Stop the bloodbath

Bencyrus Ellorin

IT is assumed that whenever government law enforcement agencies conduct operations — to arrest and/or search — they have the superior force.

The objective of superior force is to effectively subdue the subject of their operations. Thus, police planners have to input intelligence information in appropriating personnel and equipage to (1) subdue the subject and bring him/her to court for trial; (2) preserve material evidence; and (3) protect law enforcement personnel from harm.

“Oplan Double Barrel” and its “reloaded” version have two aspects. The first “barrel” is persuasive, popularly known as “toktok hangyo” (Tokhang), and the other is for target-hardening. Target-hardening is identifying subjects of further arrest and searches. As a rule, after honest-to-goodness intelligence work, the police apply for arrest and/or search warrant from the court. The exception is when they are in hot pursuit operations or when the person-of-interest is believed to have committed a continuing crime.

“Nanlaban” or fighting back or resisting arrest is a flimsy excuse.

Repeated use of the term however has made it an acceptable excuse for deaths in arrest and search operations (ASO). “Nanlaban” could be a result of (1) faulty ASO planning; and/or (2) lousy implementation.

Use of deadly force should be a last resort, and not a first option.

Our neighborhood police know this. In fact, as a rule, when police operations result in death, even without a complaint, the Internal Affairs Service of the PNP, motu propio conducts investigation to determine, among others, if there were violations of police rules of engagement.

The Philippines, as a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is bound by this international treaty.

Under the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, in Havana, Cuba in 1990, “… law enforcement officials have a vital role in the protection of the right to life, liberty and security of the person, as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

The public outcry over the death of 17-year-old Kian Loyd delos Santos in the hands of the police has obviously shaken Malacanang. Its propaganda machinery was quick to make damage control — from calls for investigation to further demonizing the victim.

Rabid supporters of the administration’s bloody war on drugs have tried to justify the killing of the youngster because of allegations he is a drug courier, and his father and uncle are drug peddlers. But public opinion seemed inconsolable, no less than the chief legal apologist of the administration, Malacanang legal consultant Salvador Panelo joined the indignation.

Whether Kian was a drug courier or not is not the issue. His death in the hands of policemen is the issue. As shown in CCTV, the 17-year-old was subdued and dragged from where he was accosted. Persida Acosta, chief of the Public Assistance Office (PAO), is questioning why the police dragged him when he could just have been handcuffed.

Kian’s murder and the public opinion that is sweeping the land now may be pivotal in the government’s relentless drive against illegal drugs.

While generally, there is no opposition to the campaign, there is now a mothballing opposition to the bloodbath that has characterized the anti-illegal drugs campaign. This bloodbath is consistent with the pronouncements of the President himself.

Although, Panelo joined the call for the investigation of Kian’s death, in one radio interview, he said the people calling for accountability now are silent on the death of soldiers in Marawi and in police operations.

This is a wicked insinuation. A lawyer himself, he knows that under the law, combatant deaths are differentiated from civilian deaths. And that even in war, the right to life of non-combatants should be given primary protection. Why a legal eagle like Panelo is making that funny argument could either be part of a disinformation campaign or that the apologists of this administration are running out of reason.

Also, this administration’s propaganda machinery is asking whether the government should pursue the campaign against drugs or not. A very wrong question. Government, in the first place, is mandated by law to go after illegal drugs. It cannot say no. The question should be: Should government stop its bloody war against drugs?

At the onset of this administration — with the very popular support from the people — despite the unconventional, maverick ways of the President, I had thought that all were symptoms of the so-called democracy fatigue. As days went on and the bodycount skyrocketed, it became clear that this is no longer democracy fatigue but bloodbath thirstiness. A zombie-like hysteria where people seem to be alive but their humanity dead.

Furthermore, rabid supporters of this administration are saying that those against the government’s bloody war against illegal drugs are supporters of the illegal trade or addicts themselves. This is, of course, a bigoted view. But I would use this logic to say that those who support the bloody war against drugs are no different from the killers of suspected druggies.

As such, the blood of the people killed in this dastardly campaign are in the hands of the supporters of this bloodbath. Kadiri naman kayo!