspicious circumstances," he said.

4. The need to educate and orient the police and

military thru seminars about our laws on human
rights, reminding them that the country is a
civilian society and that the rights of the people
to association, to privacy, to liberty, and to life,
must be protected at all times. The police and
military should act within the bounds of law and
not attack indiscriminately whom they call
insurgents.
5. The judiciary will have to bring back the
confidence of the people in it by speedily
disposing cases involving human rights violations,
holding the perpetrators fully accountable to the
crimes. Incidentally, another thing to consider is
this: If one is merely acting under the orders of a
superior, will the former be exculpated or will
there be a solidary liability as principals?
We hope that this summit will not turn out to be
just rhetoric. The judiciary for sure is facing
another challenge and expresses its cooperation
to address the problem. The bottom line is
actually the political will Are we ready to
prosecute the top guns behind these human
rights crimes?
Metro Manila (CNN Philippines) Senator
Ping Lacson and Ifugao Representative Teddy
Baguilat want the Senate and the House to
investigate the killing of Albuera, Leyte Mayor
Rolando Espinosa due to a shootout inside a jail
cell on Saturday.
Lacson said in a statement he believes the
mayor's death falls under extrajudicial killing and
is a possible cover-up for certain personalities.
The senator said he cannot wrap his head around
the questionable circumstance of Espinosa's
death. He asked how a prisoner detained in a cell
could think of fighting back against police officers
serving his warrant of arrest.
Looking to the authorities, Lacson asked why
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group
(CIDG) officers went to search the jail cells and
not ask a sheriff to serve the warrant since they
were already detained. He also questioned why
there was a need to serve the warrant if the CIDG
operatives could have simply coordinated with
the jail warden.
He asked why inmate Raul Yap was also killed,
"the only other prisoner inside the cell was also
killed, therefore no witness could testify."

Lacson said he will discuss the possibility of

resuming the Senate's extrajudicial killings
investigation, which will focus on the death of
Espinosa and also the ambush killing of his
lawyer last August.
'So many irregularities'
Rep. Baguilat criticized on Twitter the CIDG's
narrative of the incident.
"PNP says the mayor was killed inside prison
while fighting back with a gun as he was about to
be served a warrant. Sino niloko nyo? (Who are
you kidding?)," he tweeted on Saturday.
He said there are "so many irregularities in the
story" that a warrant was served early in the
morning to someone who was already detained.

Baguilat said he will call for a Congressional

inquiry into the killing of Espinosa.
The Department of Interior and Local Government
Secretary Ismael D. Sueno ordered the PNP to
investigate the
incident
immediately.
The Commission on Human Rights will also
conduct an independent investigation.
CIDG 8 Regional Chief Marvin Marcos said they
served search warrants against Espinosa for
illegal possession of firearms and Yap for illegal
drug transaction.
Marcos said a shootout ensued when Espinosa
and Yap fired at the police.
Espinosa is one of the government officials linked
by President Rodrigo Duterte to the illegal drug
trade.
His son, Kerwin was arrested in Abu Dhabi on
October 27. He is now under the custody of
authorities in Abu Dhabi, and they are processing
his return to Manila to face charges of drug
trafficking.
Metro Manila (CNN Philippines) Authorities
are investigating the death of Albuera Mayor
Rolando Espinosa, one of the government officials
linked by President Rodrigo Duterte to the illegal
drug trade, and one other inmate in Leyte early
Saturday morning.
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group
(CIDG) 8 Regional Chief Marvin Marcos told CNN
Philippines that an informant told Leyte CIDG 8
provincial officer Leo Laraga that Espinosa had a .

45 caliber pistol inside his cell at the Leyte SubProvincial Jail in Baybay City, while inmate, Raul
Yap, was involved in illegal drug transactions.
Laraga then went to a judge to apply for the
search warrants, which were released Friday
afternoon and were carried out at around 4 a.m.
Saturday.
Marcos said jail guards resisted and blocked the
15 CIDG operatives from carrying out the search
warrants. It took them 15 minutes to enter the jail
cells, which he said gave Espinosa and Yap time
to prepare for the search.
The officer said a shootout ensued during the
operation.
"Pagpasok pa
lang ng operatiba natin,
pinaputukan na po sila. Dun po nagkaron po ng
desisyon yung mga kapulisan natin na gumanti
ng putok. Na resulta po ng ikinamatay ni Mayor
Espinosa at Raul Yap," Marcos said.
[Translation: When our operatives entered, they
were fired at. That was when our police decided
to retaliate. This led to the deaths of Espinosa
and Raul Yap.]

Marcos also explained the need to serve a search

warrant for Espinosa and Yap despite being
detained in prison.
"Nagkakaroon ng pagkakataon na nagbibigay
ng search
warrant
based
sa
credible
deponent kapag mayroong krimen na nangyayari
sa loob ng isang facility, gaya ng isang jail, tulad
ng pagpapasok ng droga, pagpapasok ng baril.
Dapat kasama po ito sa iniimbestigahan kasi
minsan ito ay tino-tolerate ng mga miyembro
ng jail facilities," he said.
[Translation: There are cases a search warrant is
given if a credible source says a crime is
happening inside a facility, such as jails, like
when illegal drugs or firearms are brought in. It is
included in what should be investigated because
sometimes members of jail facilities tolerate it.]
The Scene Of The Crime Operatives (SOCO) has
so far recovered two firearms from the scene of
the incident. He said Espinosa used a .38 Super
gun.
The CIDG said the SOCO was able to recover
several sachets containing suspected shabu,
suspected dried marijuana leaves, and assorted
drug paraphernalia.
The Department of Interior and Local Government
Secretary Ismael D. Sueno ordered the PNP to
investigate the incident immediately.
"We want to know if CIDG Region 8 followed
standard operating procedures in undertaking
this operation and in serving the search warrant
to Espinosa and Yap," he said.

Sueno said that while Espinosa and Yap are highprofile inmates, the police still need to stick to
operation protocol and respect the rights of
suspects, unless their lives are in danger.
CHR to look into incident
The Commission on Human Rights will conduct an
independent investigation to look into the death
of Mayor Espinosa.
"The Commission assures the public that it will
remain faithful to its constitutional duty
to uphold the rights of all, without distinction," it
said in a statement on Saturday.
Who is Rolando Espinosa
Police arrested Espinosa on October 5 and
charged him with illegal possession of dangerous
drugs and firearms, following a warrant for his
arrest issued by the Baybay City Regional Trial
Court Branch 14.
The arrest came almost two months after
authorities seized 11 kilograms of shabu worth ?
88-million (USD 1.8 million) and ingredients used
for making bombs in a raid on Espinosa's house
last August 10.
On August 2, Espinosa turned himself in to police
at
the
Philippine
National
Police
(PNP)
headquarters in Camp Crame, fearing for his life
as Duterte announced a 24-hour ultimatum for
him and his son to surrender or be shot.
Pending arrest warrant, Espinosa returned to his
hometown in Leyte on August 16, closely
monitored by police.
His son, Kerwin was arrested in Abu Dhabi on
October 27. He is now under the custody of
authorities in Abu Dhabi, and they are processing
his return to Manila to face charges of drug
trafficking.
Twenty-seven years after his death, and twentythree years after his remains were flown in to the
Philippines from Guam, Ferdinand Marcos will
finally be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
Voting 9-5 with one inhibition, the Supreme Court
junked seven consolidated petitions, led by Bayan
Muna Representative Satur Ocampo, that sought
to block the Duterte administration's move to
allow the burial of the late strongman at the
heroes' cemetery.
The high court said the petitions had no merit.
Marcos died on September 28, 1989 in Honolulu,
Hawaii, where he was exiled, after being ousted
via the 1986 People Power Revolution at the age
of 72. He died due to kidney, heart, and lung
complications.
Those who filed the petitions argued that Marcos'
burial at the Libingan violates Republic Act (RA)
No. 289, "An Act Providing for the Construction of
a National Pantheon for Presidents of the
Philippines, National Heroes and Patriots of the
Country," tantamount to condonation of "abuses
committed by the Marcos regime" and human
rights violations during Martial Law; and a
violation of a written agreement between the
Philippine government, through former President

Fidel Ramos, and the Marcos family on the

interment of Marcos' remains in Ilocos Norte;
among others.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
meantime, pointed out the following arguments
in support of government's move to allow Marcos'
burial at the Libingan:
- Marcos was, in life, a President, Commander-inChief, retired military veteran and Medal of Valor
awardee, and thus, may be interred at the
Libingan pursuant to [Armed Forces of the
Philippines] Regulations G 161-375;
- Marcos, prior to his death, possessed none of
the disqualifications from being interred at the
Libingan, as stated in AFP Regulations G 161-375;
- the recognition and reparation of human rights
violations victims under Republic Act No. 10368
(An Act Providing for Preparation and Recognition
of Victims of Human Rights Violations During the
Marcos Regime) would not be impaired by the
interment of former President Marcos at the
Libingan;
- the interment of Marcos' remains at the Libingan
is not contrary to public policy;
- the interment of Marcos' remains at the Libingan
does not contravene the principles and policies
enshrined in the 1987 Constitution;
- the interment of Marcos' remains at the Libingan
does not violate the Philippines' obligations under
International Law and norms; and
- the President is not bound by the alleged 1993
Agreement between former President Fidel V.
Ramos and the Marcos family to have the
remains of former President Marcos interred at
Batac, Ilocos Norte.
The high court had issued a status quo ante order
(SQAO) last August 23, barring government from
burying Marcos at LNMB for a period of twenty
days; it was extended last October 18, to lapse
today. Today's decision will render the halt order
ineffectual.
Only fourteen justices voted on the case,
following Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes'
inhibition. Reyes is a classmate of President
Rodrigo Duterte at the San Beda College of Law,
and the president's fraternity brother in Lex
Talionis Fraternitas. He is also a close friend and
business partner of former President Benigno
Aquino III, who appointed him to the SC.
The original ponente or writer of the decision was
Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, an
appointee and former cabinet member of
President Aquino, who, in his draft decision,
disallowed the burial of Marcos at the LNMB.
Caguioa failed to convince the majority; his
penned draft decision will be the main dissenting
opinion.
In a statement, former Senator Ferdinand
Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. thanked the high court
for its majority decision.
"We are deeply grateful to the Supreme Court for
its decision to allow the burial of my father,
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani. Once again, the
Supreme Court has taken a magnanimous act to
uphold the rule of law.
He also thanked President Duterte for supporting
the
burial
in
the
heroes'
cemetery.
"We also would like to extend our sincerest
gratitude to President Rodrigo Duterte as his
unwavering commitment to this issue sustained

us these past several months. Our family will

forever be thankful for his kind gesture," he said.
"It is our sincerest hope that this will lead the
nation towards healing as we endeavor to move
the country forward to give every Filipino a better
life."

The long road to LNMB burial

Marcos died in exile in Hawaii in 1989 after a
people power revolt ousted him in 1986.
His remains have since been kept in an airconditioned crypt in the Marcos Museum when
the body was brought back to the country in
1993.
A 1992 agreement between then President Fidel
Ramos and the Marcos family allowed Marcos to
be buried in the Philippines but on conditions that
the body would be flown straight to Ilocos Norte
and there would be no burial for Marcos at the
Heroes' Cemetery.
Marcos' critics opposed the burial at the Libingan
because of the alleged human rights abuses,
including extrajudicial killings, torture, and
enforced disappearances committed during his
term.
His family is also accused of amassing ill-gotten
wealth during his years in power.
The
Presidential
Commission
on
Good
Government said for over 20 years, the Marcoses
were able to amass about US$5-10 billion of
wealth from the Philippine government.
President Rodrigo Duterte gave Marcos family and
supporters a flicker of hope when he ordered
Marcos' burial at the Heroes' Cemetery on August
7.
The Philippine Army started with its preparations,
amid pending petitions of Martial law victims at
the Supreme Court.
On August 23, the High Court issued a stay order
to stop the preparations.
After over two months of hearing oral arguments
against the burial, the Supreme Court on
November 8 dismissed all the petitions, finally
allowing Marcos' burial at the Libingan by a vote
of 9-5.
Confronting extrajudicial killings under Duterte
If we are to stop the killings, the first challenge is
for the public to denounce it. Public opposition, or
better yet outrage, is needed for the government
to change its policy.

With more than 3,000 drug war-related killings

and counting, there is no doubt that President
Rodrigo Duterte is continuing the unwritten state
policy of extrajudicial killings (EJKs) against
perceived enemies of the state.
Whereas before, the policy was directed against
suspected rebels or political dissenters, this time
it is against suspected illegal drug users and
traffickers.
It was the fascist Marcos dictatorship that
institutionalized EJKs and other human rights
violations as a means to silence the political
opposition, including activists and members of
the revolutionary underground. Historian Alfred
McCoy cites 3,257 victims of such killings under
the Marcos regime, earning a common term for it
that is still in use today: salvaging.
Post Marcos, it was the Arroyo regime that
blatantly implemented this Marcosian legacy.
From 2001-2010, human rights group Karapatan
documented 1,206 EJKs committed by state
security forces and state-backed para-military
and vigilante groups. In her State of the Nation
Address, then President Arroyo even praised the
notorious retired general Jovito Palparan, who
admitted to having inspired the killings, for his
excellent work.
In a 2008 report, UN Special Rapporteur on
Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston concluded
that the EJKs under Arroyo were tolerated by the
authorities and formed part of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines (AFP) counter-insurgency
program. He lamented that the killings were
being done with impunity due to the
governments failure to investigate, prosecute
and punish the perpetrators.
Alston also looked into the killings attributed to
the Davao Death Squad (DDS) and concluded
that such vigilante killings, mostly of petty
criminals, appeared to be officially sanctioned by
the police and the city government then under
Mayor Duterte.
While the number of EJKs decreased under former
President Benigno Aquino III, they were by no
means less alarming. In its 2015 year-end report,
Karapatan claimed to have documented 307
victimes of EJKs from July 2010 to December
2015, including those killed in 17 massacres
related to counter-insurgency operations.
To be sure, no government in its right mind would
openly admit employing EJKs against its own
people. However, EJKs as state policy have
manifested itself in the following ways:
1. Rampant
and
widespread
summary
executions and the impunity by which
such killings are committed, especially by
the police, military and state-backed
vigilante groups.

2. Systematic violation of due process rights

and other civil and political liberties in the
course of law enforcement or internal
security
operations,
including
witch
hunting, public vilification and use of raw
information to publicly accuse persons of a
crime, making them vulnerable to attack;
3. Massive failure to investigate, prosecute
and punish the perpetrators;
4. Top officials not only tolerate but actually
encourage the killings through the offer of
rewards, support and protection to those
who commit them.
EJKs under Duterte
What makes the EJK policy under Duterte
different from the past are its targets and the
breathtaking magnitude of the killings.
While criminals have long been the subject of
salvagings by the police (as former Manila police
chief Alfredo Dirty Harry Lim would cryptically
say, Dalhiin na sa Tondo yan), the rate by
which drug users and pushers are killed today,
either in police operations or vigilante killings, are
unprecedented in Philippine anti-crime history.
(READ: In numbers: The Philippines' 'war on
drugs')
An EJK is often justified by making it appear that
the victim deserved it. During Arroyos time, the
AFP came up with a powerpoint presentation
titled Knowing Thy Enemy that labelled activists
and their organizations as communist front
organizations and enemies of the state. Local
area commands would come up with an Order of
Battle, a list lumping together names of
activists, suspected NPA rebels and their
sympathizers. Many of those on the list
eventually ended up dead, missing, arrested,
tortured or forced into surrendering. Military
officials would later blame the communists
themselves for the killings, saying it was the
result of an internal purge.
Nowadays we have that ubiquitous cardboard
saying Drug pusher, huwag tularan. Like the
activists during Arroyos time, suspected drug
users and dealers are subject to public villification
through Oplan Tokhang. They are forced into
surrendering and admitting guilt on the basis of a
nebulous list drawn up by the police and
barangay officials. In fact, many of those who
surrendered have succumbed to vigilante killings.
Police say the killings are part of the drug
syndicates effort to cleanse its ranks.
Alleged criminals killed in police operations are
another disturbing matter. The rise in incidents of
drug suspects reportedly killed while trying to
resist arrest are too dramatic to be given a
presumption of regularity. A number have telltale
signs of a rubout as acknowledged by the police
themselves.

What makes todays EJKs particularly complicated

is that the victims are considered undesirable
members of
society.
Unlike
activists
or
revolutionaries, drug addicts and pushers have no
redeeming quality. These are not idealists being
killed for exercising their constitutional rights or
addressing
legitimate
social
grievances.
Druggies, for most people, are the scum of the
earth that should be wiped out from existence.
Notice that when activists or rebels are
summarily executed, their families and the
communities that they have served immediately
demand justice. Human rights groups, whose
orientation has traditionally been, and for good
reason, to protect the rights of political dissenters
immediately investigate and act to prevent more
killings. Networks of organizations are easily
formed to hold the perpetrators to account.
On the other hand, when drug dealers are killed,
their families hang their heads in shame and the
community silently rejoices at the loss of another
troublemaker. Everything is accepted as a
consequence of the victims alleged illegal
activities.
The challenges
If we are to stop the killings, the first challenge is
for the public to denounce it. Like in so many
issues, public opposition, or better yet outrage, is
needed for the government to change its policy.
Unfortunately, whenever people are painted as
rebels, terrorists or criminals, it becomes difficult
to denounce their killing. The initial indifference
when activists started getting killed during the
Arroyo regime is similar to todays ambivalence in
the face of the killings of suspected drug addicts
and pushers. Oftentimes it is only when the
obviously innocent are killed like children and
nursing mothers that the public is moved to
denounce EJKs.

Denouncing the killings should not mean

condoning the alleged illegal activities of its
victims. What it should translate to is a demand
for the police and military to follow the law and
respect due process and human rights, so that
criminals can be properly punished in accordance
with what is in the law.
The second challenge is for the families and
friends of the victims of EJKs to stand up and
demand for justice. It is understandable that
many of them would rather sweep the killings
under the rug, considering the stigma of being
linked to suspected drug criminals. However, it
would be difficult for government agencies like
the Commission on Human Rights, National Police
Commission, Department of Justice, or human
rights
organizations
and
civil
society
organizations, to be taking up the cudgels for
people who do not want to be helped in the first
place.
The third challenge is for human rights groups to
expand their advocacy to include those whose
rights are violated on the basis of purely criminal,
non-political offences. While the traditional
political orientation of human rights advocacy is
as important as ever, urgent attention is needed
for atrocities committed in the course of Dutertes
war on drugs and other anti-crime campaigns.
Such a challenge will not be easy, considering
that most human rights groups are already so
stretched in terms of resources and manpower in
dealing with political and counter-insurgency
related human rights violations.
Because the use of EJKs is an unwritten state
policy in the Philippines, the only way to prevent
it is for the people themselves to demand a stop
to the practice. Rappler.com