Duterte-phobic Notes of the Week

1. ONE basic thing you need to know about history deniers (historical negationists), fact deniers, fake news writers, and their ilk. They will name anything and anyone as a case to study and confront it/them so to avoid focus on themselves. Don't fall into this trap. They are the cases that you need to examine and confront! The focus ought not to be on anything or anyone other than them! They are the basic issue! Expose everything there is to know about them!!

2. Degrees of Corruption
    True, if you're a media or religious institution or persona fixing every now and then the function of your privilege in order to serve the interests of holding companies or specific corporations or of political factions, you deserve to be called corrupt by the President of the State.
    Then again, if you're a President of the State who has devoted himself to the facilitation of another state's natural resource and market interests in his state, you are not just displaying corruption of the third or second degree, but absolute treason, one being committed by no less than You as the leader of the government of this State. That is corruption of the supreme or highest universal degree.

3. Planning a Novel
    What if I explore this premise for a novel's plot?---
    The 21st century. China would only have to look at its history where, once upon a time, there was this British-instigated Opium War against it designed by Britain to get its silk, porcelain, and tea. In that looking back would be born enough inspiration for a now-rich China to plan a 21st-century fear-farming War on Drugs false flag on a neighboring state. They will have to do this through---or care of---a potential puppet in that state that they can sponsor and install as that state's new leader. Once installed, that leader can farm all the fear he wants through that new "Opium War", through which fear-farming war the leader can facilitate China's slow and smooth entry into the leader's state, not just to get this neighboring state's silk, porcelain and tea but resources more precious and ready for a hefty harvest. Does that sound like a good plot for a fiction novel to you? Or would I be plagiarizing life for a historical one?

4. In the Era of Simplified Psychometrics
    Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term "propaganda," viz., "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."
    Following that definition, it should be easy for us to see why government would be busying itself presently with the labeling of everyone in the divided opposition as "bobos" (stupid people), most especially the Vice-President, Leni Robredo, in recent days.
    Is the intent of this propaganda move to shape the manipulable public's perception that it is the critics of this government's policies who are bobo, in order to hide its own series of boo-boos?
    Is it to manipulate cognitions that everything that it is doing is the smart thing, if not the only smart thing, which process of manipulation may involve the hyping up of the truly smart it's done and hiding beneath the quilts all the stupid moves it had committed?
    Is it to direct behavior towards a derogation of critics and the celebration of this government's supposed revolutions?
    I think we're all intelligent enough to know when propaganda is twisting us or sucking us in. Or are we?
    And if we are, or suspect we are, being sucked into it, how do we fight it? Do we fight by throwing the same techniques it is using? Or do we fight it by exposing its lies? By exposing all the truths behind its lying?
    Do we expose the whole anatomy of processes in its propaganda that aims to "achieve a response that (will further) the desired intent of the propagandist"?
    What are those desires?
    Are we as a nation intelligent enough to in turn desire answers to these questions? Or are we truly bobos enough to desire nothing, simply wallowing in never-ending trust?

5. THE argument that says Duterte's spitting on due process ought to be thanked because the drug pusher and his addicts that used to be the kings in one's neighborhood are now all gone . . .
    is no different from the argument that says Hitler's regime should be thanked because it furthered the popularity of Wagner.
    Or don't you see the similarity? If you don't, well, . . . perhaps you never will.
    Perhaps you never will see that that legitimization of Hitler by one's deep love of Wagner is the same sort of legitimization that you are placing on Duterte's aggressive wariness towards all his critics, in this republic and outside, a legitimization motored by your understandable love of peace in one particular anecdotal neighborhood.

6. UNTIL that day comes when good people in a land start invoking violent resistance in order to protect rights, violent evil will continue to prosper in that land and in other lands. That is not inciting rebellion. That is a mere articulation of a historical truism operative among frightened peoples in repressive, suspect regimes.

7. ARE we afraid? My friends: government is excited about, and not wary of, creating a fearful people, for the fear-farming reasons we articulated above.
    But it, government, seems to be ignorant of the fact that courage is actually 100% fear. Let us rejoice, then. For as government makes progress in creating more frightened people, its hold on the people is not strengthened, it is lessened. Fear pa more! [S / -I]

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT’S PERSONAL AND EMOTIONAL LEVEL (o, SINO ANG KAWAWANG KOBOY?)

photo from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/802103/pacquiao-duterte-wants-to-restore-death-penalty-i-do-too

1. In that corner and in this corner

ALAM siguro ni Senator Manny Pacquiao na bagamat ang pinanggalingan ng boxing bilang organized sport ay maaaring noong tanggapin ito ng mga ancient Greeks bilang isa sa mga Olympic games ng taong BC 688, nag-evolve ito mula sa mga prizefights noong 16th- at 18th-century sa Great Britain hanggang sa mabuo nito ang forerunner ng modern boxing noong mid-19th century, muli sa Great Britain at pagkatapos ay sa Estados Unidos kung saan maraming taga-Great Britain at Ireland ang nag-emigrate. Ito ay mga around the time na nagbabarilan na ang mga later-generation pioneers at mga American Indians ng Midwest at West ng North America na maaari nating tawaging Koboy Age sa westward movement na ito ng mga bagong Amerikano, just for purposes of our non-cinematic discussion. Sa panahong ito, marami ring outlaws ang binitay (literally hanged) pagkatapos mahuli ang mga ito ng mga sheriff ng paparami nang pioneer towns.
    Pero, Senator Manny Pacquiao, bago tayo bumalik sa topic ng mga koboy, may maikling wiki lang po ako rito, paki-click lang po at pakibasa (baka sakali makatulong, lalo’t hinala ko ay nabasa na ito ni Senator Tito Sotto):
    Wrongful execution - Wikipedia - Wrongful execution is a miscarriage of justice occurring when an innocent person is put to death by capital punishment, the "death penalty". Cases of wrongful execution are cited as an argument by opponents of capital punishment, while proponents suggest that the argument of innocence concerns the c... - EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

----------------------------------------

2. The context of this and that

LET’S contextualize the many mobile nouns now contending in the ring:
    When you punish a child by spanking him or by denying him a hefty baon the next day, I can fully understand why you would call it a punishment or penalty, because I understand what punishment and penalty mean. But when you punish a man who hates his life so much that he thought it a nice idea to hurt people who also hate him, I don't know why you would call killing him by the death penalty a penalty, and if that really still stands true to the definition of penalty or punishment. Because from his perspective, who knows?—maybe our killing him might actually be more a fulfillment of a wish than the receipt of a penalty. And even if the perpetrator of a heinous crime is pleading for his life, would rest in peace in death really punish him? Aren’t we actually just exploiting the word “punishment” as a euphemism for the ancient decision (desire, even) to exterminate existences?
    My friend H- says, “I would still kill a man who has killed other men, in order to protect others.”
    Well, actually, honestly, I would, too, but not in the name of a death "penalty" or capital "punishment" but in the name of eliminating him from my vision or in retribution for my loss. The difference is here: the first (capital punishment) is exercised by the state on a legal and formal and communal level while the second (revenge) is expressed from a personal and emotional level or standpoint. And while the second (revenge) may often be surer about the culprit when the commission of that culprit’s murder is witnessed first-hand by the avenger and happened only a few seconds or minutes prior to the avenger’s decision to initiate revenge, a quick revenge therefore, the first (capital punishment after a trial) may be less certain, especially as the communal experience of everything in such trials (including a resultant belief beyond reasonable doubt) would be nothing more than simply vicarious. It’s also ironic that it’s the surer second that would be illegal while the only vicariously sure first would be the one deemed by the state as legal. I’d say that it is in this area of uncertainty that death as punishment may be checked, as per the concept of possible and irreversible wrongful execution. And, hey, lest we forget, our appreciation of the reality of wrongful execution must never be separated from an appreciation of the long list of people involved in wrongful convictions in even such sophisticated legal systems as the United States’.

----------------------------------------

3. Hindi lang naman iisang source (or, Tsk tsk tsk)

SPEAKING of lists, I understand that all this recent hoopla about the “restoration” of the implementation of an existing capital punishment law is all in aid of the ongoing Philippine war on drugs.
    But, interestingly, an examination of that war itself seems to provide more proof of why capital punishment’s aiding it may, instead of formalizing its “extrajudicial” messiness, be exacerbating its problems. Consider just one of that war’s questionable element and how that might impact the certainty factor of even just one death penalty, the element called the “drug watch list” (sic):
    In interviews with Philippine National Police chief Bato de la (corrupted to dela) Rosa by such TV personalities as Winnie Monsod and Daniel Razon in their respective channels (GMA News TV and UNTV), the good general had been saying or implying something like this concerning “drug watch lists”, lists that the President would be wont to proudly and loudly announce in his many later speeches:
    "Malayong magkamali iyang mga dumarating na intelligence reports na yan sa Presidente kasi galing na yan sa maraming intelligence sources, at bawat intelligence source ay may validation process na yan. Ibig sabihin, hindi basta-basta na kahit na anong ibulong mong pangalan ay paniniwalaan agad ng bawat intelligence agency, dahil may validation process yan. Nasala na yan."
    By the way, these interviews happened before the “Drug Matrix” brouhaha, wherein the President apologized to a number of politicians for the error of their names’ inclusion in said Matrix. Leila de Lima, the President’s loudest critic whom the President’s camp has in turn tagged as the Mother of All Drug Lords, was not one of those exonerated from the list.
    What else can I say, except: Tsk tsk tsk.

----------------------------------------

4. Hindi lang naman tayo ang human (or, Tsk tsk tsk, hey-yo, Silver, away!)

MGA kababayan, sa mga naririnig nating diskurso among government people, legislators, and supporters of this government, mapapansin natin na may iisang pagkainis na pinanggagalingan ang urgent clamour for the death penalty at ng agresibong war on drugs na ating tinukoy—ang pagkainis  sa pakikialam ng konsepto ng human rights o paggalang sa karapatan na mabuhay (kahit ng mga convicted na mga mamamatay-tao na nasa death row, na by the way karamihan, kung di man lahat, ay mahihirap at tila walang kasamang mayaman).
    Ayoko nang makipagdiskusyon dito tungkol sa human rights at sa kabuluhan nito dahil nagkalat na ang diskusyon at klaripikasyon tungkol sa konsepto na ito at may mga paliwanag na rito kung bakit may ganito at bakit kailangan. Marami na ring sine tungkol dito, kasama na ang The Green Mile (set not in the pioneering era in midwestern North America but in the landscape of poverty and racism in that part during the Great Depression). Ang magiging kontribusyon ko lamang sa usapin na ito ay ang pagbibigay ng susunod na caveat sa lahat:
    na hindi lang ang nanghihingi ng paggalang sa human rights ang may human rights ngunit pati rin naman ang mga taong gustong itakwil na ang ilan sa mga ito kung di man ang buong konsepto ng human rights. Dahil hindi lang naman ang mga nanghihingi ng paggalang sa human rights ang human.

SABI NILA, ang human daw ay punong-puno ng takot dahil ang halimaw ay punong-puno ng galit. Kaya siguro naimbento ang human rights.
    Kaya nung tila itinakwil ni Rodrigo Duterte ang mataas na halaga ng prinsipyo ng human rights sa marami niyang talumpati, prinsipyo na isa sa mga civil liberties na ipinaglaban ni Napoleon sa mga monarkiya ng Yuropa at sa mga disipulo ni Robespierre para sa mga humans ng Pransya, ako ay nabahala. Sabi ko, ang human rights ay ang tangi nating armor, tayong walang mga armas, laban sa extrajudicial adjudgments ng kung sinong enforcer na gustong mag-astang huwes sa loob ng tatlong segundong trial dahil lamang nakindatan natin ang girlfriend niyang magmamani.
    Ngunit, pagkatapos ng ilang minutong pagkabahala, napag-isip-isip ko, . . . teka; baka naman patas lang din ang laro. Dahil kung minura ni Rodrigo Duterte ang mataas na kahalagahan ng human rights ng bawat isa sa atin, . . . hindi ba't by converse ay itinakwil din niya ang kanyang mahalagang armor, ang kanyang human rights, at ang human rights ng bawat isa sa kanyang mga kaalyado, kasama na si Manny Pacquiao?
    Kung ganun, nakakabaliw ito, sabi ko. Dahil tila may biglang open season na binuksan! Tila it's a free-for-all era na naman sa open country o kalungsuran! It's cowboys-vs.-Indians in the virgin, western regions of America before people in America ever heard of the phrase "human rights"! It's the age na uli where both the criminal and the sheriff don't have it, can't invoke it. Well, fair is fair, sabi ko! Wala tayong armor, wala rin naman sila. Fair is fair.
    Ang ibig ko lang sabihin sa ating mga kababayan ay ito: habang tayo ay nangangamba na baka bukas tayo o sinumang kaibigan natin naman ang ma-extrajudicially adjudged as guilty of whatever may be written on a blank cardboard, isipin natin na hindi tayo nag-iisa, Dahil baka marahil ay nangangamba rin ang bawat tao ng gobyerno na baka bukas ay sila naman ang bigyan ng kawalan ng respeto ng anuman o sinumang paksyon o grupo ng mga halimaw na may balak silang palitan, palitan nang walang pag-aalinlangan na murahin at duraan ng makapal na plema ang kanilang mga human rights. Di kaya fear is everywhere in Congress and the local governments these days? So, sa bandang huli, baka hindi lang tayo ang kawawang mga Indians; baka pati rin naman ang mga koboy.
    Well, anyway. Kung ganito na nga ang sitwasyon sa ating bagong sibilisasyon sa gubat ng ating panahon, well, . . . good luck na lang sa atin and a happy new year na lang, mga kapwa ko indios and indians in the new Pinoy Koboy Age. [S /-I]

SIX QUESTIONS IN LIEU OF SEX VIDEOS (or, INVESTIGATIONS NA WALANG KADALA-DALA)

photo from http://www.alvintube.xyz/sen-leila-de-lima-nagbabala-kay-pres-duterte&page=CBQQAA.html

1. CAN I PLEAD FOR CLARITY?

Again, let me appropriate the voice and jargon of divination priests as I here present what I already said to some friends about the Rodrigo Duterte government's going after the former Commission on Human Rights chairman, former Justice secretary, and now senator Leila de Lima through a House probe run by its House allies, purportedly in aid of legislation:

    That the repetitive going over some things would not help anything except to create the impression that one is repetitively going over these things. That this kind of persistence within the chamber is going to be unfortunate, for the simple reason that trying too hard to bring hidden manipulations to light will underline nothing else but the fact that one is trying too hard to bring those hidden manipulations to light. And the House allies of the government must imagine what they have to lose by this, not merely in terms of the people's tax money wasted but in terms of the political positioning of their careers henceforward (or are they doing this precisely to help their careers in the present, tomorrow be damned?). Things won't go well with this qua a House probe, I said, as the most that it can do is make a resolution for the filing of charges against de Lima, which was what the government should have done in the first place. And if what it wants is to get all this out into the media, it could actually have done so without a House probe! Well, I can imagine that this is a situation that is unfamiliar to many of these representatives (a historic moment in the history of this House, the committee chairman said), which makes it dangerous for them to handle, as they have perhaps yet to fully get into it and get accustomed to it in the manner of judges and justices accustomed to poring over the arguments of lawyers, which unfortunately they can't go into that way as they pore on the fundaments of the case as the Duterte government’s lawyers themselves! I wonder if some of them are behaving with extreme unease toward their need to also keep in touch with their feelings (of doubt, of suspicion). Or is what they're feeling fear? Would they take action to remove themselves from that last state, if that's the state where some of them are in? That may sound funny, but it is actually the bigger question, considering that the bulk of them have been proven to be political turncoats all their lives, or at least to belong to families who have displayed themselves as such.

    And now this: last week's promise to release clips of an alleged celebrity sex video involving de Lima and her driver, as the latter is purported to be the bagman/collector of drug money from New Bilibid Prison drug lord inmates. It may be that the government is pursuing a worthwhile persona here in de Lima's driver. But, assuming the sex video is real, what's the plan in forming that connection beyond theory? Is a sex partner necessarily a business partner? Shouldn't the House have been probing the driver's connection to the prison-based drug trade first before de Lima's connection to the driver?

    So, where to now with this? Is the investigation moving now into the supposed missing ₱300 million mentioned by one? How did the government come up with that in the first place? Who would corroborate it? Who would belie it? Are the personas who could belie the existence of those missing funds still alive? And if they are, who has a hold on these witnesses? And if the government's "prosecution team" has a hold on these witnesses (in jail guarded by Special Action Force personnel), how can these witnesses be expected to belie anything? And weren't some of these the subjects of a supposed assassination attempt inside the NBP recently (which oppositionists insist was part of a psychological torture if not an outright assassination attempt)? You see, these are the details that would oblige the government to come up with a really good plan to make its story hold, if not in court, at least in the eyes and ears of the majority of the public.

    The ultimate question that the people should be asking is this: what does the government really want? It certainly must not come out that it merely wants to destroy de Lima, out of spite for her investigations into extrajudicial killings by Duterte in the present and in the past, for it is spending much of the people's money in that pursuit. It must make its choice clear now and make sure that what it wants and what it is doing to get to what it wants will satisfy this want. Otherwise it will only get itself into trouble, and we, the taxpayers, will suffer the consequences of that trouble more than the wealthy people in government.

0000

2. IS THE PURPOSE OF A HAMMER THE SAME AS THE PURPOSE OF A CHISEL?

So, again, where to now with this? Is the situation now dissolving for current Justice secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II (who also happens to be the former lawyer of one Davao police officer who owned a piece of land purported to be the burying place of victims of the Davao Death Squad)? Might it be a good idea for him and his president to start with something else, say the filing of a case in court against de Lima, and make good use of what they have now? But what do they have now, actually? Aha! And where merely did they bring these? Aguirre announced that these are all "material witnesses" with "explosive testimonies". But, but, material witnesses with explosive testimonies sent to a congressional committee hearing? For what end? Ano ang magagawa no'n?

    Aguirre says de Lima is coming out guilty. Hmm. So I guess his law experience expects the congressional committee to sentence de Lima to life imprisonment a week from now, huh?

0000

3. WHAT DO YOU THINK DUTERTE’S DUTERTE WOULD HAVE DONE?

If I were Rodrigo Duterte here's what I believe I would say about all this, being Duterte:

    "Ang hindi ko talaga maintindihan dyan sa congressional hearing hearing na yan . . . sus . . . Bilibid? How can you solve the problem in Bilibid with a congressional hearing, aber, can anyone tell me here? Put- . . . Alam niyo, kung ako yan, . . . puntahan ko lahat ng mga drug lords na may ginagawang kalokohan diyan, drug transactions there sa loob, . . . tapos pag nanlaban, well, . . . barilin mo. Yun lang. Barilin mo! What's the problem there? Sus, ginoo, pa-hearing hearing, putang-."

    But I'm not Rodrigo Duterte and, interestingly, he's not being Duterte here. Instead he's allowing this committee of coalition partisans to go on with its pa-hearing hearing because, perhaps, his majority coalition’s primary purpose with this is not to finally "get rid of drugs in Bilibid" but something else, whatever else it is.

    A total waste of the people's money, then!

0000

4. MABUHAY ANG LEHISLATURA?

Pero sa tingin ko di pa dapat tapusin ang congressional committee hearing na ito na nag-iimbestiga sa drug trade at drug supply sa NBP. Sa pananaw ko lang naman, kailangan pa siguro ng mga isang taon pa o at least 100 days pa para marami pa itong mausisa bago makagawa ng kahit na isang legislation man lang. Mga ₱90 milyong pa siguro ang kakailanganin para rito para makabuo tayo ng isang maliit na legislation.

    Ako ay hindi naman kongresista, kaya mababaw lang ang naisip kong legislation sa ngayon, ang baguhin ang pangalan ng Bilibid. Inaasahan ko na may malalim na magagawang batas ang hearing na ito pagkatapos ng isang taon at ilang milyong pisong halaga ng supply ng Absolut distilled drinking water ni Lucio Tan, kape, at turon para rito. Mabuhay kayo!

0000

5. NGUNIT MAY MGA NANINIWALA NA SA MGA TESTIMONYA AT IYON ANG MAHALAGA?

Okey, okey, sige nga. Ako na rin. Naniniwala na rin ako na may sex videos nga si Leila de Lima at ang kanyang dating driver. Naniniwala na ako na tumatanggap ng bilyon-bilyon si Leila de Lima mula sa drug trade sa New Bilibid Prison that would put to shame amounts of money pocketed by people involved in the PDAF scam of 2013, says Aguirre, at ang kolektor niya rito ay ang dating Marine sergeant na naging private security at driver niya na si Ronnie Dayan. Naniniwala na ako sa lahat ng sinasabi ni Vitaliano Aguirre II tungkol kay Leila de Lima. So, ano na ngayon? . . . Well, mabuhay ang congressional hearing! Maaari niyo nang sentensiyahan ng habambuhay na pagkabilanggo yang si Leila de Lima na yan!

    Ha? Ano? Di kayo nagsi-sentensya? E, sino ang magsisentensya? Ha? Ano po yon? A, ganun ba? Ay, sus, ganun pala. Tsk. E, ba't dito niyo dinala?!!!!!!

0000

6. AT NASAAN NA TAYO NGAYON?

photo from http://saltmarshrunning.com/2014/09/10/why-runners-love-bananas/

KUNG ANG LOHIKA NG IMBESTIGASYON NA ITO AY PARANG ISANG PILÍNG NG SAGING NA KAILANGA'Y BUO PARA ITO AY BILHIN NG TAO, GANITO MARAHIL ANG MAGIGING ISTRAKTURA NITO (KUNG HAHAYAAN NIYO AKONG IDROWING ITO SA SALITA):

    SAGING 1 (HYPOTHESIS 1): May drug trade na nangyayari noon sa New Bilibid Prison.

    SAGING 2 (HYPOTHESIS 2): Tumatanggap si Leila de Lima ng drug money mula sa isa sa mga drug lords dito.

    TWIN SAGING 3A & 3B (HYPOTHESES 3A & 3B): Si Ronnie Dayan ay boypren ni Leila de Lima at siyang kolektor nito ng drug money mula sa drug lord sa New Bilibid Prison.

    SO, ANG UNANG IIMBESTIGAHAN NATIN AY YUNG NASA SAGING 1 AT 2: Kung may mga testimonyang magpapatotoo na may drug trade sa New Bilibid Prison at na totoong tumatanggap si Leila de Lima ng drug money mula sa isang drug lord dito.

    ANG PANGALAWANG IIMBESTIGAHAN NATIN AY YUNG NASA SAGING 3A: Kung totoo ngang boypren ni Leila de Lima si Ronnie Dayan.

    NGAYON, ANO ANG MISSING LINK SA DAPAT SANA'Y KUMPLETONG PILÍNG NG APAT NA SAGING? Aha! Ito ang matagal nang hinahanap ng mga evolutionists at creationists: ang unggoy na may hawak ng Saging 3B. Ito ang makapagbibigay kasagutan sa tanong kung totoo ngang kolektor ang unggoy na ito ni Leila de Lima sa NBP. Dahil kahit ilang milyong sex video pa man (tunay man o peke) ang ilabas ng mga gorilla ni Rodrigo Duterte na magpapatunay na mag-boypren nga ang dalawa, kung wala rin lang ding testimonyang magsasabi na kolektor nga itong si Dayan (at tandaan nating walang kongresistang nagpakita ng malakas na interes sa tanong at sa unggoy na ito at mas binigyang pansin nang paulit-ulit ang pangalan at imahen ni de Lima bilang babae na nagsubo raw ng saging na saba sa kanyang boypren), putol na ang saging na ito (Saging 3B) sa pilíng ng argumento. Ang matitirang tanong ay . . . sino ang nagnakaw ng isang saging sa kanina'y buo pang pilíng ng apat na saging na basta na lang na binili mo? At nasaan na ito?

    I-SIMPLIFY NATIN SA ATING PARAPHRASE. Ang tanong: e ano ngayon kung mapapatunayang may relasyon si de Lima at si Dayan kung wala namang pagpapatunay na kolektor nga ng drug money itong si Dayan? At yun nga: dahil ito nga ang alegasyon kay Dayan na pinalabas sa media at ikinalat sa mga kongresista, di ba dapat yun muna ang pinatunayan at binigyan halaga ng mga testimonya at ng mga nag-iimbestiga? Bakit inuna ang relasyon nila ni de Lima? And even assuming na mapapatunayan ang relasyon at ang pagiging runner ni Dayan, kailangan pa rin patunayan na alam ni de Lima ang pinaggagagawa ni Dayan, lalo na ang alegasyon na si de Lima mismo ang nag-utos kay Dayan. Ganito kahirap patunayan ang mga paratang sa kasong ito kung sa korte dadalhin. Kaya siguro hindi doon dinala.

    Ito ang sabi ng kaibigan kong si H-: "Maling-mali ang paraan. Pero insider rumours lang, ha. Totoo raw ang DDS, at totoo rin daw na kumita si de Lima sa drugging sa NBP. Mali lang ang mga paraan nila, pero yung tamang paraan ay matagal nang hinde posible sa sistemang inherently bulok (ang ating justice system). . . ."
    Gayunpaman, mahirap nga talaga ang kasong ito, kasi puro testimony ang hawak, at lahat ay galing sa 1) mga preso na hawak na ng bagong gobyerno, at 2) mga taong may axe to grind kay Leila de Lima. Mahirap dumating sa beyond reasonable doubt, kung di ako nagkakamali. Tsk. I think maybe the Digong knew he simply had to do this while also knowing it won't prosper. Then, recently, he might also have been led to think that this might be creating a backlash, the reason perhaps why there were instructions to close it down na. . . .
    On the other side, meanwhile, its people are indeed starting to paint a dreary picture of the Duterte government as a Marcosian sort that would concoct stories and force people to testify (under threat of death or a relative's death) against anyone who ventures to criticize its main current direction. Duterte's reactions to US, EU and UN criticisms of his war on drugs has only bolstered some people's belief in the truthfulness of that picture. In this following, Duterte is already an animal, and so are his people. Recently, also, de Lima spoke at a women's rights conference and made a scathing speech against this President's and this government's misogyny, painting those siding with this president's brand of humor as pigs.
    And so the battle for the public's trust continues.

0000

P.S. Today, Rodrigo Duterte will attend a Banana Congress. Totoo yan. Well, alam na natin kung ano ang magiging laman ng script. At alam na rin natin kung ano ang sasabihin ni Leila de Lima, something, perhaps, that might sound like this: "abangan ang tawanan ng mga unggoy na animal na nandoon na pumapalakpak sa kanyang galit at patawang may mga walang kuwentang pagparatang."

    And the battle for the public's belief continues in this jungle of a banana republic. [S /-I]

THE PERFECT VISION OF HINDSIGHT UPON A DEVELOPING BLINDNESS

photo from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/324877/news/regions/davao-mayor-duterte-moonlights-fights-crime-as-taxi-driver

THE faults and loopholes in plans are always clearer in hindsight. And it is from this perfect angle within the present that you might grant me the indulgence to find out where the presently-perceived progressing wrongness in Rodrigo Duterte’s national war on drugs may have started, going even beyond its practical launch during the transition period prior to his inauguration.

    I won’t get into the good things the war brought out from the dark as it exposed to national attention a problem already so huge that the gravity of the situation in solving it seems almost unimaginable now. I’m sure Duterte’s defenders can enumerate quite well enough some of those good things.

    But if the world and a growing number of Filipinos have perceived some things going wrong with the Duterte approach to the problem, so have I, and—thanks to the beauty of hindsight—I may now proceed to venture into where those mistakes may have been lurking prior to and during implementation:

1. First, it seems to me now that when Duterte made his drastic solution to the drug problem as one of the highlights, if not the sole highlight, of his presidential election candidacy and campaign, that was perhaps also when he practically started to shape what would later be his impending war on drugs’ problem with critics (perhaps also this war's later-found difficulty in quickly and efficiently obliterating the menace). True, Duterte the candidate might not have been the Duterte candidate that many wanted to see blossom, though we don’t know that, if he had not harped too much on that subject (or on that solution of his to that subject). But Duterte is Duterte, and if everyone has an obsession, this was his.
       But one thing for sure now, well at least now looking back, is that the loquacity of the campaign rhetoric on it as a problem needing a drastic solution, while it served his campaign was also already paving the way for its potential unraveling. For it was simply by announcing this solution of his to the nation, and consequently to the world of criminals (and to the parallel universe of policemen frustrated with the requirements of the law and the corruption in the judiciary) that he may have unwittingly planted the seeds of the war’s own defeat.
       We might remember that the death toll from this war actually already started during the transition period when Noynoy Aquino was still commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Duterte was still the president-elect with diktats in waiting. When, during this period, Duterte made speeches encouraging police to kill drug criminals who opted to fight it out with arresting officers, the encouragement certainly sounded like an offer to policemen to use that scenario as their perfect alibi for the summary execution of confirmed drug dealers that the President might have wanted done (as per some other contents of his speeches). The encouragement would likely also have been useful to erring or criminal cops friendly to drug lords, who may have used the same scenario as the same perfect alibi for the elimination of would-be-whistleblowers (small pushers, runners, client users).
2. The garrulousness of Duterte’s anti-illegal-drug campaign never changed its ways after his inauguration, maintaining a high profile via its appetite for loudness. That practically functioned as a warning to big drug criminals of their impending arrests. In fact, Duterte and his henchman, newly-installed Philippine National Police chief Gen. Bato de la Rosa, would state very explicit warnings to those drug lords on broadcast TV, saying, clearly or in effect, “get ready, we’re coming for you”. This ill-advised loudness defeated the potential of getting to the big drug lords through the quiet use as assets of small dealers (and client users). Instead, the government practically encouraged and aided the elimination of these small dealers, in the process eliminating their potential use as assets and witnesses necessary for getting to the big drug lords and necessary for the latter’s later ultimate conviction in the courts. In short, the Duterte proclivity for braggadocio made it possible for the program to only get the small fry as it practically warned the medium and big fish to get out of the way, even aiding the latter in eliminating elements in the equation who would potentially rat out on them. Thus the so-called “vigilante killings,” which, for all we know, may likely have been killings of simple users who necessarily knew who were who in the trading of the drug supply. These “vigilante killings” by drug dealers would be exacerbated by such programs as 1) Oplan Tokhang that encouraged the surrender of runners and users for listing and 2) mandatory drug testing that announced results: these two programs exposed users to the world of drug dealing as potential testifiers, which would be reason enough for their later or immediate assassination/elimination by the drug dealers. The programs' ultimate accomplishment? These eliminated the witnesses, setting free the drug lords. 
3. Another offshoot of Duterte’s loud campaign (which might have been frustrating to the PNP’s quiet spies and assets) was its susceptibility to being used by the regular murderers for hiding the real motives of their murders. It’s not unlikely that some policemen frustrated with the law and the justice system might have been easily taken in by the cardboards laid on top of murder victims' bodies announcing an anti-drug-pusher motive for their killing, a reaction that would lead these policemen to dismiss any enthusiasm to investigate further other possible motives behind those killings. And when one such occurrence multiplies itself to a horrific number that may trouble the media and human rights organizations as well as the rest of the relatively civilized world, then the war on drugs starts to move on its way to defeat. Instead of gathering more fans (in the manner it gathered fans during the enthusiasm of the election campaign period), it accumulated critics.
4. I need not say much about the potential of Duterte’s approach—along with any killings via vigilantism that may likely have been encouraged by Duterte’s passion—to eliminate wrongfully-accused persons (innocent persons) or persons adjudged as guilty by the verdict of mistaken identification.
5. Much of the enthusiasm for and loyalism towards Duterte’s war on drugs seems to have derived from a mythical appreciation of its beauty, lacking any favor for a delicate treatment of the problem. This kind of enthusiasm would necessarily churn out more good-looking braggadocio (bravado) instead of more scientific thinking towards winning the war. The potential unraveling of the still-continuing war (for which the President has asked for another six months to complete) could start precisely from this seeming waylaying of any delicate treatment of the situation in favor of the charismatic carelessness of the drastic, thanks to the penchant for sweeping obsessive thinking in the President himself. Thus his announcements (after the Davao explosion that some have begun to regard as an experimental false flag) that the military might have to be hauled in into this war, without weighing the fact that this solution could bring in more problems (via evolution) instead of real closure. We’re not even talking yet about the announcements that seem to be jeopardizing a long-time alliance with the relatively more democratic West (that has been critical of his war) in favor of a sweet-talking trickster called China (that has offered him rehab centers allegedly already under construction). This obsession by Duterte with one single personal interest (the dreamy utopia of a drug-free world) seems to have become so emotional to him that it has placed the drug problem in a pedestal worth any sacrifice, even the sacrifice by a leader of his country’s national sovereignty, thanks perhaps to a blinded confidence that he will not be deceived by his new like-minded allies from the lands of Qin Shi Huang and surviving KGBs.
6. The recently-accumulating careless statements of the President have made people nervous, primarily of the fact that he may have used this bottom-up war on drugs not for the serious elimination of the trade and drug lords but merely as a casus belli for the establishment of a culture of fear and obedience, fear of and obedience to a loved leader, after which establishment he can perhaps impose whatever personal utopia he has had in that strange 71-year-old brain of his, and likewise place in power the friends and institutions (local and foreign) that he wanted placed in lieu of the old friends his 71-year-old memory had come to hate.

    Sadly, all this developing blindness or myopia (in government or in the people) may perhaps only be proven true when it’s already too late and the only redeeming solutions available are already hidden in the tears of hindsight. [S / -I]





P.S. October 4, afternoon: If I may be allowed to speak in the language of divination priests, I'd bluntly say this to you now, Mr. President: "Here you are again, sir, deciding out loud, making all your thoughts known at a local leaders' congress. Sure you're telling them truths, collective truths and personal truths, but isn't the habitual or continuous screaming out of extemporaneous, lecturing truths risky when you are telling these to the populace yourself, touting yourself as your own best communication expert? Isn't it a disadvantage when you are being heard in the battlefield of your war, consequently warning the enemies you shouldn't be handing the benefit of a warning? Might it not be better to tell all these to key people in your team, giving them the blunt truths they might already know that yet need to be quickly and aggressively addressed? Might not the communication of a positive purpose or goal work better for the people's collective listening ears? Can you come up with a better communication plan than the non-plan you now have of making criminals daily hear your ever-present anger that's enabling them to adapt or be ready for?"
    Here's my joke about you to counter your Hitler rant:
    Kung si Rodrigo Duterte ang naging Hitler ng Germany at si Bato de la Rosa ang kanyang naging Goering, hindi na kakailanganin ni Churchill si Turing dahil walang magiging Enigma.

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]

DUTERTE'S CLUSTER BOMB

photo from http://www.redthreadinc.co/red-thread-blog/2015/4/2/dyi-cyber-vigilantism-the-heroes-we-need

I'D AGREE that when you let calls and checks for human rights work for the criminals, as criminals have no concern for human rights, then human rights end up benefiting criminals, to the disadvantage of anti-criminal enforcement (which is usually the only present subject for human rights calls and checking).
    However, I also buy the fact that when due process that is meant to protect the wrongfully accused is removed from the equation of going after criminals, the absence of that process also successfully removes from the face of the earth both 1) the criminals and 2) the wrongfully accused . . . having both been summarily executed by the judge, jury and executioner-cleaner who implemented their removal. And should we ignore the collateral damage that these executions produce? One wonders if the absence of due process is truly the only way to successfully clean a dirty street, or if there is a more precise way with almost no collateral damage.
    Could there be a cleaner with a cleaning plan better than what the Duterte/de la Rosa cleaning theory boasts as being the only plan sure to successfully clean streets? Could a denial of an alternative plan be due to an attitude indifferent to collateral damage? [S / -I]

ANG PULISYA AT ANG DIWA NG KARTON

photo from https://twitter.com/biancadava/status/749329266139992064

SABIHIN na natin na ang mga nasa larawang ito ay totoo ngang methamphetamine drug pushers na direkta o di-direktang may kinalaman sa maraming krimen na nangyayari sa ating lipunan. Malamang totoo ngang pusher sila, dahil . . . may tattoo.
    Pero paano, halimbawa, kung ito ang nangyari? May mga akyat-bahay na pumasok sa isang shop at naabutan sila ng dalawang may-ari ng shop kaya pinatay na lang ng akyat-bahay ang dalawang may-ari ng shop at nagsulat ng "pusher, huwag tularan" sa isang nahanap na karton at itinabi ang karton na ito sa mga bangkay ng kanilang napatay na mga may-ari ng shop. Ano sa palagay ninyo ang gagawin ng pulis ukol dito? Iimbestigahan ba nila ang marder na ito? Maaaring hindi. Dahil maaaring maging malakas ang dating sa superintendent nila ang diwa ng karton. [S / -I]

BINABARIL BA KAYA NG BARIL MO ANG SARILI MONG PAA?

photo mula sa http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/07/16/3-lalaking-nanlaban-sa-mga-pulis-maynila-patay

ILAN sa mga napabalitang napaslang (sa ilalim ng anti-drug drive ng gobyerno) ay anti-drug activists na pinaslang ng mga drug trafficking organizations? Ano ang ginagawa ng gobyerno para di na dumami pa ang mga anti-drug activists na mapapaslang ng mga organisasyong ito?
    Ilan sa nabalitang mga napaslang ang napaslang dahil sa mistaken identity? Ilan na ang nadampot dahil sa mistaken identity?
    Ilan sa napabalitang mga napaslang ang wrongfully accused o biktima ng wrongful execution (na tinaniman pa ng ebidensya at baril)?
    Ilan sa napabalitang mga pulis na nakapaslang ng diumano'y nanlaban na mga suspek ang bahagi o nasa payroll ng drug trafficking syndicates at maaaring napag-utusan ng sindikato na paslangin ang lahat ng may nalalaman tungkol sa kanilang druglord? Ano ang ginagawa ng gobyerno sa pag-usisa tungkol sa usaping ito? Naniniwala ba talaga si General Rock ofthe Rose (Bato dela Rosa) na hindi ito posible, ayon sa sabi niya sa panayam sa kanya ng TV5 tungkol dito, dahilan kung bakit walang pag-usisa sa usaping ito?

KUNG walang ginagawa ang gobyerno para maprotektahan ang mga anti-drug activists na may kaunting alam tungkol sa ilang public figures sa illicit drug trade, ano ang impact nito sa anti-illegal drug drive ni Presidente Duterte?
    Kung walang gagawin ang gobyerno tungkol sa mga napaslang dahil sa mistaken identity, kung totoo ngang mayroon, o nadampot dahil sa mistaken identity, kung totoong mayroon, ano ang impact nito sa anti-illegal drug drive ni Presidente Duterte?
    Kung walang gagawin ang gobyerno sa mga kaso ng wrongfully accused at mga kaso ng wrongfully summarily executed, ano ang magiging impact nito sa anti-illegal drug drive ni Presidente Duterte?
    Kung walang gagawin ang gobyerno sa mga problemang nabanggit, dahil lamang sa kaniyang paniniwala na hindi posible maging totoo ang mga problemang ito, . . . dahan-dahan bang pinapatay ng gobyerno ang sarili niyang anti-illegal drug drive?
    Abangan na lang siguro natin kung saan ang lahat ng ito ay patutungo, at kung tataas nga ba ang bilang ng mga napaslang na di dapat napaslang. [S / -I]

Why perfect crimes worry democracies

photo from http://www.philstar.com/nation/2016/07/14/1602788/top-drug-personality-killed-oriental-mindoro-raid

PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte's announcement of his goal to “really go after” illegal-drug traders and illegal drug-manufacturing lords has produced one seemingly desired effect: the illegal-drug “companies” were seen quickly initiating the elimination of their own armies consisting of small drug-pushing armed gangs. This quick decision by the “companies” is understandable, considering that these armies’ elements also function as smell tracks for the police dogs now let out to hunt for the sources of the illegal-drug menace. The Philippine National Police, especially now under anti-illegal drug advocate Bato de la Rosa, would be quick to admit that sometimes the companies would do this elimination process through their own assets within the PNP ranks.

     Now, this is not what President Duterte should allow to happen if he wants to gather whistleblowers who 1) could point to drug-manufacturing lords he doesn't know yet and 2) could testify against these lords in court. But that's if the President doesn't know these lords yet and has any intention of bringing any of these lords to court.
     Now, the reason why I call the ongoing spate of drug-pusher killings a “seemingly desired effect” is because the government doesn’t seem interested in putting a stop to it or in investigating the legitimacy of all these so-called “encounters with police raiders”. You would wonder why the government is leaving the momentum to consume its own fire, so to speak. You would wonder if it already has a plan for the next scenario.

     My theory is that the reason why the government is allowing all these “fatal encounters” and “discovered bodies” to proliferate is probably because it's precisely those little armies that shoot down police, lawyers, and judges, and journalists mind you, who are not aligned with the lords. And so, by allowing the "companies" to eliminate their own armies—presumably as they try to cover their tracks—the government is simply paving the road for government authorities to later operate clear of these armies. Once the fire has consumed itself, as it were, government can then proceed to go after the lords it had already known the names and whereabouts of since the day of Adam and Eve, now absent their armies that they eliminated by themselves. It will be smooth-sailing thence.
     But here's the downside to that plan. Because of Duterte’s announcement of his desire to clean up the streets on Robert de Niro’s behalf, which seems to have been taken by the illegal-drug industry as a serious pronouncement, the industry didn't just end up eliminating its own armies qua links; it also initiated a program of eliminating anyone who could point to industry lords, and this includes anti-drug activists who (may) have information on them. Thus the assassination of that Ateneo de Manila teacher, who seems to have been involved (as per circulating information) in anti-drug campaigns as an anti-illegal drug activist. Now, if this goes on until all the hovels in the barangays grow silent, it's likely that we won't be left with any whistleblowers or witnesses around. Whistleblowers and witnesses with strong testimonies, whether from the bad side or from the good side, whom we could tap to testify against the apprehended lords the day they appear in court, could all be gone soon.
     So, here’s my question: I wonder if it is indeed better to let the illegal-drug industry keep at it, in this ongoing elimination of its own armies that the government is standing down against, than have those armies largely around for use as testifying witnesses. Because the latter option, given that the members of drug-trafficking gangs number in the thousands, does run the risk of leaving elements that could still (as they definitely would) start killing police, lawyers and judges and, I almost forgot, journalists who know much about or have an inkling on who's who in the trade. True, lawyers and judges (and journalists) won't like it that the Duterte government, as per its recurring pronouncement, won't be coursing the elimination of the lords through their much-avowed space of usual due process; they won’t like it for the traditional reasons why one shouldn’t like it. This, even if the Duterte government’s decision to go in this path of “letting the fire consume itself” is what would give those very lawyers, judges and journalists the safety of their lives, a possible fact that these lawyers, judges and journalists might find hard to accept or not have the capacity to appreciate.
     Now, in case you’re  starting to read me as a total advocate of the Duterte government’s procedure, let me tell you that what I’m interested in right now is the availability of alternatives. Thus, now, my quick question: How would you do it? If you were appointed head of the Commission on Human Rights, with a mandate to protect the human rights of all, and concurrently head of the government's anti-drug trade agencies, tasked with the objective of the total-if-possible elimination of the illegal-drug trade, and concurrently a court judge, tasked with the legalist ethos to look at the evidence solely . . . how would you do it? For, evidently, the task and mandate of the President of the Republic cannot be any less than of those three. So, in case the President was you and not Rodrigo Duterte, what would you seek to achieve with your alternative? Which of these three departments’ concerns would you most likely put prior focus on and likely be more successful at? Which of these three departments would you be most likely to fail in?

     It's a comfort to think that we live in a democratic world with absolute respect for due process, which process—I'd like to believe—is largely aimed at protecting the innocent, the wrongfully accused. But, correct me if I’m wrong, there’s a reality that stares us in the face, a reality also telling us that the demos of democracies (which includes their lawyers and judges) have not been able to fix certain menaces through the available due process precisely because the menaces have had—from the git-go—a direct handle on it, in short have hijacked that process almost completely, rendering the crimes of drug trafficking perfect crimes. It’s a sad truth there, but it’s a 3D truth, and the only available options are for one to either deny or accept its being true.
     Now, from the point of view recognizing the truth of the fact, it’s absolutely sad that due process in democracies has been failing at protecting the innocent victims of a certain menace and have been succeeding more at protecting the industry stakeholders of that same menace. We could choose to simply live with that paradox for a very long time and not do anything about the legalism, and certainly students of democracy and democratic jurisprudence would be debating on the born issues decades from now.
     But that doesn’t mean that, within this sadness, there’s nothing we can do except watch the police up their game. For, even now, that point of view can pray that a Senate investigation—meant to be launched anytime soon on the currently growing number of “assassinations” and “police raids resulting in deaths”—does us all a great favor by focusing on this sad truth, to thereby look for a resolution that might harmonize the true objectives of the anti-illegal drug agencies and those of the authorities of democratic law. [S / -I]