Shabu and Extra-Judicial Killings: The ‘War on Drugs’ Behind Human Rights Abuses in the Philippines

Kian Loyd Delos Santos was a 17 year-old from an impoverished community in Northern Manila. In 2017, two police officers shot him in the head, and left him to die in a pigsty.

The Our Lady of Lourdes College student had become yet another victim of President Rodrigo Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’.

The plain-clothes officers were targeting dealers and users of Shabu (commonly known in the UK as ‘crystal meth’). A 2012 UN report showed that, amongst Filipinos, 2.2% of 16-64 year-olds were methamphetamine users. Yet, according to family and neighbours, Santos was unarmed and had never been involved in drugs. The school-boy had even hoped to become a police officer.

Santos’ murder is noteworthy; the officers in his case are the only so far to be convicted and imprisoned. CCTV evidence proved that he had been unarmed and subdued as he was dragged through an alley. Crucially, this refuted the police’s claims that they had fired in self-defence.

The same night, police killed at least 28 others in Manila - adding to a total of over 8,000 ‘drug war’ fatalities since July 2016 (human rights activists in the country suggest the actual figure could be three times higher). Whilst extraordinary and horrifying in statistics alone, the neglect of human rights is shockingly pervasive in the Philippine National Police (PNP).

Between July 2016 and December 2019, 122 children were killed by officers in anti-drugs operations – either from being deliberately shot at or targeted as proxies. The assailants also included masked or hooded individuals with alleged links to the PNP. The total may be higher, as harassment and threats are reportedly used to silence victims.

Filipinos are ostensibly guaranteed fundamental rights under Article III of the country’s codified constitution. Section 1 is patently clear:

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

This highlights a clear contradiction with the police’s tactics of intimidation and violence. Police raids are routinely performed without warrants. In 2017, Human Rights Watch reported that the police routinely planted evidence, such as ammunition and drug packets.

Why would the police exercise such grave abuses of power? Such a question is particularly pertinent in 2020. The US National Security Advisor, Robert C. O’Brien, suggested that there are merely ‘a few bad apples’ working within the system. Whilst this is hardly a fair or adequate evaluation of the human impact of US police brutality, the systemic violence of the Philippines clearly undermines the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

It is commonly alleged that killings are staged by the police in order to qualify for cash rewards. In this sense, the actions can be seen as vigilantism. However, I argue that the killings reflect the lack of accountability and programme of censure from the very top of President Duterte’s government.

Before running for executive office, Rodrigo Duterte spent 22 years as mayor of Davao – the Philippines’ third largest city. The 75 year-old has been an advocate for extra-judicial violence throughout his political career. The so-called ‘Davao Death Squad’ killed hundreds of drug users and petty criminals, and these tactics were even advertised in Duterte’s presidential campaign.

“Hitler massacred three million Jews. Now there are three million drug addicts. I’d be happy to slaughter them. At least, if Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have [me]. You know my victims, I would like [them] all to be criminals, to finish the problem of my country and save the next generation from perdition”

(President Rodrigo Duterte, September 2016)

Furthermore, government figures have been accused of using harmful and incendiary language, highlighted in a 2020 UN report. As a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified in 1986), President Duterte’s government “could amount to a violation of the prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of life in Article 6”.

Lawmakers passed a new anti-terrorism act in June 2020, raising fears the provisions could be used against government critics and suspected drug traffickers. It allows the limited usage of warrantless arrests and detention without charge. Duterte’s harsh measures do not just target Shabu users; activists are under increased censure, and in some cases have faced shocking violence.

The UN estimates that at least 248 human rights activists, trade unionists, journalists and legal professionals were killed between 2015 and 2019. This may be influenced by ‘red-tagging’ – the labelling of human rights defenders and other controversial individuals/groups as communists or terrorists.

Senator Leila de Lima, a prominent critic of the Duterte government, has been behind bars since February 2017 on politically-motivated charges of drug trade involvement. The government is now facing renewed calls for her release; both the Anti-Money Laundering Council and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency have found no evidence to support the claims.

Undoubtedly, the Philippines continues to suffer serious problems due to the widespread usage of Shabu. Whilst the country has the highest usage of methamphetamines in South East Asia, the drugs are trafficked from the ‘Golden Triangle’ – an area of Thailand, Laos and Myanmar of almost one million square kilometres. Addiction can immeasurably damage families and communities – and the drug enforcement tactics used by the Philippine National Police prey on struggling groups. Typically anti-drug operations target urban areas, like Kian Loyd Delos Santos’ area of Northern Manila. They face the dual risks of extreme poverty and extreme police brutality.

Coronavirus has highlighted an urgent need for changes to drug policy in the Philippines. According to Human Rights Watch, the period of April to July this year saw ‘war on drugs’ fatalities increase by more than 50 per cent. Meanwhile, the penal system is unable to cope with the drug arrests, with reports of squalid and unhygienic conditions at a 534 per cent prison congestion rate.

President Duterte’s recommendation to re-instate the death penalty would be yet another breach of human rights, and would do little to tackle criminality. A brief comparison with Malaysia’s ‘war on drugs’ shows a worrying pattern. From 1983, the death penalty could be handed down for possession of relatively small quantities of drugs. Yet statistics show that these incredibly harsh measures were largely ineffective. As of 2019, Malaysia has been taking steps to stop criminal prosecution for possession of drugs.

Nonetheless, the Filipino government will continue, for now, to uphold its violent standards of drug prohibition. In November 2019, Leni Robredo (a member of the opposition party) was fired from the Inter-Agency Committee on Anti-Illegal Drugs after just 18 days for requesting greater transparency. However, reports suggest that Robredo looks likely to run in the next presidential election – against Sara, daughter of Rodrigo Duterte.