Spectacle in the Philippines

Source of picture: www.nytimes.com

Killings in the Philippines are becoming a spectacle. News, images and videos of everyday violence dominate the landscape of mainstream and social media. What is disturbing is that these killings are nowhere near plateauing.

Supposedly, only drug users, pushers and drug lords are targets of these killings. But there are a 4-year old Althea Barbon, a 5-year old Danica Garcia, a 20-year old Jefferson Bunuan and a 22-year old Rowena Tiamson, the last two are both promising college students, and nameless others whose lifeless bodies were literally disposed like garbage. They are the victims of the Philippine government's vicious and violent anti-drug campaign under President Rodrigo Duterte.

Duterte came to power with a promise to suppress drugs and crimes within six months in a bloody campaign, reminiscent of what he implemented in Davao City where he ruled for decades. True enough, barely three months in office, drug-related killings have reached 3,140 and counting. Police operations under Oplan Double Barrel, a national campaign against drugs, accounted for 1,105 deaths, while shadowy vigilante groups took 2,035 lives. Police operatives seem unable to match the "efficient" carnage and shroud of immunity of the vigilante groups.

Even more disturbing are the President's statements and actuations on these killings. Confronted by media, Duterte stressed that he does not care about human rights. On possible UN investigation on extra-judicial killings, he declared that he would quit the UN. Questioned by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on the inclusion and involvement of judges in the drug list, he threatened to declare martial law. He said it before, it is going to be bloody because it is purgative.

What is more and more disturbing is that the whole spectacle is slowly dawning as a mass crime itself.

In his speeches, he sounded oblivious to the fact that as the leader of a democratic society who opts for and insists on violence as superior means to achieve a goal has the burden and stake to justify his decision. There is no escaping from a more forceful of the collective power of the governed on which an elected government heavily depends.

Duterte rallies his supporters that he is waging a revolution to get rid of drugs, crimes, and corruption. These are the realities and evils that ordinary Filipinos struggle with everyday, in which, in Galtungian view, are manifestations of violence.

Duterte has effectively unleashed an idea morphed into a belief to his ardent supporters that only violence can change dire realities, defeat evils, and overcome other violence. There may not be clear desired outcome from the elimination of these realities and evils. The violent means has become its own motive without humane end. It has become irresistible and now seen as imperative as if it were sole mandate.

That is why for Duterte and his millions of supporters, the murderous costs of the drug campaign are distracting toward the achievement of his promise and deliverance. More so, those who get in the way or potentially, including the Chief Justice, UN, media, innocent civilians and critics are to be ignored. Recently, he declared a State of National Emergency, calling the armed forces to respond to lawless violence he actually started.

His violence appears not to have a learning curve. It teaches primarily to Filipinos that violence begets violence.  Many Filipinos are beginning to find themselves again in an eerily too familiar rule that fell to disgrace not so long time ago. Ironically, he wanted that ruler to be given a hero's burial. 

For those who experienced the dictator and Martial Law, they know it will be a long struggle to end and free themselves again from this spectacle of intoxicating violence.

When several police chiefs were sacked for underperforming to meet certain targets, when the Catholic Church through Cardinal Tagle finally spoke against the killings, when the victims' sisters, mothers, fathers, brothers, families, friends and neighbors become actors and not merely spectators of this bloody spectacle, when ordinary people realize that this violence is not capable of changing their lives, and when his fanatics turn into disillusioned followers, they can all signal an eventual end to this enduring state of national emergency.

What is disturbing though is if Duterte sees no end. Six more months? It literally means more killings.

This spectacle of killings must end. We as a people could not simply watch one life after another being sacrificed for the deliverance of a promise and for an egoistic and rhetoric war. It's time to bring the curtain down. Lights off.

- END -

Ethno-religious identification and intergroup contact avoidance: An empirical study on Christian-Muslim relations in the Philippines

Imagine being asked: “Would you change your religious beliefs to marry the person you love? Why or why not?” It was actually the question posed to the Philippine candidate in the 2011 Miss Universe pageant in Brazil. You know what her answer: “If I have to change my religious beliefs, I will not marry the person that I love, because the first person that I love is God who created me. And if that person loves me, he should love my God too. Thank you.”

Her response did not make her win the Miss Universe title, but it won the hearts of many Filipinos. This was a clear indication of a strong religious identification and avoidance of religious out-group. In the Philippines, does this religious identification manifest in the social interaction with religious out-groups? Does it shape attitude and intention (i.e. contact avoidance) among university students who are often the most vocal sector of society? Despite increased interconnectedness through social media and global events, people are still being excluded not because of what they do, but mainly because of who they are, based on religion and ethnicity.

The Philippines is composed of diverse population groups. Several authors categorize it into Christian north and Muslim south. Behind this religious divide are ethnic groups, which are commonly identified as either Christians or Muslims. Thus, in-group and out-group can fairly be distinguished.

For decades, conflicts have been going on in southern Philippines. The conflict has conventionally been viewed “within the framework of historic ethno-religious conflict” because the groups involved are divided along ethno-religious lines.

This study looks at latent aspects of conflict through strained relations between ethno-religious groups in Metro Manila and Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and adjacent areas.

Relations between these groups are historically characterized by majority-minority positions, hierarchy, competition and rivalry. Data collection through surveys and interviews in these areas was conducted in 2011-2012.

The aim of this study is to answer the following central questions.

1. To what extent is there a relationship between ethno-religious identification and contact avoidance? The hypothesis here is that the stronger identification, the higher level of contact avoidance.

2. To what extent can we explain the relationship between ethno-religious identification and contact avoidance by intermediate determinants? The general hypothesis here is that the relationship will be diminished because of the mediating effects of the intermediate factors.

To guide the process of finding empirical answers to these questions, this study set out to build on previously developed and well-established theoretical insights on intergroup relations.

As a dimension of ethnic exclusionism, intergroup contact avoidance could be explained by the general propositions of several theories. Realistic conflict theory posits that intergroup competition in a social conflict facilitates in-group cohesion and out-group hostility. Social identity theory involves the social processes of categorization, identification and comparison which induce in-group favoritism through social identification and out-group antagonism through social contra-identification. The complementarity of these two theories is summarized in the proposition of ethnic group conflict theory which states that intergroup competition at individual and contextual levels, mediated by perceived group threat, will reinforce in-group favoritism and out-group antagonism. The eventual outcome of which is ethnic exclusionism.

There are other theories that could well provide explanations. The inclusion of an indigenous concept called pakikiramdam (heightened awareness of self, others and situation) is a recognition of the cultural context of the research setting.

To measure intergroup contact avoidance, we ask, “To what extent would you accept or avoid having a Christian/Muslim” classmate, friend, boardmate, neighbor, civil servant, police, and mayor. In the Mokken scale analysis, both Christians and Muslims have an almost similar pattern for the seven contact roles.

They have the private domain, classmate and friend, with the most acceptance, while the public domain, police and mayor have the most avoidance. The contact role, neighbor, seems to mark the boundary between private and public. Moreover, both Christians and Muslims tend to avoid placing public contact roles, bequeathed with power, in the hands of out-groups, while they are less likely to do so with the private contact roles.

To measure ethno-religious identification, we treat identity as not merely a self-affiliation and knowledge of one’s in-group, rather, it undergoes a process in which individual actions and choices are crucial elements of the process. According to Phinney and Ong (2007, pp.272-273), the process of identification has several dimensions, such as exploration,, behaviors, commitment and attachment, relationship between ethnic identity and national identity, among others.

Who are then the people who tend to avoid contact towards out-groups? In our findings, they are those Christians and Muslims who have more religious in-group friends, greater perceived group threat, social dominance orientation, out-group religiocentrism and distrust, and fundamentalist attitudes. They are also members of religious organizations and they participate in religious practices.

Using regression analyses to test our hypotheses, the study shows the effects on contact avoidance by ethno-religious identification variables such as participation in rites of passage, number of ethnic in-group friends, and number of instances where ethnic language is used. The observed effects support the first hypothesis that the stronger the ethno-religious identification, the more contact avoidance towards the out-group. Explaining further the significant relationship between ethno-religious identification and contact avoidance, the intermediate determinants which decrease the observed effects of ethno-religious identification variables on contact avoidance are perceived group threat, out-group distrust, fundamentalism, and quantity of contact. As expected, the significant effects on contact avoidance of perceived group threat, out-group distrust, and fundamentalism, are positive, whereas the significant effect of quantity of contact is negative. Inclusion of these intermediate determinants in the model reduces most significant differences between ethno-elrigious groups. This is an evidence for the mediating function of these determinants.

The interviews provide additional data and explanations on contact avoidance. Both Christians and Muslims report incidents of everyday contact avoidance as peers and barangay-mates.

Additional expressions of religious identification are from Muslim informants who find eating halal food and wearing hijab as their expressions of being Muslims in a predominantly Christian country. One dimension which is not measured by the survey is the relationship of sub-national (ethnic) identity with national identity. While Christian ethnic groups generally identify with the national identity as Filipinos, the Muslim ethnic groups voice out some issues with being Filipinos as a legacy of oppressive colonial history.

The additional explanations are found in the three contextual factors, namely education, mass media and history of conflict. For example, the school environment has considerable impact on intergroup relations. The more mixed the composition of the student population, the more possibilities for intergroup contacts and friendships there are, and less likely there will be intergroup contact avoidance.

In closing, it is confirmed, as predicted by ethnic group conflict theory, that perceived group threat is a strong and significant predictor of exclusionary attitude, i.e. contact avoidance. Also it is confirmed that out-group distrust, a by-product of social contra-identification explained in social identity theory and ethnic group conflict theory, induces ethnic exclusionism. The finding on the quantity of contacts supports the position of intergroup contact theory, which posits that contacts reduce the likelihood of exclusionary attitudes towards out-groups.

In light of the findings and data available for further research on intergroup relations, the potency of contributing not just to the understanding of conflicts, but also to peacebuilding efforts in conflict areas, specifically in Mindanao, is very encouraging.

Don't forget the social aspect of the peace agreement

On 27 March 2014, the Philippine government and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) have set the historic and formal signing of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB). Hopes are high, but reality checks won't hurt if we do them right.

Conflict does not necessarily end in the signing of peace agreement. It mainly addresses the political and economic issues of the conflict which are structural in nature and perceived to be the causes of the conflict. What is often overlooked is the underlying social issues of dysfunctional and asymmetric relationships of the groups involved. In the Philippine case, the groups involved are divided along ethno-religious lines.

Here, I would like point out three things: 1) as ordinary citizens of the Philippines, we can help in this peacebuilding effort; 2) signs of times are in advanced and matured stages for peacebuilding to take root; 3) importance of intergroup trust in the consummation of the peace agreement.

As ordinary citizens, whether Christians or Muslims or non-believers, as Filipinos or peace-loving people, we have a stake in this historic moment. Peace in Mindanao means peace to the whole Philippines. As our saying goes, "Ang sakit sa kalingkingan ay ramdam ng buong katawan" (The pain of the small finger is felt by the whole body). To paraphrase, if parts of Mindanao get burnt, the whole Philippines is in pain. Thus, we must take an active stance on this peace agreement.

Signs of times related to intergroup relations are favorable to this agreement to take hold. For example, in August 2012, the first Muslim newscaster appeared on a Manila-based national television wearing a hijab and traditional ethnic dress to project her ethno-religious identity. Later that year, the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro was signed paving the way for the historic signing of CAB along with pertinent and detailed Annexes of the agreement. These incidents are indications of attempts to ease and end the conflict.

However, any attempts to end the conflict through formal peace agreement must be backed by social understanding of the situation. What is the evaluation on the integroup relations? How do Christian and Muslim ethnic groups interact and deal with each other? Are they willing to be friends or neighbors? Can they allow an out-group to hold power?

In our study, Ethno-religious groups, identification, trust and social distance in the ethno-religiously stratified Philippines (Abanes, Scheepers & Sterkens, 2014), people's unwillingness to make contact with out-groups, as measured by social distance, is low. Generally, Filipinos tend to be less socially distant from their religious out-group. We found out that what explained this low social distance between ethno-religious groups is trust. When Christians and Muslims trust each other, they are less likely to oppose religious out-groups to be their friends, neighbors, or to hold power such as police, civil servant, and mayor. With trust, they are more likely to accept their religious out-groups. Without trust, social barriers and issues may emerge to block any progress towards that elusive peace, even with the peace agreement in place.

Let this historic moment, 27 March 2014, be an opportunity for the groups involved in theconflict to build an inclusive Philippine society of which Bangsamoros and other ethno-religious groups are all part.

As non Moros, how to help advance the peace agreement between the Philippine Government and MILF

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Terrorism? Invasion? Intrusion? What is it, then? The Sabah Standoff

Source: Malaysia's Ministry of Defence
(http://www.timesunion.com)

This is not to justify the actions of the armed men who sailed to Lahad Datu. This is to understand why Malaysia reacted in such a way, or an attempt in that direction to understand Malaysia's reaction.

We learn in Physics as Newton's third law of motion; for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction.

How could Malaysian government justify its large-scale military operations involving airstrikes and bombardments against hundreds of armed men cordoned in a village in Lahad Datu district in Sabah (North Borneo)?

What about labeling the actions of those several armed men as terrorism!

Ok, what are the actions of those armed men? What did they do?

On 11 February 2013, more than 200 people believed to be followers of the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram III, entered Sabah (North Borneo) by motorboats. They were led by Agbimuddin Kiram (Rajah Muda), a brother of the Sultan.They set foot and assembled in a Tanduo village in Lahad Datu district. Because several of them were armed, many locals fled the area in fear of their security. However, the group of Rajah Muda declared that they were there to reclaim what they rightfully own and live on what they call their homeland. Tracing historical documents, the Sultanate of Sulu claims that North Borneo is never ceded to Malaysia. (See for detailed historical perspective of the claim here).

After 17 days in Tanduo village in Lahad Datu district, no violence committed by those armed men was reported. There is no international binding definition of terrorism, but there are generally accepted elements of terrorism, such as the use of violence and the threat of it to civilians. After 30 days, there were eight (8) casualties from the Malaysian side and 53 from the claimants. All eight (8) casualties from the Malaysian side are policemen. No Malaysian civilian is reported to have died or wounded after 30 days of stand-off. The violence happened on the 18th day when the Malaysian commandos started to move into the village where the armed  claimants are holed up.

Terrorism may not be apt to describe the actions of the claimants, in this case. This is in direct contrast to the 2008 Mumbai incident when armed men shot indiscriminately and killed 164 people in the 4-day rampage. That was plain terrorism, and this? Hmmmmmm...

So let's try calling it invasion.

Well, the reported number of the claimants ranges from more than 200 to less than 300 people. Their small-scale operation enabled them to sneak into Lahad Datu without being noticed by Malaysian authorities. By no measure it can be called invasion on a territory that has tens of thousands of square kilometers in land area. Size, scale, and magnitude are essential elements of an armed action to be considered invasion.

Ok, probably it is intrusion.

You think so? Well, the armed men came uninvited. They claimed that they have the documents to prove their ownership of the property. Malaysian government must contest and refute the claim, otherwise it can not own something which is owned by another. Determining the ownership of the land is crucial in labeling the action of the armed claimants as intrusion. And the determination of ownership can be done by litigation or judicial proceeding in international court, and not by displaying one's superior military force.

Not terrorism, not invasion, not intrusion, what is it then? It is a claim, a historical claim.

For Malaysian government, the followers of the Sultan of Sulu are terrorists, invaders, and intruders. That is why a large-scale military operation is necessary. For those who know a bit better, these armed people are claimants of a land that they are going to defend against the dubious owner. They are, clearly, not against the civilians.

Losses by Pacquaio and Pablo

Devastating losses hover the Philippines. In those losses, many Filipinos tend to look up and utter, why? They still believe that the One above knows why.

The losses happened in separate locations: Mindanao and Las Vegas. The first one was about the loss of lives and properties caused by typhoon “Pablo.” The second one was about the knockout loss of Manny Pacquaio, an icon and pride of the Philippines. 

Unbelievable. That’s how the media sees the losses of lives in Mindanao. Also that’s how the boxing world describe the knockout loss by Pacquiao.

Interestingly, both losses have been associated with religious beliefs. This is not surprising. In a country where more than 80 percent rate themselves as religious, according to a 1998 Survey on Religion of the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), religion is deeply rooted in every aspect of daily life.

First in Mindanao, no less than a Catholic bishop had observed the association between the tragedy which killed hundreds of people and God’s message in the tragedy. In an interview by a Catholic-run Radio Veritas, Manila Auxillary Bishop Broderick Pabillo said, “I’m not sure if it may be just a coincidence, or God has a message that whenever it (Reproductive Health bill) is being decisively discussed, tragedies strike us.”

Bishop Pabillo, in the first instance, was refering to the controversial RH bill which is nearing passage in both Houses of the Philippine Congress. Vehemently opposed by the Catholic Church, the RH bill seeks to implement universal access to methods of contraception, age-appropriate sex education, maternal care, among others. In the second instance, the bishop was refering to this year’s  August and September massive floodings  in Metro Manila and surrounding areas which killed hundreds and displaced millions of people. During those times, the debates on RH bill were at their peak inside the halls of Congress and on the streets.

The bishop received criticisms for making the connection. Despite of that, many faithful shared  the view and connection made by the bishop. The critics, however, pointed to mining, illegal logging, and ill-preparedness of local governments and residents as the real culprits of the tragedy in Mindanao.

Second in Las Vegas, the knockout loss by Manny Pacquaio was beyond comprehension by his die-hard fans, especially Filipinos. Prior to the fight, boxing analyts put Pacquiao in a 2-1 favorite to win the fourth match with his Mexican rival, Juan Manuel Marquez. It meant that a bet of 2 dollars for Pacquaio would win 1 dollar if he prevailed. He lost by knockout.

Both boxers, in their interviews, provided their own explanations why the stunning knockout came. Marquez said that it was his technique and preparation that led to it. Pacquaio, on his part, said that it was his overconfidence when he carelessly charged for his vaunted 1-2 punch that made him a perfect recipient of a solid right counter-punch.

Boxing experts and analysts somewhat agreed on the two explanations, but they also offered their own. For example, former boxing champion Roy Jones Jr. thought that the muscular built of Marquez had added to the power which surprisingly put Pacquaio twice on the canvas; the last one was for good.

However, as we often say, mothers know best. Pacquaio's mother, a.k.a Mommy Dionisia, was interviewed, and she associated the loss to his son's change of religion. As a devout Catholic, Dionisia raised her son as a Catholic. In Pacquaio's previous fights, he would be normally seen wearing a rosary laced around his neck and making a sign of cross in every start of a round. This time (and in Bradley's fight where he lost too in a controversial decision), he was not seen wearing a rosary and making signs of a cross. His newly embraced religious beliefs prevented him from doing so.

The interview of Mommy Dionisia was beamed in a national television in the Philippines. Many Filipinos, to a certain extent through social media, gave credence to her explanation of that loss. They believe that Pacquaio received a message from the One embraced by majority of Filipinos, but may be not anymore by Pacquaio.

Similarly as hinted by the bishop, the losses in Mindanao is a message to the people who attempt to bend their religious beliefs to accommodate and, at the same time, cut the excesses of the modern world (e.g. hedonism, overpopulation, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.).

With all the given explanations of these losses, many Filipinos remain unconvinced, even by looking upward. The message might have been lost in the emotions. Incidentally, it is December. Majority of Filipinos believe that the true message is in the Child who is to come. And His message is of victory, superseding the losses of His peoples.

Ceasefire, Ceasefire: Breaking the Escalation of Violence

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Searching for a Hero (Happy Father's Day)

“Only the leader’s own involvement in reality, within a historical situation, led them to criticize this situation and to wish to change it.” – Paulo Friere, Pedagogy of the Oppressed

As we celebrate the 150th birthday of Jose Rizal, are we still in search of a hero?

Coincidentally, on the same day, we celebrate Father’s Day.

Oftentimes we are asked, whom do you consider your hero? And usually we enumerate names we just read from history books. We are told by their exploits and heroism during the times when we could not even relive their lives except the trying words of our historians, documentary shoots, and life-imitating films. Almost, yet persistent in their larger-than-life attempt to capture history, our scholars have provided us a near-to-life panorama of our academic past. We owe it to them if we see Rizal as repository of almost supernatural talents, Bonifacio as a brave man without fear of death, Aguinaldo as a revolutionary who waged his own revolution inside the Philippine revolution. These are the most known heroes and widely read about personalities in the history of our country.

Why Rizal or Bonifacio or Aguinaldo then? What about Bicolano heroes like Jose Ma. Panganiban or Tomas Arejola? Why not our fathers?

For one, our history-book heroes exemplified a life destined to be great, and willingly faced a death by sacrificing their lives. Of course, their deaths were their heroic acts that defined their heroism. To the idealist, they have done in an extraordinary way what any ordinary man could not. To the realist, they simply fulfilled the task assigned by the call of times. To the gestaltist, they completed the missing part of our aspiration for freedom and totality as a nation. To most of us, they responded to the challenge of self-determination. To the rest, they were merely the stories of men printed in the paper, or depicted in a monument, imaged in a bill, or painted in a card.

More than the epic life and death they led, their heroism was highlighted by the classic struggle to free our country from the bondage of colonization of Spain, to liberate from the oppressive imperialism of America, and to save the nation from the inclusive expansion of Japan.

Today the war waged by our heroes continues. It is not yet won but little victories were gained. Although our country does not confront armies of the imperious foreigners, it faces enemies in various forms. The most formidable of these is the prevalent poverty of its own people. Slowly, poverty is eating up what has been gained by our heroes, including the very foundation of our nationhood – our dignity as a people. In times like this, our country needs a hero. Soon, our new hero will certainly rise. I don’t know where I get my hope for this prayer but I am sure somewhere, someone will answer the signs of times.

Our Philippines definitely is in dire search of a hero who will empower its people to perfect its being and fate. Someone who while in power and given the responsibility will yield the same to the people. Have the Ramon Magsaysay Awards helped us find our modern hero? Has the Nobel Prizes eluded us for some reasons?

Your guess is as good as the whole nation who practically begs for everyone to share a piece of this responsibility and power for her/his own people. Our heroes responded to the signs.

And there are other nameless and faceless individuals who do their own share of heroism in our struggle to regain what we had in the beginning of history.

There is certainly one with a name and face that is familiar to us. He may even come with several names (Tatay, Ama, Papa, Father) - but there is only one that endears him to us. Call him, and a hero is with us.

Human Rights Against Human Wrongs

“The conception, the idea of Right asserted its authority all at once, and the old framework of injustice could offer no resistance to its onslaught.” – Hegel, Philosophy of History

           Why is it that humans feature and point out what is wrong rather what is right?

            Whatever happened in Pangantucan, Bukidnon in 2000 that resulted to the deaths of 16 cult members of the Catholic God’s Spirit and 4 militiamen is up to the prayers to justice to both victims? While the public is painstakingly dragged to blur the truth, the authorities are digging holes to justify the unspeakable acts of their subordinates. They are trying to cheat the TV footages that bear the raw images of people being killed. The veracity of those shots of film could equal the law of gravity that all things that go up must come down. Yet they have the face to declare that what happened should be viewed in its entire context, not in a few minutes of footages. Conversely the public cannot be told to think in which way the authorities will want them to think. Those film shots sonorously unveil the only piece of truth the public can get hold of the gory incidence in Bukidnon, the Philippines.

            It is defined in the Rules of Engagement of the Philippine National Police that the use of force is justified only if it becomes the last resort when all other peaceful and non-violent means have been exhausted. With guns ready for action anytime, the authorities expose themselves to the slightest provocation of using force not as the last resort but the first line of defense. The two excuses are mutually dichotomized and yet can be referred interchangeably as if each one were of the same kind. These two are being invoked by the authorities as the justification of the enraged overkill of 16 people that should have been a simple arrest of one wanted person. Any concerned citizen would like to think that this becomes an exception rather than a rule with the activation of the CAFGUs. Otherwise the authorities are implicitly inviting citizens to arm themselves if confronted by the same undisciplined and haphazardly trained units of militiamen. This implication runs counter with the current drive of Dept. Interior Local Government in getting rid of the unlicensed and loose firearms, which are normally used in illegal activities and crimes. While the authorities are trying to confiscate the loose firearms and encouraging the citizens not to arm in order to protect themselves, they should also observe the discipline and training of those who are tasked and supposedly to protect the public. Unless this is achieved, they cannot talk peace and have guns at the same time.

            Anyway, what on earth has compelled man to do such ferocious act against another man? I am tempted to dismiss the notion that man is inherently evil but it brings me to light that we like to watch boxing and cockfighting, two figures scalping, hitting bloodily. It is further reinforced when Echegaray was sentenced to die and how we all waited for its consummation. Interestingly, the sight of blood and conflict excite the vulnerability of giving in easily to our temporal indulgence. However, the great Rousseau helps me to come to a personal conviction, that man is naturally good and that it is by institutions alone that he becomes evil.

Oh My, What Happened To The Philippines?

Today is Human Rights Day.

It could have been splendid for human rights advocacy if governments' representatives had intended to attend the awarding of Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese human rights activist who is jailed because of his advocacy. Then, it would have been clear that globally human rights, as a collective set, is at the heart of governance.

It could have been.. But China was reported to have waged an intense campaign and pressure to boycott the awarding. Earlier, eighteen (18) countries have succumbed to that pressure. Now, at least only sixteen (16) countries because Serbia and Ukraine made a turnaround and announced that it would send a representative to the ceremony in Oslo. Among the sixteen countries, the Philippines is one of them.

How could one view the non-attendance of the Philippines in the awarding ceremony of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to a jailed Chinese dissident?

One way to view it is to look at the explanation of the invited party. The Philippine government justified its conspicuous absence by saying that the non-attendance is not a boycott but a conflict of schedule of the Ambassador to Norway. Anyone buying this justification? Come on, even a 5-year old kid could provide a better reason than that.

Another way to look at it is the rise of China in the global arena. With so much cash reserves, China has leverage to influence decision-making of any governments in need of necessary investments. The Philippines is a host to huge Chinese investments, making China its third largest trading partner. And it can only get bigger and bigger.

And another way to view it is to take account of the recent hostage-taking incident in Manila which killed eight Chinese tourists. The non-attendance of the Philippines could be its way of atonement and seeking reconciliation to the aggrieved and angry Chinese peoples and government.

Alongside with the Philippines, a number of countries would not be around during the awarding. I am not going to dwell on the list of countries that are alleged to have succumbed to the Chinese pressure and supported the Chinese protest against the Nobel. Although many point to the similarities of those that will boycott the awarding, I would not magnify the obvious defining characteristics of these countries - the way they treat and uphold human rights in their own jurisdictions.

Each country has its own reason for its non-attendance. I would leave the evaluation of their reasons to the reasoning public and readers.

Share or Restrain Power?: Rethinking of the University Students’ Participation in Decision-making

When the Costa Rica-based University for Peace (UPeace) launched the Dual Campus Master Programme on International Peace Studies in the Philippines in 2007, there were 30 students from 11 Asian countries who made it to the Programme. Being the first batch of students under the new Dual Campus Programme, the students experienced the complexity of decision-making under the set-up of dual campus. While the center of decision-making remains at Costa Rica, there are two personnel of UPeace who have delegated authority to attend and respond to some issues raised by the students. One particular issue that was strongly raised by many students was about the decision of UPeace to arrange the accommodation of all students using their stipend without the students’ participation in the decision-making process. The students felt that any decision-making that concerns them should include their participation in the process.

Like any other organizations in a free and democratic society, a university adopts a certain decision-making mechanism that governs and affects its faculty, staff, students, and other members. The students, being a significant part of a university, should play an active part in the decision-making process that affects them. There is a “generally accepted political proposition that in free societies all those affected by a social policy have an inalienable right to a voice in its formulation” (McGrath 1970, 51). However, a university operates within and is embedded in a power structure that defines mostly its decisions. Morison (1970, 25) describes the “reality of power structure in the university that implies the acceptance of an administrative diagram which shows power-flowing down from the trustees, through the president to the faculty, with nothing left for distribution to the lowly students.” He continues that “the university is perceived to be virtually beyond the reach of the influence of students. It is this perception which lies behind much of the clamor about student powerlessness and the demand to be allowed to make decisions affecting the student’s own life” (Ibid, 51).

Acceptability of an effective decision hinges on the kind of participation given by the people concerned and involved (Prescott, 1980). In a university, some students are passive recipients of decisions but many students refuse to be just on the receiving end. The more the decision excludes participation of students, the more they will likely reject the decision and clamor for inclusion in the decision-making. For the students, a decision can be more effective if they take part in the decision-making process. This proposition will expectedly face objections from university administrators and educators.

McGrath (1970) enumerates five objections to student participation in the decision-making. First, due to their large numbers, students will dominate decision-making bodies in universities. Second, due to limited life experiences, students’ immaturity will reflect in their decision-making. Third, due to limited number of years in a university, students will miss to look at the larger and longer picture. Fourth, students have yet to gain specialized abilities and professional values. And finally, being part of decision-making will interfere with the students’ studies and gainful employment. It would be pointed out that these objections do not hold ground for the following reasons. Let us take them one by one. The apprehension that the students will dominate in the decision-making bodies is very unlikely to happen since members of these bodies are representatives of various groups that are proportionately represented. Both the immaturity of students and lack of professional values will be better dealt with by the challenges and lessons to be handled and learned at the interactive discussions of these decision-making bodies in which the students participate. The students are not supposed and expected to ponder the larger and longer picture of the issues because this is the work of administrators who shall balance the present and future needs and goals. The students are expected to give opinions and concrete examples on the issues based on their experiences and perspectives. The concern that students’ participation in the decision-making will interfere in their studies and gainful employment undermines the motivation of students towards their studies and employment. These objections to the students’ participation rest on a shallow ground to merit attention on their arguments.

On the other hand, there are six justifications for students’ participation (Ibid, 1970). First, with the sophistication of students and their serious and informed interests, it will be good and instructive to listen to students’ interesting voices and ideas. Second, in preparation for the students to be good citizens, they should be educated and exposed to democratic exercises like school elections and participating in decision-making activities. Third, through their experiences, students can improve higher education in general. Fourth, by treating them as maturing adults, students can help abolish the doctrine of In Loco Parentis (in place or position of a parent) in universities. Fifth, of course in the teaching-learning environment, students can have a hand in the improvement of instruction. Sixth and finally, students are recognized voice and presence in the universities, and that they should not be ignored or excluded. These justifications underscore the significance of students’ participation in the decision-making.

There are four core values in the participatory decision-making that a university can adopt (Kaner 1996, 24). First is the encouragement of full participation of all members. Second is the mutual understanding of the legitimacy of each other. Third is the inclusive solution from which various perspectives and needs are considered. The last core value is the shared responsibility of the task. This is to highlight that the task of decision-making is not on the officers, managers, and administrators alone but is shared by everybody who has a stake on the decision to be made.

Kaner (1996, 29) also presents the benefits of participatory values in decision-making.  These benefits are personal learning of those who participate in the decision-making, development of effective groups, and sustainable agreements. Of particular interest here are the sustainable agreements that are netted by participatory decision-making. If students are included in the decision-making processes in universities, there will be less restlessness and clamor among students to be transparent and accountable in the decision-making process since they are part and privy of the process.

Should universities then share their power on decision-making with their students? Or should they restrain power in themselves? The quality and effectiveness of a decision lie in the openness of the universities for participatory decision-making since they traditionally hold the key for this kind of decision-making. Obviously, the benefits of participatory decision-making are there to reap. The students are there to be tapped for their sea of potentials. The universities are there to facilitate these potentials into fruition. Thus, whatever the tasks and functions of universities, they are always seen as shared responsibility, with the community, parents, local officials, government, and especially students who care for their education, have a stake as anyone else, and want to seize the opportunity to take command of their actions and future as responsible members of society.

References:

Kaner, Sam. “Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-making.” British Columbia: New Society Publishers, 1996.

McGrath, Earl. “Should Students Share the Power?: A Study of their Role in College and University Governance.” Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1970.

Morison, Robert. “Students and Decision making.” Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1970.

 Prescott, Bryan. “Effective Decision-making: A Self-development Programme.” Hampshire: Gower Publishing Company Limited, 1980.

To a certain Carlos who came to church

Dear Carlos,

As you read this, I pray for your well-being inside the juvenile jail cell.

Surprised and shocked, I could not hold shaking my head for quite a number of times after I saw your own "civil disobedience." As I saw it, there was no civility in the act. Yeah, it was a show of disobedience.

I understand the anger and disgust in the threat of excommunication from the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to President Aquino. To my mind, it is uncalled for and inappropriate for a representative of highly respected and influential CBCP to give such a threat to a newly elected and legitimate President. It is a plain display of moral ascendancy at the time when the Church is confronted by abuses and scandals worldwide.

As a Filipino citizen, you have the right to defend your President and voice your sentiments on issues.

I am a Filipino too. And President Aquino is my President too. And our Philippine society, I believe, is governed by laws, decency, and tolerance. Even Rizal, I imagine, would not claim and see himself in your act of disrespecting the institution and sobriety of a holy Mass. As far as I know and you know this more than I do, Rizal was a sensible man.

If you want the Church to get out of politics, you are not alone. I would also favor to see this. I don't like my church to get involved in the operations of the civilian government.

However, both the Church and the State have quite the same constituency in the Philippines. Besides, the issue at hand directly affects the flocks of the Church and citizens of the Philippine government on their moral decision-making. In this case, I would like my church and government to help me reach an informed decision.

And at this point, they are doing their jobs well, except the threat from a representative of CBCP. [Again, I'd stress that he is not the Church. Like me, your neighbors, your relatives and friends, he is a member of the Church. So when you direct your anger and disgust to the Church, you also vent those to us. In catechism, we know that the Church resides in every believer.]

As Filipinos, we know and understand basketball. I hope you like basketball as most Filipinos do.  In NBA, imagine someone guarding Lebron James or Kobe Bryant. The guard knows that James or Bryant will score more than ten or twenty points in any given game. But does it mean that he should stop guarding James or Bryant because both will score anyway? NO! He still has to do his job - guarding those prolific scorers.

The Church is playing guard here. It does and will do something that James or Bryant and their fans won't like, but the guard must not bow down, whether he is liked or not. It is his job to guard and stop the scoring.

The Church is guarding against actions without responsibility and obligation. Actions can be done in certain conditions (e.g. sex in the context of marriage). After marriage, parenting is such a huge responsibility. It is like sharing the gift of creation. With this gift comes responsibility. Condoms and artificial contraceptives do not remind us of this gift. Rather, they result to a wasted gift.

I feel that there is a misplaced blame towards the Church on overpopulation which is said to be dragging the country to the pits of poverty. Because of its policies and advocacies on abortion and contraceptions, the Church is being made as a scapegoat of something that it has not caused.

Yeah, I agree that we have a problem on overpopulation. But it is too much to relate overpopulation alone with poverty. I hope you have seen a politician that has become poor or has remained similar in economic standing after his/her term ends. I wish you had been to the rural areas where almost no infrastructure project is being implemented while in Metro Manila, a paved road is being dug out to be paved again. The basic problem is on the management and distribution of the country's resources. We are not a poor country, supposedly, but we are. Is it because of the Church?

I hope you have a good sleep inside the jail with your new friends. I know that you are an amazing storyteller. But your last story does not amaze me at all. Anyhow, you have the prayers of millions for your well-being.

Yours,

Juan Filipino Catholico

Human Rights and Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines: A Note on the Arroyo Government (2001-2007)

July 2007 is an eventful month for human rights in the Philippines under the Arroyo government. First, after a great deal of debate and delay, an anti-terrorism law or officially known as Human Security Act (Republic Act 9372) has finally been passed. Critics of the new law say that it is subject to the abuse of the government and therefore would lead to more human rights violations. The government, on the other hand, believes that the new law would strengthen the institutions like the courts and police in protecting the human rights of the citizens against terror. Second, just a day after the passage of the Human Security Act into law, a two-day National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances: Searching for Solutions was held under the initiative of the Supreme Court and was participated in by stakeholders and duty-bearers of human rights. Third, a concurrent two-day summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on human rights to look into the creation of a regional human rights commission was also held in Manila. With these events, human rights and security have again taken center stage among the concerns and considerations for our path and vision of the common future of the country, region, and even of the world. Fourth, the State of the Nation Address (SONA) of the president merely mentioned sparingly the state of human rights especially extrajudicial killings. She just urged the Congress to enact laws, but was short of commanding the military and police to stop the killings and other human rights violations.

It would be noted that 48 member-states of the United Nations (UN) including the Philippines ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. In his book, International Standards and Agreements on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Reynaldo Ty (1989) defines a declaration as “a formal statement which refers to the common standard of achievement” (p. 3). Being a declaration, it is not legally binding but it sets a common reference to human rights among the signatories and, in fact, has gained, over time, international acceptance and status as standards against which either compliance or violation of the provisions in the declaration is monitored.

Signatories of the declaration recognize that these standards impose obligations, duties and commitments on them to comply and enforce in their respective territorial state. Donnely (2003), the author of In Defense of the Universal Declaration Model, points out that the states have become the “new exclusive instrument for implementing internationally recognized human rights” (p. 40). In other words, the practice of human rights heavily relies on the political, economic, and cultural dynamics of a certain state. This monism follows the generally accepted principle that the enforcement of human rights is in the hands of the states (Ty, 1989).

Although in principle the declaration is not legally binding, the Philippine state through the doctrine of incorporation has adopted the declaration as part of the law of the land (Ty, 1989). The Philippine Constitution of 1987 expressly states this incorporation in Article II, Section 2; “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.”

Furthermore, being a signatory of the declaration makes its adoption and incorporation into the national laws more compelling and valid. However, being a signatory does not necessarily guarantee and translate into full compliance and enforcement. Thus, can being a signatory to the declaration make a difference in the protection and respect of human rights?

In his article, Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights, Neumayer (2005) finds out that “the beneficial effect of ratification of human rights treaties is typically conditional on the extent of democracy and the strength of civil society groups as measured by participation in non-government organizations (NGOs) with international linkages”(p. 926). He concluded that the ratification might not have any effect or might even lead to further human rights violations without democratic spaces and presence of strong civil society.

This paper looks at the case of the present Philippine government, as a signatory to the declaration, and how it performs in the field of human rights particularly with regard to the spate of extrajudicial killings by revisiting the reports of Melo commission and UN-designated Special Rapporteur, Philip Alston, on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Then, the paper proceeds with a discussion on the effect of ratifying an internationally-accepted declaration on the Philippine government in the hope of an end to the killings.

Extrajudicial killings under the Arroyo government

The Philippine government recently has been under intense local and international criticisms for the unabated extrajudicial killings of mostly activists and journalists since Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ascended to power in 2001. On its 1983 report about Political Killings by Governments, Amnesty International (AI), an international organization that works for the protection of human rights, defines extrajudicial killings as those killings “committed outside the judicial process and in violation of national laws and international standards forbidding the arbitrary deprivation of life” (pp. 5-6). It would be recalled that only in June 2006 that the Philippines repealed its death penalty law. Therefore prior to June 2006, the Philippine government had judicial killings sanctioned by the death penalty law of the state. The extrajudicial killings referred to by AI are also alternatively called political killings because they are deliberate and directed to neutralize or silence opposition members. To substantiate its allegation on the rising extrajudicial killings, AI (2006) documented 51 extrajudicial killings in the Philippines for the first six months of 2006 and 66 killings in the whole of 2005. It estimated that for the whole year of 2006, the numbers of killings ranged from at least 61 to 96 incidents. This disturbing high number of killings in 2006 could be attributed to the Arroyo government’s February 16, 2006 -declaration of an all-out war against the New People’s Army (NPA), the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines. Moreover, on February 22, 2007, a news report from the online edition of The Independent, a newspaper in United Kingdom, revealed that according to a local human rights group, Karapatan, at least 832 people were either killed or declared missing since Arroyo assumed the presidency in 2001. In the weekly Philippine Daily Inquirer’s (PDI) Talk of the Town for July 22, 2007, it quoted Karapatan’s last count of extrajudicial killings which is currently pegged at 863 deaths. These killings captured headlines and international attention in 2005 and 2006 when successive and patterned killings and disappearances of unarmed activists and non-combatants known to be critical of the Arroyo government were reported.

The same 1983 AI report on political killings by government, drawing from the 1982 International Conference on Extrajudicial Executions in the Netherlands, identified the “preconditions” or indicators of political killings and other human rights violations by governments. These possible preconditions are “the imposition of a state of emergency, martial law, or other states of exception; the occurrence of other human rights violations such as irregular arrests and detentions, ‘disappearances’ and torture; the identification of certain groups as ‘enemies;’ claims of ‘encounters’ with armed groups resulting in deaths” (p. 103). Prophetic as the report might be, these preconditions or indicators of the killings existed in 2006.

Incidentally, these extrajudicial killings occurred when the Arroyo government was seriously challenged by a broad coalition of anti-government forces which included some military personnel, recently-resigned cabinet secretaries, former president, sitting senate president, a number of Catholic bishops, and the influential Makati Business Club over the wiretapped conversation of Arroyo and a Commission on Election (COMELEC) commissioner named Garcillano at the height of counting of votes in the 2004 presidential election. The taped conversation which is now known as “Hello Garci” revealed the alleged large-scale manipulation of votes in certain parts of Mindanao in favor of Arroyo. As a result, the Arroyo government was hounded by a legitimacy issue which it avoided to confront and address in both legal and informal processes such as an impeachment proceeding and interviews. This unresolved charge of cheating in the election contributed to its plummeting popularity. In the Social Weather Station’s (SWS) survey of Arroyo’s net satisfaction ratings, double-digit negative net ratings were registered in the whole two years of 2005 and 2006 with negative 33 as the lowest ever satisfaction rating given to a president in the post-Marcos era. In fact, only Arroyo has posted negative ratings in the SWS survey among the presidents, from Aquino to Arroyo. These negative ratings could be the most telling proof of the unpopularity and dissatisfaction of the people on the president.

Previous governments, from Aquino to Estrada, also had a history of extrajudicial killing or “salvaging” during their terms. Muyot (1992) talked about the human rights in the Philippines during the Corazon Aquino government (1986-1992) which was responsible for the restoration of democratic structures after the fall of the authoritarian regime by Marcos. Yet there were 167 cases of salvaging as reported by the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP) during the entire Aquino’s term. In the first year of Fidel Ramos government (1992-1998) with which victory was questioned while having the smallest plurality of votes in the Philippine electoral history, the 1993 human rights report of the Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights) documented 61 salvaging cases. Ramos, a military man and former chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), was endorsed by Aquino, who had experienced nine coup attempts in her term, to succeed her. In 1998, Joseph Estrada was popularly elected by 11 million Filippinos, more than double of his closest rival. On the Estrada government’s last year before EDSA Dos, the PhilRights (2001), citing report from TFDP, pointed to the “extrajudicial killings in the form of salvaging continued to haunt the populace with 8 identified cases of salvaging, all without reports of arrests” (p. 39). Then, EDSA Dos, another people power revolution that ousted Estrada from office due to alleged massive corruption and unexplained wealth, happened where Arroyo as the vice-president of Estrada assumed office in 2001.

There seems to be a relationship between legitimacy and human rights record. Donnely (2003) concedes that “political legitimacy is increasingly judged by and expressed in terms of internationally-recognized human rights” (p. 23). Although the legitimacy issue of Arroyo government stems from its alleged cheating in the 2004 election, the extrajudicial killings and other acts inimical to human rights further erode and put under question its political legitimacy to govern in the eyes of both national and international constituencies. In the report of AI (1983), Political Killings by Governments, most governments that committed these killings were struggling and having problems with legitimacy issues in their own countries.

Dark days that were 2006

In its effort to hold on to power despite its growing unpopularity and legitimacy issue as narrated in the running account by the online PDI, the Arroyo government issued controversial executive and administrative orders, and proclamations which were later found by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. One of which is Proclamation No. 1017 which put the whole country into a state of emergency by which the AFP was mandated to suppress lawless violence. This proclamation was issued in February 2006 after the Arroyo government had allegedly discovered the collusion among elements of the broad spectrum of the political actors – from extreme left (communists) to extreme right (disgruntled soldiers) and in between a sector of civil society and middle ground forces – to topple the government. With Proclamation No. 1017, the Arroyo government undertook actions which further eroded its human rights record down the sink. It raided and closed down one national newspaper, issued a prescribed guideline and standard for media practitioners in reporting the news, had the six leftist party-list representatives arrested without preliminary investigation on the charge of rebellion, and arrested a former cabinet secretary and her group for organizing a public assembly without a permit. It was at this time when the government banned protests and demonstrations and in the process, undermining the country’s democratic values of free speech and citizens’ right to assembly and express their sentiments and grievances. Then, the killings and disappearances started to be reported in the news. Many people likened those dark days and the present circumstances similar to the Marcos dictatorial years. The impression sent to the people by these blatant violations of human rights particularly the killings and disappearances is that there is a price to be paid for being vigilant and assertive of rights.

The victims as “enemies of the state” (Melo Commission report)

To denounce this growing impression, the Arroyo government, as posted on its website, officially created an independent commission under Administrative Order (AO) 157 on August 21, 2006 to investigate these extrajudicial killings. A retired justice of the Supreme Court, Jose Melo, headed the commission with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) director, chief state prosecutor, an academician from University of the Philippines, a lawyer, and a Catholic bishop as members. Many critics and skeptics of the Melo commission pointed out that the commission would find itself in a bind because all members of the commission were handpicked by the government which is charged of masterminding these killings. Citing the impartiality, credibility and effectiveness problems the commission needs to address to be able to perform its mandate, families of the victims and even the survivors decided to boycott the proceedings.

For a time, the Melo commission report was unavailable to the public. The government which received the report and was keeping it had said that the report was incomplete and unfinished to be released to the public. However, after strong public pressure, the government finally released the report to the media.

The investigation revealed that the victims of these killings who were mostly activists and journalists were often tagged as “enemies of the state” by the elements of the military. There was no hard evidence though directly implicating the military establishment having an official policy sanctioning the extrajudicial killings. However, it was found out that there were some rogue officers in the military who endorsed these killings.

The commission, on its official report as posted on the website, reminded the government that “in a democratic and civilized state such as ours, one must uphold and observe the rule of law, the principles of justice, and the system and rules of how it is dispensed – from investigation to arrest, to inquest, and to trial” (p. 2). In other words, extrajudicial killings are not to be sanctioned and tolerated. The commission also clarified the concept of command responsibility. The concept does not only apply to the acts authorized and known by the superiors, rather it also includes the instances when the superior fails to stop and investigate the acts committed by his/her subordinates.

In short, the Melo commission acknowledged the increasing number of the killings of people who were classified to be “enemies of the state” and the culpability of some rogue elements in the military who perpetrated and sanctioned these killings.

“Order of Battle” against groups and individuals (Alston report)

The spate of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines has raised alarm and concern in the international community including the UN, European Union, United States, and Japan. At the invitation of the Arroyo government, Philip Alston, a Special Rapporteur of the UN on extrajudicial killings, visited the Philippines and conducted his own investigation from February 12-21, 2007. On his preliminary note for the UN General Assembly-Human Rights Council on March 22, 2007 which is available on the internet, Alston acknowledged a number of “institutional response at the national level,” such as the creation of Melo commission, Task Force Usig, special courts tasked to hear and try cases of extrajudicial killings, Presidential Human Rights Committee as distinct from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and the augmentation of fund of the CHR to better handle cases of the killings.

Similar to the Melo report, Alston also characterized the killings as product of tagging the victims as enemies of the state. He also mentioned about a leaked copy of a document signed by senior military and police officials describing the “order of battle” drawn by the AFP against groups and individuals who were to be neutralized.

Moreover, Alston pointed out why the responses made by the Arroyo government to mitigate these human rights violations were ineffective, and sometimes of little use because of the accountability problem which could have checked the abuses of authorities. For example, the executive branch of the government limited the performance of the legislative branch in its oversight function in the execution of laws by the military by requiring those invited to the legislative inquiry to ask permission from the president through the executive secretary. And normally, permission is not granted except for budget hearings. Likewise stated on Alston’s preliminary note, another example is that there seems to be “a passivity, bordering on an abdication of responsibility, which affects the way in which key institutions and actors approach their responsibilities in relation to such human rights concerns” (p. 5).

Among his recommendations to address these killings and halt the further killings of activists are the termination of military officers from issuing public statements that relate groups or individuals to the armed struggle waged by the Communist Party of the Philippines – New People’s Army (CPP-NPA), restoration and respect of the oversight function of the Congress, and the call for the Supreme Court to make use of its “constitutional powers over the practice of law” to remind the prosecutors of their duty to the public to respect and protect human rights and to speed up the investigations and cases involving the killings. The last recommendation was realized when a summit on extrajudicial killings was conducted under the initiative of the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

As a signatory to the UDHR, the Philippines has accepted the obligations, duties and commitments that the declaration entails. States that ratified it and are strong in respecting human rights and other international organizations that are concerned with human rights have put pressure on the Philippine government to abide by the principles of the declaration which are fundamental to living as human beings. Signatories or parties to an agreement “generally aspire to comply in the spirit of ‘pacta sunt servanda’ (agreements are to be kept and honored)” (Neumayer, 2005, p. 928). When there are grave human rights violations anywhere in the world, “the community for protecting human rights seems to be becoming the society of states” (Donnely, 2003, p. 41). In this so-called society of states, there are states more than equal than the others. In short, among the sovereign states, the powerful ones have leverage over the weaker ones in terms of trade, aid, labor migration, investment, and among other things. Donnely (2003) noted that the international immunity that sovereign states used to enjoy has been undermined by unrelenting and strong pressures and demands from the powerful states over the weaker ones.

Examples of these pressures and demands from the powerful states are the actions of the United States (US), European Union (EU), and Japan. According to the official website of the United States Senate, its Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines: Strategies to End the Violence on March 14, 2007. The EU Ambassador to Manila, Alistair MacDonald, made a comment that the Arroyo government is “not doing enough on killings amid outcry” after an EU assessment team finished its mission to look how EU could help solve the killings, as quoted in the Channel News Asia website on June 30, 2007. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), on its website on January 16, 2007, lauded the appeal of a group of 14 Japanese non-government organizations (NGOs) to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to act more on the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines than just speaking about the killings with the Arroyo government when the Prime Minister visited the Philippines. Some of the influential international organizations that raised concerns about the killings in the Philippines are the AI, New York-based Human Rights Watch, and AHRC. As fellow signatories, powerful EU countries, US, and Japan continuously put pressure on the Arroyo government that led to the creation of Melo commission and invitation of UN Special Rapporteur by the Arroyo government to look into and shed light to these killings.

These pressures were borne out of the lobbies and advocacy campaigns of the civil society groups with effective networks globally which brought the extrajudicial killings to the attention of the international community. Neumayer (2005) earlier indicated that the positive impact of human rights treaties depends on the kind of democracy and participation and effectiveness of civil society with international linkages. Philippine democracy as measured in terms of press freedom and independence of judiciary is vibrant, particularly in the judiciary where policies of the Arroyo government that hampered and infringed human rights were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Ferrer (1997), in the book Civil Society Making Civil Society, describes the Philippines “as a strong civil society type” because of the participation of NGOs in the significant part of the country’s history like the two EDSA revolutions (p. 1). The two criteria cited by Neumayer, extent of democracy and strong and active civil society, are both present and dynamic in the Philippines. Clearly, these positive signs give hope for an end to the killings.

Aside from these factors, the declaration of the Arroyo government, as posted on its website, that its last three years in power will be for “legacy-building” phase is welcome and good news for human rights advocates. Certainly, the government does not want to be remembered for the human rights violations and extrajudicial killings. As the president said in the 2007 SONA taken from the inquirer’s website, “We must wipe this stain from our democratic record.” Vulnerably, the people will have to believe and take those words from the president who has the power to stop the extrajudicial killings and, at the same time, has a recent history of taking back her own words. God bless the Philippines!