Some People Need Killing: Book Review

Some People Need Killing is former Rappler reporter Patricia Evangelista's account of Duterte's drug war. 

The story is familiar to everyone. Duterte was elected as president of the Philippines in 2016 on the promise of killing drug users and criminals and cleaning up the country.  As Duterte warned:

“I’m telling the Filipino people, not me,” said the mayor. “It’s going to be bloody, because I will not sit there as president and just like any other regime, say, ‘That’s all I can do.’ If you put me there, do not fuck with me.”

But, Patricia notes, none of Duterte's supporters took his words literally. In fact to believe anything he said was to be meshed in a net of contradictions.

To vote for Rodrigo Duterte, you had to believe in certain things. You had to believe, for example, that he was a righteous man. You had to believe he wasn’t a rapist, and didn’t want to be a rapist. You had to believe he was poor, or was once poor, or had lived with the poor. You had to believe in destiny. You had to believe in God. You had to believe that God had a peculiar preference for deadly autocrats, because the presidency is destiny and Rodrigo Duterte was destined to lead.

To believe in Rodrigo Duterte, you had to believe he was brave. You had to believe he would cut America out of military agreements and that Barack Obama was a son of a bitch. You had to fear China, or you had to love China, or you had to believe, in the face of China’s territorial aggression, that Rodrigo Duterte was willing to ride a Jet Ski out into the open sea to plant a flag on the disputed islands China had seized.

To believe in Rodrigo Duterte, you had to believe he was a killer, or that he was joking when he said he was a killer. You had to believe in the specter of a narco state, or you had to believe that he was only playing to the crowd. You had to believe drug addiction is criminal, that drug addicts are not human, and that their massacre can be considered acceptable public policy. You had to believe he could make crime and corruption and illegal drugs disappear in three to six months. You had to believe that a mayor who kept peace by ordering undesirables out of his city could succeed in a country where undesirables were citizens too. You had to believe the intended dead would be drug lords and rapists, only drug lords and rapists, and not your cousins who go off into Liguasan Marsh to pick up their baggies of meth. You had to believe there would be a warning before the gunshots ring out.

To believe in Rodrigo Duterte, you had to believe he was just. You had to believe he was honest. You had to believe he was untainted by the oligarchy and beholden to no one. You had to believe he was your father. You had to believe he was your savior. You had to believe he loved you, because you love him enough to carry his name.

Months before the election Patricia collaborated on a Rappler series profiling each candidate and imagining how their presidency would play out. Of Duterte Patrica wrote:

In the three months before the presidential election, I collaborated on an opinion series with the sociologist Nicole Curato. The Imagined President was a series of presidential profiles published in Rappler, mapping the narrative arcs of every presidential candidate. We compared myth with reality in an attempt to understand what resonated with the voting public.

The final installment was published on May 2, seven days before the elections. It ended with a warning: “If Rodrigo Duterte wins,” we wrote, “his dictatorship will not be thrust upon us. It will be one we will have chosen for ourselves. Every progressive step society has made has been diminished by his presence. Duterte’s contempt for human rights, due process, and equal protection is legitimized by the applause at the end of every speech. We write this as a warning. The streets will run red if Rodrigo Duterte keeps his promise. Take him at his word—and know you could be next.”

I regretted those sentences within a day of publication. They were sensational, colorful, with none of the restraint expected of working journalists. I would have expunged them if I could.

On June 30, 2016, we became Duterte. The streets ran red.

The rest of the book is mostly a catalogue of how the streets ran red. 

Patricia documents particular killings, the involvement of vigilante groups such as the Confederate Sentinels Group (CSG), the attitude of the PNP, the deception of the PNP and their involvement in the killings, and her own journalistic endeavors. 

It is a matter of record that Duterte promised cops they would not be prosecuted for murder so long as they were doing their duty. 

The president offered every cop a promise. He would believe them if they claimed to have killed in the performance of duty. Every cop charged and convicted who followed his orders would be pardoned. “Don’t be afraid. Don’t be afraid to kill for as long as it’s those idiots, if they start to fuck with your city.”

So, the killings began. Every night the bodies piled up with each time the cops claiming the dead pulled a gun and the killing was done in self-defense as their duty. Analyzing many individual cases Patricia notes the PNP was getting an unbelievably high and accurate kill ratio:

More than a hundred suspects “who yielded” were arrested. All thirty- two suspects who offered armed resistance were shot and killed. There were no injured cops. There were no wounded suspects. To believe this narrative is to believe that local cops clocked a 100 percent kill rate, higher than the already improbable 97 percent reported by a Reuters investigative team in 2016, higher than the 83 percent of the notorious police shootings in Rio de Janeiro.

“Luckily,” wrote one Bulacan lieutenant colonel, “there were no casualties on the PNP side.”

Were they murders? The cops did not call these deaths murders. If they were not murders, was every Bulacan policeman, including the rawest of recruits, a marksman of such astonishing talent that every random armed encounter was met with such fatal accuracy? If they were not murders, how was it possible that police reported no casualties after twenty-five separate gunfights inside a single twenty-four-hour period? And if they were not murders, did every suspect who shot at the police miss the target?

Luck, said the police.

Good, said the president.

Patricia spends a good deal explaining how language was subverted, not just to describe the drug war, but also in everyday parlance. Take for instance the word "salvage."

There are other terms for this. Extrajudicial killing. Vigilante-style murder. Targeted assassination. In the Philippines, a specific word evolved for this specific sort of death. The word is salvage.

Contronyms are Janus words, two-faced and adversarial. An alarm can turn off, or it can go off. A moon might be out as the lights go out. Contronyms mean the opposite of themselves, occupying an abstract category of the English language. He left; she was left. He ran fast; she held fast. He sanctioned the killings; she sanctioned the killers.

Salvage, in my country, is a contronym. It is a hopeful word everywhere else. To salvage is to rescue, regardless of whether the salvaged is a ship or a soul. Salvage and salvation are rooted in the same word—salvus, “to save.” So sayeth the book of Luke: “And Jesus said to him, this day is salvation come to this house, as much as he also is a son of Abraham, for the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

During the drug war no one was killed, they were neutralized. 

Here is another word for death. The word is neutralized.

Project Double Barrel, laid out in Command Memorandum Circular No. 16-2016, seeks, among other goals, the “neutralization of illegal drug personalities nationwide.” Human rights lawyers argue it is an order to kill.

On the basis of that word, they have challenged the entire drug war apparatus at the high court.

Nowhere in the memorandum, or elsewhere in Philippine law, is the word neutralization defined. “Neutralize means to kill,” wrote the lawyers of the Free Legal Assistance Group.

The government insisted that to neutralize meant only “to overcome resistance.” Whether that meant to disable or to kill depended on the exigencies of the moment. Those moments are many. Twenty-six-year-old Raymond Yumul of Concepcion in Tarlac was neutralized. Jeffrey Cruz of Carcel Street in Quiapo was neutralized. Samar native Wilfredo Chavenia was “neutralized while the other suspect managed to escape.” John Ryan Baluyot of Olongapo City was “completely neutralized.” Two unnamed male suspects, distinguished only by the color of their shirts—one white, one gray—were both neutralized. Fernando Gunio of Quezon City, who “sensed the presence of police operatives,” allegedly pulled out a handgun and fired, forcing the police to “neutralize the said suspect.” Forty-two- year-old Arnel Cruz and fifty-one-year-old Oliver Reganit “were neutralized before they could hide in the middle of the cornfield.” Renato dela Rosa, alias Jay-jay Toyo, after allegedly opening fire, was cornered and “subsequently neutralized by the responding police officers.”

Each of these men is dead, but in the official reports of all these cases, none of them were referred to in the narrative of events as killed. They were neutralized, verb and noun, as was narrated by the Bulacan officers who shot Justine Bucacao and Bernard Lizardo: “Neutralized suspects sustained gunshot wounds on different parts of their bodies.”

Then there is the word "good." Duterte called the drug war killings "maganda 'yun." But as Patricia informs us Duterte did not mean the killings were "good" he meant they were "beautiful."

“Thirty-two died early in Bulacan in a massive raid,” said President Duterte. “Maganda ‘yun.”

In Filipino, maganda means “beautiful.” It can also mean “good.” It was unclear what the president meant that afternoon in August, but there was a reason every English-language local news organization chose to use the word good instead of beautiful. Good, as egregious a judgment as it was, was far less outrageous than beautiful. Beautiful would have offered an element of pleasure, a romanticizing of brutality, the impression that the commander in chief of a democratic republic was not just pleased but delighted by the ruthless killing of his citizens.

Those of us who wrote of the president and his frequent incitements to violence did so in good faith, offering the benefit of the doubt to a man whose rambling threats had come to target members of the free press. We translated his putang ina into “son of a bitch” instead of “son of a whore.”

We repeated his spokespersons’ smiling excuses, their explanations that the president should be taken “seriously, not literally,” that his words required “creative imagination” in their interpretation, and that it was only “heightened bravado” that had him encouraging his soldiers to rape on the battlefield.

I quoted the president’s statement on my own social media page: “ ‘Thirty-two died early in Bulacan in a massive raid,’ said President Duterte. ‘That’s good.’ ”

A reader left a comment. “For the record, he did not say 32 dead was a good thing,” he wrote. “Duterte said it was beautiful. Let not the perversity be lost in translation.”

Here then is what the president said in the late afternoon of August 16, 2017.

“Thirty-two died early in Bulacan in a massive raid. That’s beautiful. If we can kill another thirty-two every day, then maybe we can reduce what ails the country.”

It is rather odd that Patricia speaks of writing "the President and his frequent incitements to violence did so in good faith, offering the benefit of the doubt." After already noting that he threatened to kill and after writing a profile warning "the streets will run red if Rodrigo Duterte keeps his promise. Take him at his word." What benefit of the doubt was there to give except to take him at his word which she says is literal? 

During Duterte's term and even now the argument rages on whether Duterte ever ordered the cops to kill anyone. Yet, that is exactly what happened as soon as he was elected. Why? Because he told the cops to do so. Likewise the killings stopped when Duterte told the cops to stop killing. This came about because of the killing of South Korean businessman Jee Ick Joo.

The story made the international news. The South Korean embassy called for an investigation. The Senate held hearings. Two police officers were charged with, one later convicted of, the crime kidnapping with homicide. There were reports the victim’s head had been wrapped in packing tape and his corpse cremated—before a panicked funeral parlor employee flushed the ashes down a toilet.

It was seven months after the declaration of the drug war. More than seven thousand were dead, and only then was Rodrigo Duterte finally willing to concede his cops had done wrong. “I apologize for the death of your compatriot,” he told the South Korean government in a public address. “We are very sorry that it had to happen.”

The chief of the Philippine National Police, Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, stood before the media and said the police would “focus on internal cleansing.” He said he would have preferred to kill the cops involved, if only it were legal. He called the crime offensive. He would “melt in shame if I could.”

President Rodrigo Duterte called the incident an embarrassment but refused Dela Rosa’s offer to resign. On January 30, 2017, the president suspended the same police institution he had empowered from participation in the war against drugs. Police antidrug units were dissolved. He called the police “the most corrupt, corrupt to the core.” He called them criminals. The war would continue, but there would be no more police operations against illegal drugs.

On that night, every drug war journalist I knew gathered at the press office of the Manila Police District. We waited. There were no crime scenes that night. No drug addict died; no dealer was shot. Not in Manila, not in Caloocan, not in Cebu or Navotas or the slums of Quezon City. The president had spoken, and for the first time in seven months—with the exception of Christmas Day—no new names were added to the death count. It came as no surprise that the cops kept their guns holstered, but the vigilantes did too. There were no salvagings, no drive-by shootings, no masked gunmen kicking down doors of suspected meth dealers. The uniformed militia stood down, and so did, if the reports were to be believed, the killers they employed. The death toll stopped at 7,080.

The war, or what had been called the war, ended with the flush of a toilet.

How can anyone read that and come away with any other conclusion than the PNP was working off the orders of Duterte?

The book ends with a discussion of how many were killed during the drug war and profiles the regret of several former Duterte supporters. Needless to say the exact number of the dead will never be known.

I cannot, with any certainty, report the true toll of Rodrigo Duterte’s war against drugs. Numbers cannot describe the human cost of this war, or adequately measure what happens when individual liberty gives way to state brutality. Even the highest estimate—over 30,000 dead—is likely insufficient to the task.

When the intention is to lie, numbers can make extraordinary liars. Even government agencies fail to agree on how many the police killed in alleged antidrug operations. The PNP’s Directorate for Operations put those deaths at 7,884 in August 2020. The government’s communications office, two years later, lowered the total to 6,252 in May 2022. The last of the DUI numbers was released in 2019, but the number is meaningless in determining drug-related deaths, conflated as it is with every possible variation of homicide.

The truth is almost certainly much higher. A study by Columbia University’s Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism estimated that government figures were “a gross underestimation of the extent of drug- related killings in the Philippines.” The Supreme Court demanded all documents on the “total of 20,322 deaths during the Duterte administration’s anti-drug war.” The Commission on Human Rights chairperson Chito Gascon said the number of drug-related deaths could go “as high as 27,000.” International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said that “between 12,000 and at least 20,000 killings” were committed in relation to the drug war.

Of course all these numbers are called baseless propaganda by the government. 

While Patricia writes a compelling narrative about the facts of the drug war one thing she does not do is offer a reason as to why it happened. She gives a "what" but not a mechanism of "why." Perhaps one quote from the book offers insight. At the funeral of one drug war victim several people dressed like PNP officers showed up. But they were not cops. They were "force multipliers" going by the name of Philippines Hotline Movement Incorporated (PHMI). One observer commented:

“They look like idiots,” Vincent Go said, when I caught a ride with him to the cemetery. “That’s the thing with Filipinos. They put on a uniform, and suddenly they think they’re kings. Even during the pandemic, even in the villages, even if they’re just security guards. They’re so proud of their outfits, their vests, something changes inside of them. Clueless morons thinking they’re enforcing the law, but really they have no goddamn clue what they’re doing.”

Why did the drug war happen as it did? Why did the PNP kill with impunity and why do they continue to be a corrupt organization? Because of those uniforms which imbue them with a sense of superiority and bestows upon them their power. They are cops, a brotherhood, who can do whatever they want without consequence because they stand above the crowd. As Gaspar de San Augustin wrote in 1720:

43. They act tyrannically one toward another. Consequently, the Indian who has some power from the Spaniard is insolent and intolerable among, them—so much so that, in the midst of their ingratitude, some of them recognize it, although very few of them. Yet it is a fact that, if the Spaniards had not come to these islands, the Indians would have been destroyed; for, like fish, the greater would have swallowed the lesser, in accordance with the tyranny which they exercised in their paganism.

http://www.philippinehistory.net/views/1720sanagustinb.htm

During the Referendum of 1599 Filipinos thanked the Spanish from saving them from the tyranny of their chiefs. 

The bishop of Nueva Segovia, Don Fray Pedro de Soria, collected those Indians together, by order of his Majesty, and told them of the advantages of the Spanish monarchy, and how beneficial it would be for them to have Don Felipe, the king of the Spaniards, as their king, who would protect them peacefully and with justice. The chiefs answered not a word to this. Thereupon, the bishop spoke again and asked them whether they had understood the words he had spoken to them, and if they would answer. Thereupon a clownish Indian arose and said: “We answer that we wish the king of España to be our king and sovereign, for he has sent Castilians to us, who are freeing us from the tyranny and domination of our chiefs, as well as fathers who aid us against the same Castilians and protect us from them.”

https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-philippine-referendum-of-1599.html

In the Philippines it has always been the way of the ruling class to oppress the masses even before the Spanish arrived. The tendency towards tyrannical rule is in the blood of Filipinos.

But rare, non-existent really, is the journalist, the writer, the researcher who will investigate the Philippines by noting racial characteristics unique to Filipinos and extrapolating from those traits a reason for Filipino society being the way it is. Thankfully Gaspar de San Augustin was not afraid to do so.

Cebu City Officials and PNP Refuse to Enforce the Law

The Philippines is a nation with laws but it is not a nation where the rule of law takes precedence. Enforcement is very selective. Here is the latest example from Cebu City. 

https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/561348/little-cardo-dalisay-in-cebu-nabbed-accused-of-hurting-people-who-do-not-give-alms

Harvey Cuervo, 19, dubbed as the Little Cardo Dalisay in Cebu, went viral once again. But this time, not for the right reasons.

Cuervo is now detained at the Cebu City Police Station after police arrested him on Sunday midnight, March 10, for illegal possession of firearms.

Prior to his arrest, photos of the young adult circulated on social media when reports that he allegedly hurt passengers who refused to give him money after singing and begging for alms in jeepneys surfaced.

Basak Pardo Captain Dave Tumulak said his office had received multiple complaints since the first week of March, accusing Cuervo of harming them when they did not give him money.

Some of the victims claimed they were scratched, and their feet stomped, Tumulak said.

“Mao nang pasalamat ta nahipos ra sad siya sa mga pulis,” he told CDN Digital in a phone interview.

(We are grateful that he was arrested by the police.)

The suspect, in a separate interview with reporters, claimed he decided to get a gun as ‘self-defense.’ Since his photos went viral online, he said he began fearing for his life.

The barangay chief also confirmed that Cuervo was the kid who went viral in 2018, earning the nickname ‘Little Cardo Dalisay in Cebu’ when videos of his singing skills inside a jeepney circulated on social media.

Aside from illegal possession of firearms, Cuervo might also face cases for violating the city’s Anti-Mendicancy Law, and for committing slight physical injuries and threats to passengers, Tumulak said.

Officials initially planned to lodge these charges against the suspect before his arrest last Saturday but dropped them after he issued a public apology, through a pre-recorded video, on the internet last March 6.

He also vowed not to hurt passengers anymore.

But just a day after his apology video was published, Tumulak received another series of complaints, alleging that Cuervo broke his promise by hurting jeepney passengers again.

“This time, mu-file na sad mi og separate case against niya,” Tumulak added.

(This time, we will file a separate case against them.)

In the meantime, the village chieftain urged individuals, who were victimized by Cuervo to come forward so they could build their case against him.

“Pwede ra sila mureach out sa akoa sa Facebook,” said Tumulak.

(They can reach out to me in Facebook.)

He also told the riding public to be always vigilant of their surroundings, and for barangay tanods (village peacekeepers in English) to strengthen their monitoring in areas frequented by beggars.

A 19 year old street beggar who has been begging at least since he was 13 has been arrested for harming people who did not give him money. Complains were lodged to the police and they were prepared to arrest him. But he issued a public apology so they decided to forgive him. Isn't that so gracious and lovely of the police? Just look how repentant and sorry he is:

Unsurprisingly he not only broke his promise but he also procured a gun for his own protection after his face was blasted all over social media. How exactly was he able to obtain a gun when he begs for his living? 

Because he started harming people again city officials decided that now they would finally arrest him and charge him with a crime. But they need the public's help. They need victims to come forward so they can build a case. Why would the public come forward now when they were ignored in the first place? What good is having a police force or a local government who REFUSE to enforce the laws?

That includes the anti-mendicancy laws. In the Philippines it is illegal to beg and illegal to give to beggars.  Yet this man has been on the street since at least 2018, for SIX YEARS!! Everyone thought he was cute as a 13 year old singing and dancing for change but now he is a grown man with a grudge and a gun. How long before he causes real and lasting harm to someone? And all because the laws in the Philippines are not enforced.

The Cebu City officials who declined to prosecute this man because he posted an apology on Facebook are a danger to society. They have shown that they are untrustworthy people who do not care about protecting the community. They need to be removed from office and replaced with people who will protect the community from criminals who do harm to law abiding citizens. 

Necrophilia is Legal in the Philippines

Did you know necrophilia is legal in the Philippines? That is to say it's not a crime. 

https://mb.com.ph/2023/12/28/this-house-bill-could-finally-criminalize-necrophilia-in-ph

The Philippines currently has no law explicitly criminalizing necrophilia or sexual acts with a corpse, but a bill filed by North Cotabato 3rd district Rep. Ma. Alana Samantha Taliño Santos seeks to change that. 

Santos filed in the current 19th Congress House Bill (HB) No.9598, or the proposed Act defining the crime of cadaver desecration, providing penalties therefor and for other purposes. 

"This bill aims to impose criminal and civil liabiltiies on offenders guilty of desecrating cadavers," read HB No.9598. 

"The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall commit the crime of desecration of human cadaver as defined in this Act," it added. 

The measure defines desecration of cadavers as any act committed after the death of a human being, including, but not limited to dismemberment, disfigurement, mutilation, burning, or any act committed to cause the dead body to be devoured, scattered, or dissipated. 

It goes on to provide more specific language for the banned acts, one of them being "having sexual contact or activity with the dead", or necrophilia. 

The Santos bill further lists down the following prohibitions: dumping of cadavers, including infants and fetuses, with the intent of abandoning the cadaver; mutilating the cadaver, including infants and fetuses, except for embalming and medical purposes; destruction of tombs and other private or public burial sites; and taking from the grave the personal property buried with the dead including; but not limited to, the coffin, clothing, and jewelry. 

The bill is also seeking to outlaw the burying the dead, including infants and fetuses, without securing approval and appropriate permits from local health units; selling the cadaver onducting any medical study or experiment on the dead, including infants and fetuses without securing approval and appropriate permit from local health units. 

Santos stressed in her proposed stature that Congress is mandated to give the highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity. 

"The right to human dignity extends to the right of dignity of dead bodies. There have been instances in the past, some of which were highlighted in news reports, of dead bodies being dumped in inappropriate places," she said. 

"In keeping with our mandate to protect and promote human dignity, there is an imperative need to supplement the dearth in laws by penalizing the crime of cadaver desecration as a separate crime," added Santos. 

The measure is pending before the House Committee on Justice.

The quest to criminalize necrophilia extends back at least two decades. In 2006 Senator Manny Villar filed a bill criminalizing necrophilia. 

https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2006/1031_villar1.asp

Respect of the dead is the theme of the three bills filed by Senate President Manny Villar. These are Senate Bill (SB) 697 or the Desecration of the Dead Act; SB 2267 Criminalizing and Penalizing Necrophilia or Carnal Knowledge with the Dead; and SB 2298 or An Act Establishing National Cemeteries and Providing for their Administration and Maintenance.

According to Villar, Every year, on All Souls Day, Filipinos pay their respects to their loved ones who have passed on to show that the dead should never be forgotten and their memories should be preserved. However, there are not enough laws that promote respect for the dead. There are still reported incidents of desecration of the dead.

While many preserve the time-honored Filipino tradition of respecting the dead, there are still lawless elements out there who disrespect and desecrate the dead. We should put a stop to their detestable and heinous acts against our dearly departed, adds Villar.

Villar cites on his SB 697 that presently desecration of the dead is not defined and penalized as a crime under the Revised Penal Code. Anyone caught dumping a dead person, unless charged with murder or homicide, would only be guilty of violating the law on the burial of the dead person under the Code of Sanitation, which provides only a penalty of six months imprisonment or a fine of less than P1,000, further cites Villar.

Villars SB 697 proposes the penalty of prision mayor upon any person who shall commit the crime of desecration of the dead which include acts such as dumping of dead person including fetuses, mutilating of the dead, destruction of tombs or public burial sites, having sexual contact or activity with the dead or necrophilia, among others.

Villar recently modified through another bill, SB 2267, the penalty for necrophilia or the crime committed by a person who engages in sexual intercourse with a female corpse. Under the said bill, the penalty for necrophilia shall be reclusion perpetua to death and a fine of P100,000 to P500,000 at the discretion of the court.

Senator Villar refiled this bill in 2011. Senator Estrada also filed a similar bill. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/17260/senate-bill-to-criminalize-necrophilia

Anyone who sexually abuses a living person has at least a chance of being punished as the law provides for it. However, if that someone were to do it to the dead, he will probably get away with it. 

Two senators have filed separate bills criminalizing necrophilia to plug this apparent loophole in the country’s criminal justice system.

The condition is characterized by a “morbid desire to have sexual contact with a dead body, usually of men to perform a sexual act with a dead woman,” according to Mosby’s Medical Dictionary.

Sen. Manuel Villar said the “forcible imposition of manhood … directed against a lifeless female does not make the grisly act any less detestable and heinous.”

“In fact, this vicious bestiality is notoriously offensive and revolting to the feelings of the living even as it grossly desecrates the dead,” he said in explanatory note to his Senate Bill 1297.

Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, who filed SB 505, noted that under the present Revised Penal Code, “only defamation to blacken the memory of one who is dead is criminalized.”

The two bills seek to amend the Revised Penal Code and introduce a provision against necrophilia.

The Senate committee on justice and human rights conducted a preliminary hearing on the bills last month. Sen. Francis Escudero, the committee chair, acknowledged the absence of penalties against necrophilia under existing laws.

He said this was also probably the reason why no such cases have been found to have been reported to the Philippine National Police or the National Bureau of Investigation.

In 2013 Gloria Arroyo revived filed a bill seeking to punish necrophilia.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/453145/arroyo-re-files-bill-seeking-to-punish-necrophilia

Former president and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo wants stiff penalties for persons who commit necrophilia, or deriving sexual gratification from copulating with corpses, an act that she describes as “grisly and heinous.”

Arroyo and son Camarines Sur Rep. Diosdado Arroyo have re-filed their bill to criminalize necrophilia and to punish it with a prohibitive fine and imprisonment.

Necrophilia is not a criminal offense under present laws and at most, desecration of a corpse makes one liable for damages under the Civil Code, according to the Arroyos in an explanatory note.

They said necrophilia should be penalized under the Revised Penal Code.

Their bill defines necrophilia as committing sexual intercourse or anal and/or oral sex with a corpse.

But how often does necrophilia happen? Could Senator Escudero be right in saying the absence of a law criminalizing necrophilia is preventing cases of necrophilia from being reported to the PNP? Perhaps there are no cases of necrophilia to report. Escudero is not being very logical. 

According to funeral home directors in Manila, necrophilia never happens. 

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2006/11/02/366629/145necrophilia-mere-shop-talk146

Embalmers and funeral managers said yesterday that necrophilia — or the obsession of having sex with the dead — is just shop talk handed down from one generation to another but with no actual basis. 

"Kathang kutsero lang yan (That’s just shop talk)," said Jun Luzona, funeral director of Nacional Funeral homes in Quezon City. 

He was reacting to a bill filed by Senate President Manuel Villar, which seeks life imprisonment for any person who commits necrophilia. 

Luzona said the story about an embalmer raping a dead woman has been circulating since he was a young boy, but for the last 16 years as funeral director, he has never heard an actual case in Metro Manila. 

He said the practice was impossible in their funeral parlor since their embalmers are professionals who passed a licensure exam given by the Department of Health. 

"Siguro sa mga malayong lugar pero sa Metro Manila impossible mangyari yan (Maybe in faraway places it might happen but in Metro Manila it’s impossible)," he said. 

He said they have high respect for the dead and relatives are always on guard during the embalming process. 

"Kwentong kutsero, kathang isip lang yan," agreed Leah de la Cruz of the Cinco Estrella Memorial Chapel on Quirino highway in Quezon City. 

She said in her 20 years as funeral director, she has not heard of a single case of necrophilia in funeral parlors in Metro Manila. 

De la Cruz said the story about embalmers raping a dead woman was circulated as a smear campaign by rival funeral parlors to get more clients. 

"Paninira lang yan (That’s just part of a smear campaign)," she said. 

She said if such a thing happens, relatives would be up in arms against anyone who desecrates their dead. 

Other managers and embalmers who do not want to be named also said that a law penalizing necrophilia is not necessary because such case seldom, if ever, happens. 

They claimed necrophilia is popular in books and movies but in real life it’s just an urban legend –at least, in the Philippines. 

Laws need to address more urgent things than a mere figment of the imagination, a funeral manager lamented.

That article is 20 years old so it may be a bit dated. Has there been an increase in necrophilia throughout the Philippines during that time? Such data is not readily available. 

What if necrophilia is just one of many sexual orientations? One lawmaker suggested as much when the SOGIE bill was being debated. 

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/11/04/2054562/no-sogie-bill-wont-legalize-necrophilia-pedophilia

The proposed bill that would ban discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE) will not legalize necrophilia and pedophilia.

This is contrary to the suggestion of a resource person from religious group Coalition of Concerned Families during a House hearing on Wednesday that sexual orientation may also encompass necrophilia and pedophilia.

Lawyer Lyndon Caña from the group said that the anti-discrimination bill, also known as the SOGIE Equality Bill, does not put a limit to sexual orientations as it uses the term “LGBTQ+”

The plus is there to denote other sexual orientations and gender identities not encompassed under the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) acronym.

“When will this end? When will the orientation end?” Caña said. “For example, if an old man is attracted to very young children, that’s sexual orientation. That’s pedophilia. So included din ba yan sa fundamental human right? How about those who are sexually attracted to the dead? Necrophilia.”

Unlike being gay, straight or bisexual, necrophilia and pedophilia are not sexual orientations. Both are considered as paraphilic disorders under the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Rep. Geraldine Roman (Bataan) was also enraged at the absurdity of the suggestion linking the LGBTQ+ community to pedophilia and necrophilia.

“How dare you! We are here in the House of Representatives, you will seriously think that we will legislate something that would allow necrophilia and pedophilia?” Roman said.

The SOGIE Equality Bill does not contain any language that would legalize necrophilia or pedophilia.

The SOGIE does not need to legalize necrophilia because it is already legal. If Rep. Roman is incensed that anyone would think that the House would pass a bill legalizing necrophilia, then why can the Congress not pass a bill criminalizing it? And let's not forget that homosexuality was once considered a paraphilia so the arguments in this article and from Rep. Roman against necrophilia being a sexual orientation are quite illogical. The slippery slope is very real. 

Certainly necrophilia is disgusting and anyone who commits such an act would be rightly shunned from decent society. Filipinos make a big to-do over the dead every single year during Undas so they would not stand for such a desecration of the corpse of their loved one. Why then has this bill criminalizing necrophilia never been passed into law? Perhaps the funeral directors in Manila are right. It is a fictitious crime that never happens and there are more urgent things needing attention. 

But filing such a bill does get headlines so there is that.

The PNP Do not Enforce the Law Against Open Burning Equally

The Philippines is a lawless nation. Sure there are laws in the Philippines but they are followed and enforced at will. Case in point is RA 9003 which prohibits the burning of open waste. The PNP is using this law to prosecute the burning of an effigy during the 2023 SONA protests.  

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1820884/qcpd-goes-after-artist-behind-marcos-effigy-burned-at-sona

Looks like the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) is going hard on “polluters” — or at least the politically active kind.

The resident artist of the militant group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) received a subpoena on Wednesday asking him to appear before the Office of the City Prosecutor to answer a complaint from the QCPD that accused him of causing air pollution.

It was in connection with an effigy created by Max Santiago and set on fire during a Bayan protest action in Quezon City that was directed against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s State of the Nation Address (Sona) on July 24.

Santiago was the artist behind the papier mache artwork titled “Doble Kara (Two-faced),” which depicted a giant gold coin with a dual image of the president — a visual swipe at the Marcos ill-gotten wealth cases.

The QCPD complaint, initiated by Staff Sgt. Mario Sembrano and Cpl. Paolo Navarro of the Anonas Police Station, alleged that the burning of the effigy during the Bayan rally “lasted for several minutes and greatly contributed to air pollution which grossly negates the government program in ensuring the protection of public health and the environment.”

The officers’ three-page joint affidavit asked that Santiago and three “John Does’’ be penalized for violating the Clean Air Act (Republic Act No. 8749) and Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003).

It further accused Santiago and the unnamed Bayan activists of committing “a deliberate disrespect to the president and to the country” and explained that the QCPD was taking legal action “for them to not be imitated by other demonstrators and other citizens.”

This phrase is key:

“A deliberate disrespect to the president and to the country." 

But wait, what?  These kinds of protests, burning effigies of politicians have been going on for years. Why should a Marcos change anything?

Lawyers have jumped into the fray telling the PNP to cool it and study the intent of the law. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1821160/effigies-as-pollutants-police-told-to-study-law-they-used-to-sue-activists

Effigies have been regular fixtures in protest rallies, including those that activists hold when the highest official of the land, the President, delivers the State of the Nation Address (Sona).

According to Raymond Palatino, secretary general of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), using effigies during demonstrations is constitutionally protected and part of the right to dissent.

Dr. Maria Ela Atienza, professor of political science at the University of the Philippines Diliman, said the burning of effigies has long been part of protests all over the world, and that in the Philippines, “there is freedom to protest based on our laws.”

“Government officials can be criticized and held accountable,” she told INQUIRER.net.

Looking back, former presidents, like Gloria Magacapagal-Arroyo, Benigno Aquino III, and Rodrigo Duterte, had seen how effigies bearing their likeness were set on fire by protesters criticizing government neglect, especially of the poor.

But this year, the burning of the “Doble Kara” effigy of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was met by a complaint, with the police saying that it was in violation of two environmental laws.

Palatino, however, said the law is being “misused.”

“Authorities are misusing the law to criminalize freedom of expression. We will challenge this harassment suit since it could set a dangerous precedent,” he said on Wednesday (Aug. 23).

As alleged by the complainants, the burning of the effigy last July 24 was in violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, and RA No. 8749, or the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999.

RA No. 9003 prohibits the open space burning of solid waste “defined as all discarded household, commercial waste, non-hazardous institutional and industrial waste, street sweepings, construction debris, agricultural waste, and other non-hazardous/non-toxic waste.”

But Terry Ridon, a public policy lawyer, said what the law prohibits is the “open burning of solid waste,” and that in any circumstance, “works of art such as effigies cannot be considered solid waste.”

Palatino said “we will challenge this harassment suit since it could set a dangerous precedent,” stressing that “we will not allow the police to dictate what forms of expression can be done in exercising our right to dissent.”

"A dangerous precedent" to "our right to dissent?" Who cares? Dissent never changes anything.

What's most important to note here is that the PNP wants to prosecute the burning of this effigy while people across the nation burn their garbage with impunity. That means this particular protection of the law is 100% politically motivated. 

The fact is the Philippines stinks. Air pollution is a way of life here even way out in the provinces. There is always a tendril of smoke ready to make its way to your nostril from some hidden burn pile. From charcoal pits to burn pits the air in the Philippines is choking and hardly fresh. If only the PNP did their job and enforced the law uniformly this nation might smell a lot fresher. 

Not Following Proper Procedure is PNP Culture

The justice system in the Philippines is fundamentally broken. That is simply an undeniable fact. The problem is multifaceted and involves both law enforcement officers and the courts. Recently the Supreme Court scolded law enforcement officers not only for not following proper procedure but also for being ignorant of those procedures. 

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2023/07/04/2278583/acquittal-ruling-sc-scolds-law-enforcers-and-prosecutors-fumbling-drug-law-rules

In acquitting two accused in a P1-billion shabu case, the Supreme Court reprimanded law enforcers and the prosecution for failing to handle evidence and trial against five Chinese nationals and one Filipino who had been tagged as members an alleged drug syndicate.

The SC en banc, in a decision penned February 21 but made public only recently, acquitted Filipino Robert Uy and Willie Gan — a Chinese national — on drug charges over prosecutors' failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

This was after the SC found that law enforcers and the prosecution disregarded the strict requirements of Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, which holds that three insulating witnesses are required in the inventory of drug cases. The high court has also laid down guidelines on the custody of drugs seized.

The SC said that acquitting Uy and Gan is “truly regrettable” as it stressed that law enforcers and the prosecution “must exercise more prudence and care in their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA No. 9165.”

“The instant case reveals the law enforcement agents' complete ignorance of the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165,” it said, adding that: “The utter disregard for the law demonstrated by these actors is reprehensible,” the court also said, while referring to police officers and the prosecution.

The SC pointed out that Section 21 of RA 9165 requires three insulating witnesses during physical inventory and photograph of seized items: A representative from the media and from the justice department, and any elected public official.

Following this law to the letter is very important as it protects the integrity of the evidence. 

The high court went on to “address a potential concern involving the effect of failure to comply with the strict requirements of Sec. 21.” It reiterated the guidelines set down in People v. Romy Lim where it said the investigating prosecutor can refer the case to preliminary investigation in instances of non-observance of Sec. 21 requirements.

The court also said it “harbors serious concerns over the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of seized items,” as it pointed out that “there are material gaps in the chain of custody of the seized items.”

It's all part of the process of building up an air tight case against criminals. Recently the PNP raided a POGO den and rescued 2,200 people from human trafficking. That sounds good but the DOJ says the PNP did it all wrong and have effectively tainted the case against the accused. 

https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/10/23/doj-hits-pnp-anti-trafficking-raid-suspects-released-for-further-probe

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has flagged a human trafficking raid conducted by the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Las Piñas last month that “rescued” some 2,000 alleged trafficking victims.

Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla faulted the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) for failing to coordinate with the DOJ’s Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking (IACAT) and for pushing through with the raid despite supposed lack of evidence.

(There were no specific grounds for the arrest, no specific complainants. They went there just to fish. That's what we have been saying for a long time. We previously agreed to build a case even before we do that. We will not agree with planting evidence on anyone.)

The 5 suspects, who were all Chinese, have been “released for further preliminary investigation,” which means that they will still be allowed to file their counteraffidavits and present their side before any criminal charge is lodged in court.

Of the more than 2,000 individuals “rescued,” around 1,100 are still in the Las Piñas POGO facility.

Remulla said the Filipinos were allowed to go home while foreigners without visas were already sent home.

Foreigners with visas, however, will still have to go through visa cancellation proceedings before they can go back to their countries.

Remulla blamed a culture of “arrests” within the PNP for what happened.

(Before, police would just keep arresting even without a case. If there is no case, they plant evidence. They can no longer do that. We will not allow that. That's why they're having problems.)

The Justice secretary said they are trying to address this culture by implementing new procedures under a new DOJ department circular which mandates prosecutors to take an active role in gathering evidence and building the case.

Human trafficking is one of the cases where coordination between prosecutors and law enforcers is required under the circular.

(The DOJ and PNP-ACG agreed to build a case before we do raids, everyone we arrest should have evidence against them. This was not followed. They pushed through with that, so many are pending without complete evidence. That's why we will talk again about this.)

In a press conference Monday, Sen. Raffy Tulfo also criticized the PNP, as well as immigration officers, Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (Pagcor) and labor agencies for its alleged failure in addressing issues related to POGOs following the Las Piñas raid.

Tulfo also blasted the move by authorities to allow the Filipino POGO workers "rescued" to leave the premises in Las Piñas City without properly investigating whether they are really victims or complicit to the crime. 

You know there is a problem when the DOJ Secretary accuses the PNP of planting evidence and says it's part of their culture to do so. In their defense the PNP says there were complaints and that is why they were able to obtain a warrant. 

In an interview, the PNP denied the claim that the PNP ACG did not liaise with the IACAT.

“On the part of the PNP anti-cyber crime group, according to them, they have done the necessary coordination with Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking (IACAT). And in fact, prosecutors were present during the initial stages of the implementation of search warrant and this inter agency council against trafficking the head of that council is the Department of Justice,” PNP spokesperson Col. Jean Fajardo told ANC’s Dateline Philippines.

She also insisted there were complainants and there were other companies operating inside the compound.

“There were complainants actually that who came forward and provided information that were the basis why the PNP ACG applied for search warrants. The mere fact that these search warrants were issued by the concerned regional trial court would only prove that there was indeed probable cause of human trafficking,” she added.

Who is telling the truth? DOJ Secretary Remulla or the PNP? Whatever the case when the PNP has both the Supreme Court and the DOJ scolding them for not properly building up cases and securing evidence you know there is a problem. Since this is part of PNP culture as Remulla admits it is certain this problem will not go away and criminals will continue to walk free for insufficient evidence. Such is what happened to Kerwin Epsinosa back in June. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1781622/kerwin-espinosa-acquitted-by-makati-court-in-illegal-drug-trading-case-due-to-insufficient-evidence

Rolan “Kerwin” Espinosa was acquitted of another drug charge by the Makati City Regional Trial Court.

In a 21-page ruling, Makati RTC Branch 65 granted the demurrer to evidence filed by Espinosa and former driver-bodyguard Marcelo Adorco.

A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence where a defendant cites that the evidence produced by the prosecution is insufficient to make out a case, whether true or not.

Once granted, the case will be dismissed, and it is tantamount to an acquittal. If denied, the trial will continue with the presentation of evidence by the accused.

Espinosa and Adorco were accused of conspiracy to sell 80 kilograms of shabu on two instances–Feb. 16, 2013, and June 7, 2015.

Among the evidence presented by the prosecution are the testimonies of three police officers who testified for the prosecution.

Of the three, two testified, getting the testimony of Adorco. The other police officer was tasked to evaluate the evidence at hand and filed the case at the Department of Justice (DOJ), which led to its dismissal prompting the policeman to take another statement from Adorco.

Also included as evidence for the prosecution are Espinosa’s Judicial and Supplemental affidavit.

The court said testimonies of the police officers “have no probative value since they have no personal knowledge of the facts constituting the offense charged.”

The court said testimonies of the police officers were merely based on what Adorco has said, making it hearsay “and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned.

Adorco’s sworn statements, which were the basis of the police testimonies, the court said, also have no value because he was not presented in court to identify and affirm his affidavits in court. He was also not cross-examined based on what he said in the affidavits.

The court also noted that Adorco also had no counsel when the police questioned him.

The court added that for Adorco’s supplemental affidavit, while a lawyer was present, no proof was presented that the lawyer did not confer with her client to determine if he was coerced or given advice that he had the right not to sign the affidavit.

The court said records showed that the lawyer was not chosen by Adorco but provided, and fees are paid for by the police, “thus putting into serious doubt her independence.”

The court added that there was also no record that witnesses were present when Adorco freely signed his third and fourth affidavits.

In Espinosa’s affidavit, the court said, “other than presenting the transcript of stenographic notes of the Senate hearing when Espinosa testified, the prosecution failed to show that such confession was made voluntarily.”

“As the prosecution failed to adduce evidence sufficient to overcome the burden of proving the guilt of both accused beyond a reasonable doubt, then the Demurrer to evidence ought to be granted,” the court said.

You need a lot more than mere testimony to convict someone. However, if that is all they had then the PNP should have made it unavailable and followed proper procedure. They did not. This problem of not following procedure is just as bad as cops who extort the public. As DOJ Secretary Remulla noted it's part of PNP culture. And he should be thankful for that culture because those kind of lapses are what got his son acquitted of drug charges.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1713580/lapses-in-drug-case-lead-to-remulla-son-acquittal

A Las Piñas City court on Friday acquitted Juanito Jose Remulla III of illegal drug possession, ruling that prosecutors were unable to prove that the son of Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla knew he was going to receive a package of illegal drugs and intended to keep them, and that there were lapses in the chain of custody of the evidence against him.

“When a court cannot be assured that the drugs presented as evidence are exactly what the prosecution purports them to be, a conviction will not be forthcoming,” said Ricardo Moldez II, the Las Piñas City Regional Trial Court Branch 197 acting presiding judge in his 34-page ruling.

“When there are glaring lapses or irregularities on the part of the law enforcers, the presumption of regularity usually accorded to [them] is effectively destroyed or immediately negated,” the ruling said.

It also quoted a Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutional protection of the right of an accused to be presumed innocent “against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions.”

“Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the right of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty,” the trial court said.

“[There is] no clear evidence that [the] accused had freely, consciously and with full knowledge possessed the alleged seized illegal drugs,” the court said.

Of course when the buffoonery of the PNP benefits his family Remulla is silent on the matter.