“Rodrigo Duterte should be held accountable for appointing many people to high positions in his administration not on the basis of integrity, competence and high qualifications but because they were his classmates of his in law school, or fellow Davaoeños”
By now, a week after his six-year term officially ended at noon of June 30, it’s as clear as daylight that Philippine democracy took a severebeating under Rodrigo Duterte as president.
One, Rodrigo Duterte should be held responsible for the breakdown of the rule of law and democratic processes in this country.
His six years in office saw a bloody war on illegal drugs that led to brazen murders of nearly 7,000 suspected people gunned down on the pretext that they fought back when law enforcers came to arrest them.
By giving the order for the police to ‘kill, kill, kill’ all those involved in illegal drugs, he unleashed a wave of brutal killings of people without giving them their day in court, or what we know as due process of law.
What did he say at the height of the pogrom? That with 3 million drug addicts in the country, he said: ‘I’d be happy to slaughter all of them.’
He drove a stake right at the heart of Philippine democracy with his war on drugs that human rights groups insist that may have led to as many as 20,000 to 30,000 actually killed because, as one forensic expert said, the police attributed the cause of their deaths as from natural causes rather than gunshots intended to kill outright.
Two, Rodrigo Duterte should be held accountable for his utter disrespect for basic human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in our Constitution.
He ordered the filing of trumped-up charges against former Justice Secretary and then senator Leila de Lima who has languished in jail for over five years now on the basis of the outright lie that she was part of a conspiracy to deal in illegal drugs to raise funds for her senatorial bid in 2016.
He went after de Lima whose only “crime” was that as Chair of the Commission on Human Rights, she initiated an investigation of killings in Davao City by the so-called Davao Death Squad (DDS) and, later, as a Senator, she again sought a Senate probe of drug war killings.
Three, Rodrigo Duterte should be held responsible for tolerating massive corruption under his administration.
Even as he waged a brutal campaign to rid the country of drug traffickers and users, the government failed to stop the smuggling of illegal drugs worth billions of pesos through the Bureau of Customs.
What did he do?
He dismissed two heads of the bureau, but merely moved them elsewhere in the bureaucracy without making them accountable for criminal negligence.
He also openly defended those accused of involvement in the Pharmally scandal where a pharmaceutical firm put up with minimal capital was able to corner billions worth of vaccines, test kits and personal protective equipment for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Four, Rodrigo Duterte should be held responsible for the breakdown of decency, civility and statesmanship under his administration.
He hurled expletives directed at the Pope, then US President Barack Obama, UN Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights, the International Criminal Court, and the United Nations Human Rights Commission, among many others.
On not a few occasions, he forced his Cabinet and the general public to listen to incoherent, nonsensical, unfinished sentences that were part of weekly rantings force-fed to media late in the evening or past midnight.
Five, Rodrigo Duterte should be held accountable for appointing many people to high positions in his administration not on the basis of integrity, competence and high qualifications but because they were his classmates of his in law school, or fellow Davaoeños.
He also appointed many retired generals in the military and the police to various high positions because he said he could rely on them to unquestioningly follow all his orders.
Six, Rodrigo Duterte should be held accountable for wanton violations of the Code of Ethics of Lawyers. Duterte refuses to declare his true net worth (SALNs) as provided by the Constitution.
Not a few people sincerely believe that Rodrigo Duterte has done a lot of good things for this country. They are entitled to their own opinion.
But I am convinced that after six years in power, Duterte has done more to destroy Philippine democracy, due process and the rule of law than his immediate predecessors.
We have no lack of glorious moments in our history.
Unfortunately, we have no lack either of inglorious moments in our history.
Rodrigo Duterte managed to rise to the pinnacle of political power in the country on so little achievement as mayor of Davao City except to turn it into a graveyard for people he disliked, or loathed with a passion.
Last year, on the 35th anniversary of the Edsa People Power Revolution, Duterte called on Filipinos to be vigilant in protecting their rights and the country’s democratic institutions: “As we contemplate the relevance of this occasion, let us proceed with renewed hope and optimism towards the realization of our shared aspirations for our nation…
“May this serve as a constant reminder for all of us to remain vigilant in safeguarding our democratic institutions, preserving our values, and upholding our rights as Filipinos.”
Of course, he was reading a speech prepared by Malacañang. The reality, however, was the very opposite of what he was mouthing.
* * *
(Note: A Filipino-Chinese friend sent this article that appears to reflect the official stand of Beijing on the West Philippine Sea issue. This is for information purposes only and does not necessarily reflect my own stand on the territorial and maritime dispute. At the very least, it should give our own policy makers and experts on the UN Convention of the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) food for thought and perhaps an opportunity to dissect the arguments raised here.)
The Philippines cannot expand its territory through domestic legislation
By Dr. Liu Heng
Over the years, the Philippines attempted to grow its territory by fiat. But it is well-known that the country’s territorial scope is clearly defined by a series of colonial-era treaties, including those entered by and between its former colonizers. The Philippines cannot legalize unilateral territorial claims by passing domestic laws or adjusting its constitution.
Such moves are not founded on international law and practices.
Since the early 1970s, the Philippines has occupied some islands and reefs in China’s Nansha Qundao (Spratlys) successively by force, capitalizing on domestic turmoil in China. In June 1978, it issued Presidential Decree No. 1596, placing certain Spratly features and their surrounding waters under the so-called “Kalayaan Island Group” (KIG) and made a territorial claim over it.
Former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., father of the new Philippine leader, Ferdinand Jr., may have anticipated disputes when the country drew its maritime entitlements.
In PD 1599, which he released on the same date as PD 1596, it says that “where the outer limits of the [country’s exclusive economic] zone as thus determined overlap the exclusive economic zone of an adjacent or neighboring state, the common boundaries shall be determined by agreement with the state concerned or in accordance with pertinent generally recognized principles of international law on delimitation.”
In 1997, Manila also made an official territorial claim to China’s Huangyan Dao (Scarborough Shoal). In March 2009, it promulgated Republic Act No. 9522, which included the KIG and Scarborough Shoal as part of its territory under UNCLOS’ regime of islands.
But China’s sovereignty over the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal has long been established, firmly grounded in history and law.
The Kalayaan Islands and Scarborough Shoal are not within the scope of Philippine territory stipulated by international agreements.
The country’s boundary was delineated by the 1898 Treaty of Paris between the United States and Spain, the 1900 Treaty of Washington, and the 1930 Convention between the US and the United Kingdom over North Borneo and the Philippine archipelago.
All of these treaties did not include either the KIG or the Scarborough Shoal. This was confirmed in several postwar treaties, such as the 1946 Treaty of General Relations between the US and the Philippines and the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty between the two allies.
Therefore, the Philippines’ inclusion of another country’s territory into its own through domestic law seriously violates international law, the Charter of the United Nations, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law, and basic norms governing international relations.
It also infringes on the solemn promise of “mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity” and “mutual non-aggression” outlined in the 1975 Joint Communique establishing diplomatic relations between China and the Philippines.
Since World War II, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines, which was once under colonial rule, have been fully respected by the international community. In turn, the country should also fully respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries, including that of its close neighbors.
The Philippines’ encroachment on the territory of another country through domestic legislation is a unilateral act with no effect under international law.
A country may waive or restrict its own rights within the scope provided by international law through domestic law, but shall not expand beyond this scope.
According to the renowned German jurist, L.F.L. Oppenheim, father of modern international law, if there are provisions in a country’s domestic law that are not permitted by international law, then that country has violated its international obligations.
A country may not invoke its domestic law to justify its failure to abide by international law, nor may it take its domestic law as an excuse to infringe upon the territorial sovereignty of other countries.
Territory is one of the core interests of a country, and no country will allow another to make claims to its territory through domestic legislation.
The Philippines’ move to expand its territory through local laws is unwarranted. It neither abides by international law nor contributes to comity with its neighbor. (Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)
(Dr. Liu holds a Ph.D. in international law and is an Associate Professor of International Law at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), which the Foreign Policy journal rated as the top think tank in Asia. His research interests are public international law, especially the international rule of law and international dispute settlement. His publications include a monograph and some articles in the field of public international law.)