THE MAJORITY'S ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM?

MANY a man has recently been listed as having to do with illegal drugs, pursued, and eventually shot dead. The reason for a man's death would almost always be resisting arrest and choosing to shoot it out with the arresting police force. Most of such men would be drug pushers, even simple junkies; we have yet to see on our TV sets footage of drug lords shot and killed after resisting arrest. Meanwhile, President Rodrigo Duterte has more than once implied such killings as justified, given how big a social menace illegal drugs are (particularly methamphetamine, which has been linked to heinous crimes).
    Recently, after getting flak that the government's war on drugs seems to be focused on small fry rather than on big fish, President Duterte himself started---on August 6---the "naming and shaming" of politicians and other generals purportedly involved (directly or indirectly) in the illegal-drug trade. There were also judges on the list, likely as participants in such acts as a juridical crime of omission after a drug trade personality's arrest. The government officials, meanwhile, were mostly local officials, likely acting as protectors of their given economic territory. Only days after the reading of the long list, we would soon watch a report about a Leyte mayor's arrest wherein several of his men were killed in a shootout with police; the mayor himself was not hurt.
    Then came August 17. On this day, during his speech with members of the Philippine National Police during the 115th anniversary of the Philippine police service, the President accused new senator Leila de Lima of having links to drug money that funded her campaign. To this big accusation, the senator found it appropriate to hold a press conference with the following emotional statements:

FIRST, allow me to highlight these clauses from her public statement:

• ". . . I think it is already clear that what is being done to me is what will happen to anyone who does not bow to the wishes of the President."
• "Pangulo po kayo, Senador lamang po ako. Patas na laban lamang po ang aking hinihingi. Sana ay ibigay niyo rin sa akin ang ibinigay na rin naman ng batas at Konstitusyon, sa kahit kaninong naaakusahan, sa ilalim ng ating sistemang pang-ligal."
• "I am not the enemy here. Stop portraying me as one."

    Now, based on the gist of this speech and the President's accusatory speech, I would be inclined to be on her side. Why? Dahil tila lumalabas na ang pagpunterya kay de Lima ay dahil lamang sa dalawang bagay: 1) ang nais ng Senadorang ipagpatuloy na imbestigasyon o enquiry tungkol sa mga nangyayari diumanong mga extrajudicial killing ng suspected drug trade elements, at 2) ang sama ng loob ng Presidente sa dating Justice Secretary sa mga pagparatang nito sa dating meyor bilang pinuno diumano sa likod ng tinaguriang Davao Death Squad. Tila hindi pinupuntirya ang Senadora dahil sa late report na diumano'y sangkot ito sa droga, isang report na dapat sana ay kasabay ng mga report o mga parinig na una nang inilabas o di kaya inimply ng Pangulo sa media. Wala tayong narinig na ganitong report tungkol sa isang Senador, hanggang ngayon, kung kailan nalalapit na ang tila matutuloy na ngang imbestigasyon tungkol sa extrajudicial killings na tinutukoy.
    Ibig sabihin, ito ngayon ang tila puno't-dulo ng isyu: tila natatakot o naaasiwa ang gobyernong Duterte sa imbestigasyong ito.
    Kaya ang tanong ko ay ito: ano ba ang kinatatakutan o ikinatatakot ni Ka Digong sa gagawing enquiry ng Senate commission ni Leila de Lima? At kung ito nga ang dahilan kung bakit ilalabas na ng gobyernong ito ang kanyang barahang Alas laban sa Senadora, aba'y sana naman ang gobyernong Duterte na binoto natin ay di mauwi sa pagiging gobyernong mala-Erdoğan ang dating, kung saan ang anumang pagtatanong sa mga aksyon o polisiya ng gobyerno ehekutibo ay ituturing nitong casus belli para sa pagsira sa lahat ng magtatangkang "opositor" nito.
    Sinasabi ko ito dahil ang lumalabas ay ito: kung di pala itutuloy ang enquiry ni de Lima ay di isasama ng gobyernong Duterte ang pangalan ng Senadora sa listahan ng mga pulitikong sangkot sa droga? At ngayong itutuloy na nga ng Senadora ang imbestigasyong ito ay isinama na ito? Anong klaseng ka-Erdoğan-an o ka-Mahathir-an naman 'yan? Oo, totoong seryosong isyu ang methamphetamine drugs na matagal na sanang nasagot ng radikal na sagot, dahil high school pa lang ako ay may nababalitaan na akong mga nasira ang ulo dahil diumano rito. Ngunit saan lahat mauuwi ang tunay na war on drugs na ito ni Ka Digong kung sa bandang huli ay gagamitin lang pala itong casus belli for political oppression of any form of opposition and God knows what else? Ang war on drugs bang ito ay tunay na end in itself, o stage one lamang para sa isang war on opposition elements?
    Ipagpalagay na nating totoo ngang sangkot sa droga itong si de Lima, whether directly or indirectly. Subalit hindi ba ibang issue ang mga tanong niya, at ibang issue naman ang mga paratang ng Pangulo sa kanya? Hindi ba dapat may sagot sa bawat tanong, imbis na pumasok tayo sa hindi matalinong usapan kung saan sasagutin ng isa ang mga tanong ng isa sa pamamagitan ng pag-paratang sa nagtanong (isang argumentum ad hominem)? For now, I see the Duterte government's stance in this exchange as proceeding from an argumentum ad baculum, a blackmailing argumentum ad verecundiam by a supposed knowledge (real or not) through intelligence (that dictators can actually manufacture), an ipse dixit on truths upon a following agog these days about "sound reports".
    At paano kung inosente ang pinaratangang de Lima? O pinaratangang sinuman? I can understand most people's (and President Duterte's seeming) long-pent-up frustration with the presumption of innocence legal concept that criminals have been successfully using to their favor all this time. But must we forget the fact that this presumption of innocence concept was designed primarily for the protection of the accused innocent? And if we are to remove that protection within access by the accused innocent just so we can go after the accused guilty, does not anti-crime at that very moment become a crime-in-the-making in and of itself? Will crime-fighting success be measured by the number of correctly convicted or executed people versus the lesser number (should that be the result) of wrongfully convicted or executed ones? Because if that's the direction where we're going, then I wish us all good luck.  [S / -I]