CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Ia. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Drugs are a security issue because their misuse is treated as a threat to humanity securitized, as
understood by the international relations theory, in the 1960s. As a result of this securitization the market
was gifted to organized criminals and, as the market grew, so did the power of the cartels. Organized
crime gangs were perceived as a threat to nation states in the 1980s and a further securitization of the
gangs took place.
In international perspective, the global war on drugs has been fought for 50 years, without
preventing the long-term trend of increasing drug supply and use. Beyond this failure, the UN Office on
Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has also identified the many serious unintended negative consequences of
the drug war. These costs result not from drug use itself, but from choosing a punitive enforcement-led
approach that, by its nature, places control of the trade in the hands of organized crime, and criminalizes
many users. In the process, this is undermining development and security, and fueling conflict in many
poor and fragile countries.
Attempts to control global drug production and supply took their current form with the 1961 UN
single convention on drugs. Whilst this international agreement was promoted with public health goals, it
took a prohibitionist approach, based on police and military enforcement intended to suppress production
and supply, and punish users. However, prohibiting a commodity for which there is high demand
inevitably creates profit opportunities for criminal entrepreneurs, pushing production, supply and
consumption into an illicit parallel economy.1
In the Philippine setting, campaign regarding war on drugs has been the focus of President
Rodrigo Duterte. The President entered office in June 2016 vowing to wipe out crime within six months
and announcing a policy that would target those using and selling drugs. His approach was popular with
voters tired of the political establishment and its failure to tackle crime, poverty and corruption. Although
homicide rates are above average for the region, the President and senior officials linked the problem of
crime to drugs in particular, even when there was little supporting evidence.
The use of methamphetamines, known as shabu in the Philippines, is high for the region, but
the overall prevalence of drug use is relatively low. In September 2016, the Philippine Dangerous Drugs
Board estimated that 1.8 million people in the country had used drugs at some point during the 13-month
period its survey examined, which is roughly 2.3 percent of the population between the ages of 10 and 69.
A report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in 2016 estimated the annual
prevalence of illicit drug use across the world to be 5.2 percent, while estimating that only 12 percent of
those who used drugs ever develop drug dependence.
More than 7,000 people have been killed, roughly one-third during formal police operations and
the rest by unknown shooters. Based on 110 interviews and the documentation of 33 cases, report shows
that many drug-related killings are extrajudicial executions that directly implicate the police. There are

1
The War on Drugs: Undermining international development and security, increasing conflict, Retrieved March 22,
2017 from www.countthecosts.org
news reports also that describe how the war on drugs has targeted the poor disproportionately. It reveals
how at least some unknown shooters are assassins paid by police officers.2

Ib. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The researchers aim to study the effectiveness of campaign war on drugs by the Philippine
government to alleviate the crime-related offenses allegedly committed by those persons who are using or
making it a business to the detriment of the public welfare.
Furthermore, the study aims to answer the following questions:
1. What are the violations, if any, of such campaign to International laws in which the
Philippines is a signatory?
2. Is the campaign towards war on drugs beneficial to public interest?
3. What are the means employed by government to fight against people involved in
drugs? Can they be considered legal?

Ic. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

To fully respond to the queries of the study, the researchers aim to know the following:
1. Determine the effectiveness of the campaign war on drugs by the Philippine
government in lessening the crimes and violence allegedly committed by drug-related
persons?
2. Define, if any, are the violations committed by the campaign to International laws.
3. Explain the means employed by government to fight against people involved in drugs
and determine its legality.

Id. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Through his study, the researchers could examine and compare the effects of the campaign war
on drugs of the Duterte administrations and its impact towards suppression of crime and violence in the
society. Moreover, this study is vital for the government, in adherence to the international law, to
determine if such campaign has been violating any International laws, to which we are adopting also. In
addition to, the study is essential for the citizens, for them to determine their rights and responsibilities,
whether to promote the campaign war on drugs as an effective means to defeat those suspects who were
involved in drugs, in effect, to lessen the crimes being committed or to fight for their humanitarian rights
and petition the government for the extrajudicial killings and forcible violence it employs against suspects
of drug-related offenses.

2
Extrajudicial Executions in the Philippines: Retrieved from
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa35/5517/2017/en/
Ie. DEFINITION OF TERMS
Extrajudicial executions are unlawful and deliberate killings carried out by order of a government or
with its complicity or acquiescence, which is along the lines of descriptions provided by international
experts. Extrajudicial executions would under this understanding include unlawful killings both by state
forces and by non-state groups and individuals that state authorities fail to properly investigate and
prosecute. In the context of the war on drugs in the Philippines, extrajudicial executions therefore
encompass both unlawful police killings and killings by unknown armed persons that the authorities are
complicit or acquiescent in, including by failing to properly investigate and prosecute.3
War on drugs is a term commonly used to describe the Duterte administrations policies and operations
against alleged drug offenders. These operations do not fit the definition of an armed conflict under
international law.4

If. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The Philippine Constitution strongly entrenches the rights to life, human dignity and due process.
It further guarantees all peoples equal protection of the law, as well as the presumption of innocence until
proven guilty and the right to a speedy, impartial, and public trial.5
Related to the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health, the Constitution provides
that the government shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which
shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available at affordable cost.6
There is no law in the Philippines that specifically criminalizes the act of extrajudicial or
extra-legal execution. However, any perpetrator of an extrajudicial execution, including law
enforcement officials, fall under the Revised Penal Codes provisions on murder and homicide. Murder
includes any killing in consideration of a price, reward, or promise, such as when police officers or paid
killers are paid for killing alleged drug offenders.7
Under a rule issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, a specific remedy known as a
petition for writ of amparo, to which the court can respond by taking preventive or protective measures,
is available to any person whose right to the life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with

3
Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Handbook,
Retrieved from http://www.extrajudicialexecutions.org/LegalObservations.html
4
Extrajudicial Executions in the Philippines: Retrieved from
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa35/5517/2017/en/
5
The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 1987, Art. III: Bill of Rights, Sec. 1,
http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/1987- constitution/.
6
Ibid., Art. XIII: Social Justice and Human Rights, Sec. 11
7
The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (Act No. 3815), 8 December 1930, Art. 248 (Murder), Art. 249
(Homicide),http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/PHL_revised_penal_code.pdf
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or
entity. The right to petition for a writ of amparo explicitly applies to extrajudicial executions. 8
In addition, the writ of habeas dataa court order for authorities to provide, correct or destroy
information they hold on a personprovides a remedy to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity. In cases of extrajudicial execution, petitions for both writs
may be filed by relatives of the aggrieved party.9
In 2012, Administrative Order No. 35 created an inter-agency committee that is mandated to
investigate and prioritize the resolution of cases of extrajudicial executions, among other serious abuses.10
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act, enacted and signed into law in 2002, outlines the
penalties for the use and sale of drugs in the Philippines11, while the Philippine National Police
Operations Manual dictates the procedures under which police officers are to carry out operations, use
firearms, and investigate crimes.12

8
8 Supreme Court of the Philippines, The Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12 SC), September 25, 2007,
Sec. 1.
9
Supreme Court of the Philippines, The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, Sec. 2; Supreme Court of the Philippines,
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Sec. 2. In the absence of relatives, the petition for a writ of amparo may also be
filed by any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution. Ibid.
10
President of the Philippines, Administrative Order No. 35: Creating the Inter-agency Committee on Extra-legal
killings, Enforced Disappearances, Torture and other Grave Violations of the Right to Life, Liberty and Security of
Persons, 2012, http://www.gov.ph/2012/11/22/administrative-order-no-35-s-2012/
11
Republic Act No. 9165: An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, 7 June 2002,
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2002/ra_9165_2002.html.
12
Philippine National Police Handbook, Revised Philippine National Police Operational Procedures, December
2013, http://www.pnp.gov.ph/images/transparency_seal/2016/manuals/PNPOperationsManual.pdf.