Pubdate: Tue, 02 Aug 2016
Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer (Philippines)
Copyright: 2016 Philippine Daily Inquirer
Contact:  http://www.inquirer.net/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1073
Author: Gideon Lasco
Note: Gideon Lasco is a physician and medical anthropologist.

TURNING A BLIND EYE TO EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS

NO ONE claims to support the killing of the innocent, but it seems 
that many are willing to leave the judgment of innocence to the 
police and the vigilantes. Even worse, many are seeing death itself 
as proof of one's guilt.

"He must have been a drug pusher," said some netizens of Emmanuel 
Jose Pavia, the Ateneo High School teacher who was shot and killed in Marikina.

"They were killed because they deserved it. Kill pa more!" exclaimed 
one commenter on one of the many reports-now commonplace-on the 
corpses of suspected drug pushers found in the streets.

We are now faced by one of the most pressing questions of our time: 
Why are many Filipinos turning a blind eye to the spate of 
extrajudicial killings?

To begin with, there are people who actually believe that 
extrajudicial killings are acceptable, even necessary. Held against 
the perceived corruption in and glacial pace of our justice 
system-best illustrated by the seven-year-old Maguindanao massacre 
case-it is difficult to deny that the system has failed us.

Supporters of extrajudicial killings go on to argue that if drug 
pushers and other criminals are not killed, they're the ones who will 
do the killing. "Better for them to die, instead of the truly 
innocent," they say. Others add that surely the death of one drug 
pusher is justified as it will serve as a deterrent to many others, 
as the mass surrender of drug users nationwide seems to validate.

However, even if we suspend for the moment the question of 
commensurability-that is, whether death is just punishment for all 
kinds of drug offenses and other crimes-people who hold this view 
must, at the very least, face the question: What if the truly 
innocent get killed? Most people respond with denial: "Surely the 
police know what they're doing," or the now-trite "This is another 
case of biased media reporting."

But with mounting reports of cases of mistaken identity, and accounts 
of people getting killed despite having surrendered-or having clean 
backgrounds-we must ask: How many innocent lives must be killed to 
convince people that something's wrong?

Secondly, there are people-including many of our leaders-who do not 
agree with the extrajudicial killings but are eager to support the 
new administration, and would rather focus on its many initiatives, 
careful not to antagonize President Duterte and his supporters. They 
may criticize the killings, but do so only privately, or with the 
most lukewarm of words. They may register their disapproval, but are 
quick to move on and change the topic.

Finally, there are people who turn a blind eye to the killings 
because they fear the backlash that a dissenting voice is bound to 
get, particularly in social media. While we still have freedom of 
expression, it has been seriously undermined in this age of trolls 
and haters. The risk of incurring acrimony, and getting 
inconvenienced with blocked or suspended accounts, is reason enough 
for people to stay silent, and turn their attention to other, "safer" issues.

*

No one wants President Duterte to fail in his war on drugs and crime, 
but this is exactly why we must not be afraid to speak what we feel 
about its dreadful-even if unintended-consequences. We cannot afford 
to waste the promise of this new administration and the hopes it has 
raised among our people.

The first consequence is the propagation of a culture of violence: 
that of people growing accustomed to the idea that killing can solve 
our problems and bring peace and security to our country. This 
"gospel of death" is a lie: Throughout history, one unchanging truth 
is that violence only begets more violence. From here on, 
extrajudicial killings can only spread to target other 
"undesirables"-the definition of which is once again left to the 
powers-that-be. Moreover, criminals will only be emboldened to commit 
more (and more violent) crimes, since there is no way out for them: 
either to kill or get killed.

The second consequence is the rise of a police state. Without the due 
process afforded by warrants of arrest and the right to a trial, we 
are giving too much power to the authorities to decide what is right 
or wrong-and worse, who gets to live or die. Can we completely trust 
the police, and even if we do, can we really entrust them with 
absolute power, knowing that it "corrupts absolutely"? As Mr. Duterte 
himself has said, not all policemen are clean-in fact, some generals 
are corrupt-and so the idea that policemen can take justice in their 
own hands should be unnerving, if not downright repulsive.

But the immediate and most riveting consequence, which is already 
happening now, is the victimization of innocent lives: of sleeping 
youths who would never see the light of day; of men and women in the 
act of surrender; of people whose only crime is to share a name with 
a drug pusher, or be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Someday, a 
generation more civilized than us will look back at the victims' 
stories and images as proof of our callousness and indict us for a 
failure of empathy: a failure that will undermine all our triumphs.

These are very grave dangers that should make us rethink our passive 
stance on this issue. We are a peace-loving society with good people, 
but as the saying goes, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil 
is for good men to do nothing.

There is a better way forward for our nation, a higher road not paved 
with blood. In the words of Albert Camus, "I should like to be able 
to love my country and still love justice."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom