It can be recalled that the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in June 2020 has called the attention of the Philippine Government on the ‘widespread human rights violation and persistent impunity’ in the country.

The Philippine Government in June 2020 has committed to review in particular the 5,655 nanlaban cases and engage the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) as the country’s independent human rights body.

In late February 2021, the Philippine Government, through Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, presented before the UN Human Rights Council the preliminary findings of the said investigations using a sample of 328 cases. The Justice Secretary cited that ‘the law enforcement agents involved failed to follow standard protocols pertaining to coordination with other agencies and the processing of the crime scene.’ These were similar findings that CHR has been relaying and urging the government to act on since the early days of the government’s anti-drug campaign.

The killings being linked to the anti-drug campaign currently being investigated by CHR have often been marked by brazen and brutal deaths. Majority of the killings that CHR has analysed involve victims who were allegedly killed because they fought back and initiated aggression during police operations—the nanlaban narrative—mostly belonging to the civilian population.

The records of some victims which contained information on their injuries, reflects the brutality of the anti-drug campaign and indicates possible abuse of strength and intent to kill by the perpetrators.

Notably, in one of the decisions of the Supreme Court on the plea of the self-defense of law enforcement (Ocampo v. People of the Philippines), the Court ruled that the location of a deceased aggressor’s gunshot wounds may suggest an intent to kill and not merely to defend oneself.

Several witnesses in the cases being investigated by CHR also claimed irregularities in police operations. There were instances when police officers were said to have barged or kicked down the house doors while the victims were sleeping or resting inside. In the incidents studied, not one search or arrest warrant was presented.

In the interest of seeking truth and accountability, CHR has repeatedly requested for police documents on the investigations of said killings, including those deaths allegedly carried out by vigilantes. However, access to police records is a recurring obstacle in CHR’s investigations as part of its mandate as an independent national human rights institution. This restriction makes it difficult to ascertain the veracity of police claims, as well as the extent of effort extended in investigating deaths said to be not related to law enforcement operations.

For those documents CHR was able to obtain, investigation reports from the police assert the legitimacy of operations and recommend that participating operatives be absolved from criminal or administrative liability and, at times, even recommended to be awarded, rewarded, or recognized despite the occurrence of deaths.

It must be stressed that, even in the past, CHR clarified that invoking self-defense or ‘nanlaban’ (fought back) as a justifying circumstance should be determined by a competent court and cannot be merely asserted without trial of facts.

Such findings from different cases being covered by CHR Regional Offices point to a more pressing conclusion—that access to justice remains to be a challenge as truth remains elusive.

CHR has repeatedly expressed readiness to partner with the government in addressing several human rights concerns, including these killings allegedly linked to the government’s anti-drug campaign. We continue to urge the government to take the path of seeking truth and better transparency for the cases being questioned, as well as fostering greater cooperation across government institutions with CHR in pursuit of justice and accountability.

CHR, as the country’s independent national human rights institution, shall continue to remind the government of its commitments made before the international community, as well as its inherent obligations, in upholding the human rights of all. At the same time, we continue to urge the public to ask the government to do more and better in reducing the violence on the ground and in respecting the human dignity of every individual. ###