IT seems I have reached a temporary “Duterte Dialogue Saturation.”

That’s a different DDS.

This past week, almost everywhere, PH-related print and social media, all about President Rodrigo Duterte (pictured above).

The good and the not so good sides of the PH President.

Even before Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay and Presidential spokesperson Ernesto Abella landed in New York, there had been a flood of news reports from Manila about Mr. Duterte.

I’d say, the two officials added 50 percent more to the DU30 dialogues.

Former New Yorker Secretary Yasay tried to sound nationalistic as he brought up the anachronistic phrase “little brown brother” which, if I remember right, was first used by William Howard Taft during the American colonial period in the Philippines.

It’s considered as a racist slang.

General Taft referred the phrase to Filipinos as they were supposedly treated by Americans as second class and inferior citizens in their own country.

That was in the 50s.

Since then, the phrase has outlived its relevance and meaning.

It hasn’t been used for decades because of its negative connotation.

Filipino-American lawyer and respected community leader Victor Sison, Esq. made an observation in Facebook.

He wrote, “Perhaps in times of crises, the diplomat in him (Yasay) refuses to believe in the tenets of anachronism. A drowning man will grab even a straw just to remain alive!”

On the secretary’s statements that the U.S. should not lecture the Filipinos about human rights, another Filipino lawyer commented:

“(Sec.) Yasay should realize, as a lawyer, that human rights are universal, indivisible and inherent natural rights enshrined in domestic and international laws.

“As a member of the UN and as a signatory since 1947 to all UN human rights conventions, the PH is legally bound to comply with them.

“A UN member, like the USA (a permanent member of the UN Security Council at that), or any and all concerned UN officials may remind and urge Duterte, as PH head of state, to comply with our international duties as a state.

“Duterte and Yasay have no moral and legal power under international law to act like independent autocrats immune from the international system.”



‘Rule of Law’ expounded

Atty. Manuel Laserna, Jr. (all lawyers this week...Secretary Yasay is also a lawyer), 3rd placer in the 1985 Bar examinations in the Philippines and former law professor, sent us his “thesis” on the much mentioned phrase “Rule of Law.”

We have been reading this phrase in relation to Extra Judicial Killings (EJK) in the native country.

I am using the essay in its entirety for information showing that EJKs happen in the Philippines contrary to the claim of some.

“Death under investigation” is a deceitful cover-up euphemism and play of words for “extrajudicial killing,” no matter how much the Philippine National Police and the Duterte Congress hide the truth.

“Vigilante killing” is pure and simple “extrajudicial killing” (murder qualified by treachery, premeditation, etc.).

“Killings during police operations” based on police clichés of “lumaban” and “agaw baril” (“bumunot eh”) is “extrajudicial killing” (murder or homicide, depending on the facts of the case).

Extrajudicial killing is the infliction of death on “suspects” by the State forces without judicial

* warrant of arrest,

* search warrant,

* trial,

* appeals, and

* conviction by final judgment.

It is not lawful to kill outright a “suspect” even if he has allegedly shown “some resistance.”

The PNP manuals command policemen to first “negotiate with” and “disable” the suspect.

This is the international law enforcement norm.

To kill is the last resort.

The first steps that should be taken by policemen are to “negotiate, disable, arrest, and prosecute” the accused in court.

Not to kill outright.

(The CHR [Commission on Human Rights] has been reminding the PNP about this basic rule for many years now.)

Policemen who wrongfully ignore in bad faith the foregoing rules of engagement are not entitled to the “rebuttable presumption of regularity in the performance of public duty” under the Rules of Evidence.

Only a “valid/complete self-defense” allows a policeman to kill suspects.

The Revised Penal Code defines its elements, the most important of which are

* the “unlawful aggression” of the suspect,

* the “lack of provocation” by the policemen,

* the “proportionality of the defensive response” applied by policemen, and

* the “necessity of the counter force or means” used by policemen.

Criminal informations/complaints for the felonies of murder or homicide, as the case may be, should be filed in court against policemen guilty of violating the foregoing legal principles.

That is the “rule of law.”

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Add comment

Security code

Latest comments