Chapter II

Review of Related Literature

I. Commission on Human Rights

After the ratification of the 1987 Philippine Constitution on February 2, 1987, which

provides for the establishment of a Commission on Human Rights, President Corazon

Aquino, signed Executive Order No. 163 on May 5, 1987, creating the Commission on

Human Rights and abolished the Presidential Committee on Human Rights. The Commission

was created as an independent office mandated to investigate complaints of human rights

violations, promote the protection of, respect for and the enhancements of the people's human

rights including civil and political rights.

The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines is an independent organization

aimed at promoting and ensuring the protection and respect of human rights in the

Philippines. As such, it has the competency to investigate alleged violations of human rights

by referral or based on its own discretion. This description will limit itself to describing the

procedure in case of a complaint being filed. The Commission does not possess adjudicative

power, but it has the right to make recommendations and resolve conflicts through mediation

and conciliation.

The Commission’s functions as described in the Constitution of the Philippines, is to,

among other things:

 a. Investigate all forms of human rights violations;

b. Conduct fact-finding missions, visits and/or inspections of the site where the

incidents of human rights violations occurred or continue to be violated or

threatened;

c. Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all

persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad;

d. Provide assistance to victims of human rights violations and their families;

e. Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to

enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;

f. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to

provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their

families.

A. WHO CAN ACCESS IT?

Any concerned individual or group may file a complaint for human rights

violations before the Commission, particularly the victim, his / her relatives, non-government

organizations or any governmental or private entity. Anonymous complaints or complaints under

a fictitious name shall not be disregarded outright. If upon such initial evaluation or verification

or on the basis of the information or details provided in the anonymous complaint, it appears to

be meritorious or has some factual basis, the Commission shall proceed to investigate the matter.

B. HOW DOES IT WORK?

 Complaints can be lodged about any and all human rights violations. A full list of

protected human rights can be found in the Philippines Bill of Rights.Complaints are required to

be made in writingand may be in the form of a letter, affadavit, question and answer statement,

pleading or similar form. Upon the filing of a written complaint, the complainant shall be

required to accomplish CHR Form 9 – Complaint Sheet and execute a sworn statement, with the

assistance of a duty investigator or legal officer. In cases of abuse of children’s rights, the

complainant shall also accomplish pertinent sections of “CHR Form 10 – Complaints Form for

Child Rights Violations”.

Complaints can be submitted to the Commission, to the Barangay Human Rights Action

Center, through a Commissioner or any of the regional or sub-offices, nearest to the place where

the violation occurred or continues to exist.

After the complaint has been submitted, preliminary evaluation of the complaint is

performed to determine whether the matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission. This

evaluation may involve a field investigation or fact-finding mission.

At this stage, the Commission may opt to call upon the parties for a preliminary

conference to discuss immediate courses of action, protection remedies and/or possible

submission of the matter to an alternative dispute resolution whenever applicable.

If, following the preliminary evaluation, it is deemed that the case falls within the scope

of the Commission, an investigation follows. The CHR Regional Offices have the primary duty
to conduct such an investigation, with the Commission having the right to take over the

investigation. The investigation may involve conferences or dialogue with and responses to the

complaint from the parties involved. In the absence of such cooperation, the investigation can

also involve documents on record.

An investigation report will be compiled, including an investigation plan, an initial

report, progress reports, the legal basis for the investigation, profile of the victim and respondent,

the allegations, a list of witnesses, summary of evidence, all relevant data, specific provisions

violated, investigation and observation and a recommendation for resolution.

The final evaluation of the case and preparation of the resolution shall be made within 15

days from the submission of the final investigation report, together with all the evidence gathered

in the course of the investigation and/or dialogue. A final resolution is prepared by a legal

officer, subject to review and approval by the Regional Director. It consists of the facts of the

case, evidence, issues involved, a conclusion of whether there is a human rights violation and of

what provision as well as what the recommendations are.

The Office may provide alternative dispute resolution of cases through mediation and

conciliation. However, mediation and conciliation are not available in cases of serious violations,

such as child abuse, domestic violence, torture, or when the two parties do not agree to submit

their case to the process. In any other cases, the Commission may use these measures as a first

course of action before the initial investigation, or at any stage of the investigation, upon the

discretion of the investigating officer.

 The Commission cannot review human rights violations and abuses that are pending in

court and are involving the same parties and the same issue.

All records of cases shall remain confidential until the resolution of the case shall have

become final.

C. OUTCOME

The Commission can issue recommendations (endorsement for the filing of an

appropriate legal or legislative action, or grant of financial assistance), reports, declarations and

advises. These are not legally binding for the companies. Press releases by the Commission can

be used to pressure the companies into complying with the recommendations. It can also resort to

mediation and conciliation.

If a case is solved through mediation or conciliation, a settlement or an agreement is put

into writing and signed by the parties, with the assistance of a mediator or conciliator.

II. OTHER LAWS ENSURING HUMAN RIGHTS

The rights of Filipinos can be found in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Also called the Bill of Rights, it includes 22 sections which declare a Filipino citizen’s rights and

privileges that the Constitution has to protect, no matter what.

 Aside from various local laws, human rights in the Philippines are also guided by the

UN's International Bill of Human Rights – a consolidation of 3 legal documents including

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural

Rights (ICESCR).

As one of the signatories of these legal documents, the Philippines is obliged to recognize

and apply appropriate laws to ensure each right’s fulfillment.

This is not always the case, however, as the Philippine Constitution lacks explicit laws to

further cement specific human rights in the local context.

For example, the Right to Adequate Food may be included in the UNDR but it is not

explicitly indicated in the Philippine Constitution. Thus the government cannot be held

responsible if this is not attained.

III. EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS

A. Vague Domestic Definition of Extrajudicial Killings

The OHCHR defines extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions as the

“deprivation of life without full judicial and legal process, and with the

involvement, complicity, tolerance or acquiescence of the Government or its

agents.” The terms also include “death through the excessive use of force by

police or security forces.”

 Specifically, extrajudicial executions or killings are those “executions or

deaths caused intentionally by the attacks or killings by State security forces or

paramilitary groups, death squads or other private forces cooperating with the

State or tolerated by it.”

In the Philippines, the term “extrajudicial killings” does not have a clear

definition. In Secretary v. Manalo, the Supreme Court, citing the Rule on the Writ

of Amparo, opined that extralegal killings are “killings committed without due

process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings.” However,

the latter case of Razon Jr. v. Tagitis revealed that the drafters of Amparo rule

decided to “do away with [the] clear textual definition of [extrajudicial killings].”

Despite this, the Court recognized in Razon, Jr. that “extrajudicial killings and

enforced disappearances, by their nature and purpose, constitute State or private

party violation of the constitutional rights of individuals to life, liberty and

security.”

In 2013, Administrative Order No. 35 provided a rather restrictive

definition of extrajudicial or extra-legal killings as killings “wherein the victim

was a (i) a member of, or affiliated with an organization, to include political,

environmental, agrarian, labor, or similar causes; or (ii) an advocate of above-

named causes; or (iii) a media practitioner or (iv) person(s) apparently mistaken

or identified to be so.”16 It further stated that the victim was targeted by either

State or non-State agents by reason of actual of perceived membership, advocacy,

 or profession, and that the circumstances of the killing reveal a deliberate intent to

kill.

B. SETTING UP THE DRUG WAR

On May 9, 2016, the Philippines elected an iron-willed president whose

campaign promises ranged from asserting sovereignty from China, to eradicating

crime via summary execution and public hanging. Duterte’s public appearances

throughout his campaign varied from unpolished to childish, to outright vulgar.

Bringing up Duterte’s public statements in conversation sometimes elicited

comparisons to a stereotypically offensive, macho uncle. Duterte’s public persona set

him apart from his opponents in the political establishment and even earned him the

endearing pet name “uncle Digong Duterte”. Richard Heydarian, political science

professor at De La Salle University in Manila, claims that Filipinos were seeking a

commanderdisciplinarian reminiscent of Ferdinand Marcos: a bigger leader, smaller

state, to supposedly bypass impenetrable bureaucracy and combat endemic

corruption. Most alarming (but perhaps alluring to some) was Duterte’s post-election

promise to the nation’s criminals: “I do not want to commit a crime but if by chance,

God will place me there, you all better watch out. I’ll dump all of you into Manila

Bay, and fatten all the fish there”. His speeches made after his Presidential

inauguration on June 30th only intensified fears between neighbors, and often

encouraged citizens to kill suspected drug users or pushers on the spot. In one

profanity-filled speech to a crowd in the slums of Tondo, Mr. Duterte calmly explains

“if you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself as getting their parents
to do it would be too painful”. In fact, the vast majority of summary executions have

been performed by vigilantes, and on the streets of Manila lay corpses with placards

that read “I am a pusher” in Tagalog. The international community quickly reacted to

an administration fighting crime by publishing hit-lists and turning impoverished

citizens into contract killers. On August 18, the UN Special Rapporteur on

Extrajudicial Killings, Agnes Callamard, affirmed that Mr. Duterte had issued a

general “license to kill”. Duterte responded by threatening to withdraw from the

United Nations. As political tensions mounted and the death toll reached close to two

thousand, a Senate Committee was formed by Leila de Lima, a former Head of the

Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR). On September 15, Edgar Matobato,

an alleged exhitman for Duterte, testified to de Lima’s Senate Committee. Matobato

claims he witnessed Duterte order, and even carry out, extrajudicial punishment.

While this was news to the world, this was not news to most Filipinos, who have

heard Duterte publicly boast about his participation in a Death Squad: “They are

saying I am the death squad? True, that is true”.

Shortly after these events were brought to light, de Lima was replaced by

Richard Gordon as Chair of the Senate probe because her investigation had

apparently compromised the country’s reputation. Pundits claim that de Lima, now

entangled in an alleged drug smuggling and sex scandal, was the last major

opposition to Duterte’s government. After a near six thousand reported dead at the

hands of the drug war, and close to 700,000 thousand drug users surrendering to

authorities, Duterte still boasts an eighty-six percent approval rating. Miguel Syjuco,
award winning Filipino novelist, explains that the killings have not yet shocked the

conscience of most Filipinos because extrajudicial killings are construed as the only

viable, expeditious solution to a much longer history of corruption and impunity

across all areas of government. The state uses fear to justify strong-arm policies that

they claim will solve crime; policies that have historically only worked to sustain

corruption, cronyism, and the associated impunity. Parallels between Duterte’s

current tactics and Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos are not difficult to draw

when the former threatens to reinstate Martial Law, shut down Congress, and

assassinate journalists. In recent years, Filipinos saw former President (now mayor of

Manila) Joseph Estrada pardoned by his successor Gloria Arroyo after allegedly

plundering more than 80 million dollars. Duterte has already carved himself a space

in the Philippine’s history of cronyism by acquitting Arroyo of plunder, and vowing

to make an exception for himself and his auxiliaries for their involvement in the drug

war. Senator de Lima and UN Rapporteur Agnes Callamard’s claims that

extrajudicial killings are a clear derogation of the rule of law are not controversial on

any basic definition of the rule of law. My aims for the following parts of the paper

are to identify which aspects of the rule of law are hindered by extrajudicial killings,

and to elucidate a process for cultivating a rule of law society that addresses these

hindrances. I argue that this crucially depends on two mandates that tie together: i)

holding the government accountable to their obligations under the rule of law, and ii)

addressing the current constraints on meaningful civic engagement and participation.

There is no meaningful notion of civic participation, and no need for human rights

education if the rule of law is purely rhetorical or symbolic tool for political
 maneuvering, rather than a society building principle that citizens can meaningfully

engage with in practice. The next part of the paper will address this point head-on by

developing a working concept of the rule of law that opens room for discussions on

the role and power of citizens. Finding the means for addressing the difficulties with

bringing citizens into meaningful contact with the state, either because of state

coercion, poverty, or lack of information, are solutions that give greater meaning to

the activity of citizens in a rule of law society.

IV. POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

“One in four people experience a mental health episode in their lifetime, but the

issue remains largely neglected,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres in his

opening remarks to a roundtable discussion on mental health, co-organized by his

office, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Wellcome Trust, a charitable

foundation that supports scientists and researchers.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a trauma and stress related disorder that

may develop after exposure to an event or ordeal in which death, severe physical harm or

violence occurred or was threatened. Traumatic events that may trigger PTSD include

violent personal assaults, natural or unnatural disasters, accidents, or military combat.

Experiencing a life-threatening event or re-experiencing chronic exposure to

abuse or the aftermath of an event can lead to the development of PTSD. People who

suffer include military troops who served in wars; rescue workers for catastrophes like

the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.; survivors of the

Oklahoma City bombing; survivors of accidents, rape, physical or sexual abuse or other
crimes; immigrants fleeing violence in their countries; survivors of earthquakes, floods,

and hurricanes; and those who witness traumatic events. Family members of victims can

develop the disorder as well through vicarious trauma.

PTSD affects about 8 million American adults, and can occur at any age,

including childhood. Women are more likely to develop the disorder than men, and there

is some evidence that it may run in families. PTSD is frequently accompanied by

depression, substance abuse, or anxiety disorders. When other conditions are

appropriately diagnosed and treated, the likelihood of successful treatment increases.

Roughly 30 percent of Vietnam veterans developed PTSD. The disorder also has

been detected in as many as 10 percent of Gulf War (Desert Storm) veterans, about

6 percent to 11 percent of veterans of the Afghanistan war, and about 12 percent to

20 percent of veterans of the Iraq war.

For veterans, factors related to combat may further increase risk for PTSD and

other mental health problems. These include the veteran's role in the war, the politics

around the war, where it's fought, and the type of enemy faced. Another cause of PTSD

in the military is military sexual trauma (MST) or sexual harassment or assault that

occurs in the military. MST can happen to men and women and can occur during

peacetime, training, or war. Among veterans using VA health care, about 23 percent of

women reported sexual assault while in the military, 55 percent of women and 38 percent

of men have experienced sexual harassment when in the military.

 When symptoms develop immediately after exposure and persist for up to a

month, the condition may be called acute stress disorder. PTSD is diagnosed when the

stress symptoms following exposure have persisted for over a month. Delayed expression

of PTSD can occur if symptoms arise six months or more following the onset of trauma.

A. CAUSES

The cause of PTSD is unknown, but psychological, genetic, physical, and social factors

are involved. PTSD changes the body's response to stress. It affects the stress hormones and

chemicals that carry information between the nerves (neurotransmitters). Prior exposure to

trauma in the past may increase the risk of PTSD due to re-experience of trauma. People who

have suffered childhood abuse or other previous traumatic experiences are likely to develop the

disorder, sometimes months or years after the trauma. Temperamental variables such as

externalizing behaviors, or other anxiety issues may also increase risk. Other environmental risk

factors include family dysfunction, childhood adversity, cultural variables, family history of

psychiatric illness. The greater the magnitude of the trauma, the greater the risk for PTSD—

witnessing atrocities, severe personal injury, perpetrating violence. Inappropriate coping

mechanisms, lack of social support or family instability or financial instability may further

worsen outcomes.

Other factors, called resilience factors, can help reduce the risk of the disorder. Some of

these resilience factors are present before the trauma and others become important during and

after a traumatic event. Resilience factors that may reduce the risk of PTSD include seeking out
support from other people, such as mental health professionals, friends and family, finding a

support group after a traumatic event, feeling good about one's own actions in the face of danger,

having a coping strategy, or a way of getting through the bad event and learning from it, and

being able to act and respond effectively despite feeling fear.

B. TREATMENT

If you are diagnosed with PTSD, your doctor will likely prescribe a combination of

therapies, including:

 Cognitive behavioral therapy, or “talk therapy,” to encourage you to remember the traumatic

event and to express your feelings about it. This can help desensitize you to the trauma and

reduce your symptoms.

 Support groups, where you can discuss your feelings with other people who have PTSD. This

will help you realize that your symptoms are not unusual and that you’re not alone.

 Medications, such antidepressants, anti-anxiety drugs, and sleep aids, to decrease the

frequency of intrusive and frightening thoughts and to help you get some rest. The U.S. Food

and Drug Administration has approved two antidepressants for the specific treatment of

PTSD: sertraline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil).

Many people who suffer from PTSD turn to illicit drugs and alcohol to cope with their

symptoms. While these methods may temporarily alleviate your symptoms of PTSD, they don’t

treat the underlying cause of stress. They can even make some symptoms worse. If you have
trouble with substance abuse, your therapist may also recommend a 12-step program to reduce

your dependency on drugs or alcohol.

III. RELIEFS/REMEDIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT