By James Jimenez
The troublesome shadow of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines that has haunted its citizens and observers alike for years – pushed to the background by other national crises – has come roaring back into the forefront of our awareness, with recent developments in both Houses of Congress. It brings with it, the unsettling and pervasive sense of dread that we might be at risk of backsliding into those dark days of arbitrary violence. Not many people are talking about it in those terms just yet, but, the possibility bothers me. Who else is bothered?
The law is meant to protect the lives of all the people equally. Law abiding citizens are to be protected in their persons and their property, yes. But the lives of criminals are no less deserving of protection. Wrongdoing must be met with punishment, yes. But the bargain we have with the state in a democratic society is that punishment can come only after guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, before a fair and impartial judge, within the framework of the laws, and only after the accused has been given every opportunity to defend himself. The moral certainty of one man, regardless of what power that man holds, and regardless of how he cloaks himself in the mantle of a benevolent patriarch who hates those who would endanger his “children” – is simply not justification enough.
To go that route would be embark upon an express journey towards the erosion of public trust, the intensification of fear, and the ultimate emasculation of the very institutions tasked with upholding justice.
Root Causes
The root of this issue lies in the belief that swift violence can, “under the right conditions,” be prioritized over due process. Naturally, those who are impatient with due process, will not balk at finding ways to manufacture those “right conditions,” conjuring up scenarios out of whole cloth if necessary, just to rationalize recourse to violence.
Arguing that we have no choice but to fight back should we be threatened, we manufacture the jeopardy ourselves – encouraging suspects to fight back and dressing up crime scenes with props that are supposed to convince the casual observer of the righteousness of the ‘neutralization.’
It is true that in the complex pursuit of peace and order, the ethical boundaries of law enforcement can sometimes blur, and individuals can find themselves judged and punished without trial. Recent revelations in Congress, however, hint at the possibility that over-zealous enforcement might not be the only dynamic at play. Congress is not the proper place to determine the truth or falsity of the latest accusations – allegations of abuse of power for criminal ends – but the mere possibility that these might be among the root causes of the epidemic of extrajudicial killings is troubling enough.
The way forward
With all these things now either coming to light for the first time, or getting another chance at being taken more seriously than they were before – now, more than ever, there is a need for a clearer way forward. One that is not bogged down by the politics of the moment, nor intimidated by the bluster of the powerful.
Our leaders must move forward more swiftly now, and commit to ending this era of “neutralizations” that sidestep accountability, by taking concrete and tangible steps within the existing criminal justice system. To wait for some, hypothetical, currently inchoate, more perfect formulation of the law, is to allow the injustice done to the unalived to fester.
There is, before us now, an unmistakable imperative for change, one that requires both courage and reform. For communities to feel safe, they need accountability and transparency from the powerful. The way forward should involve the rebuilding public trust through the strengthening existing legal protections, not via political promises of better laws.
