Extrajudicial killings have been a recurring and controversial issue in many countries, particularly where rule of law is weak or political power is unchecked. In the Philippines, the term has gained widespread attention over the years, especially in the context of anti-drug campaigns and political repression. Understanding when extrajudicial killings began is essential to fully grasp their implications on human rights, governance, and justice. This issue stretches back decades and has evolved in both scale and visibility over time, shaped by historical, political, and social factors that are often overlooked in mainstream discussions.
Historical Background of Extrajudicial Killings
During the Martial Law Era (19721981)
One of the most notable early waves of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines occurred during the rule of President Ferdinand Marcos. In 1972, he declared Martial Law, citing threats from communists and insurgents. This period was marked by numerous human rights abuses, including enforced disappearances, torture, and summary executions carried out by the military and police. Activists, journalists, and student leaders were frequent targets. These state-sanctioned acts of violence set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, normalizing the use of force beyond judicial oversight.
Post-Martial Law Period
After the People Power Revolution in 1986, which led to the ousting of Marcos, hopes were high for democratic reforms. However, extrajudicial killings did not cease. The administrations that followed, including those of Corazon Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, also witnessed continued violence against political activists, journalists, and suspected insurgents. Though efforts were made to rebuild institutions and strengthen rule of law, impunity remained a persistent issue.
Rise of Extrajudicial Killings in the 2000s
Counterinsurgency and Paramilitary Involvement
In the early 2000s, extrajudicial killings saw a resurgence, particularly in rural areas where the military conducted operations against communist rebels. Reports indicated that many victims were not combatants but civilians accused of sympathizing with insurgent groups. Paramilitary forces, sometimes loosely supervised by state authorities, were implicated in various cases, raising alarm among local and international human rights organizations.
Weak Judicial Accountability
A significant factor in the rise of extrajudicial killings has been the lack of prosecution and weak judicial mechanisms. Many cases remained unsolved due to fear, lack of evidence, or political interference. The culture of silence and impunity allowed perpetrators to act without fear of legal consequence, encouraging more extrajudicial actions by those in power.
The Duterte Administration and the War on Drugs
2016 and Beyond: A New Wave
When President Rodrigo Duterte took office in 2016, he launched an aggressive anti-drug campaign. This marked a turning point in the public discourse surrounding extrajudicial killings, as thousands of suspected drug users and pushers were killed in police operations or by unidentified gunmen. Duterte’s rhetoric openly encouraged law enforcers to shoot suspects if they resisted arrest, reinforcing a message that lethal force would not only be tolerated but applauded.
Public and International Response
The scale and brutality of the killings drew condemnation from international bodies such as the United Nations and Amnesty International. Local human rights groups documented thousands of deaths, many of which were allegedly staged to appear as shootouts. The Duterte administration defended its actions as necessary for public safety, but critics argued that the campaign violated constitutional rights and due process.
Role of Law Enforcement
The Philippine National Police (PNP) was at the forefront of the anti-drug operations, often conducting ‘Oplan Tokhang’ and ‘Oplan Double Barrel.’ In many cases, victims were listed on so-called drug watch lists without formal charges or warrants. This undermined the principle of innocent until proven guilty, raising serious concerns about the abuse of authority and lack of oversight.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
Violation of Human Rights
Extrajudicial killings directly conflict with the Philippine Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, due process, and equal protection under the law. Despite this, institutional failure to investigate and prosecute these killings eroded public trust in the legal system. Many families of victims are left without justice, further entrenching cycles of violence and poverty.
Efforts Toward Reform
Some efforts have been made to address extrajudicial killings through legislative reforms and international cooperation. For example, certain lawmakers have pushed for bills to strengthen human rights protections and improve accountability among law enforcement. However, political will remains a barrier, especially when powerful figures are implicated or shielded by allies in government.
Modern Developments and Ongoing Challenges
Investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC)
The ICC opened a preliminary examination into the Philippine drug war in 2018. While the government initially cooperated, it later withdrew from the ICC, citing concerns over sovereignty. The move was criticized as an attempt to evade accountability. Despite the withdrawal, the ICC continues to monitor the situation, collecting evidence and testimonies from survivors and human rights groups.
Current Administration’s Stance
As of recent years, the current administration has made statements about shifting away from violent drug policies. However, human rights advocates remain skeptical due to the lack of transparency and tangible reforms. The history of extrajudicial killings casts a long shadow, and meaningful change will require systemic overhauls in both policy and law enforcement culture.
The timeline of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines shows that this is not a recent issue but one deeply rooted in the country’s political and legal history. From the Martial Law era to the present day, such killings have been used as tools of repression, often with minimal accountability. Understanding when and how extrajudicial killings began provides critical insight into the systemic problems that allow them to persist. Addressing the issue requires more than condemnation; it demands reform, justice, and the restoration of public trust in democratic institutions.