Category: duterte’s drug war

Sympathy for Remulla’s son

Thought-provoking indeed: “Marcos Jr. and the older Remulla must make a sacrifice. Specifically, Remulla, the father, must resign from his being Justice Secretary. And Marcos Jr. must encourage him to do so.”

By FILOMENO S. STA. ANA III  

The title is meant to provoke. I differ from those who think that the son of the Justice Secretary must be punished for possession of illegal drugs.

My stand: The son deserves humane treatment. In fact, in a kinder world, the son does not deserve harsh judgment and heavy punishment.

But to spare the son from the law’s harshness, the father must make a big sacrifice beyond what he has offered.

I do not deny that this piece is political. But I veer away from partisanship as I declare my sympathy for the devil. (My apologies to the Rolling Stones.)

But before I explain why I have “sympathy for the devil,” let us critically examine the troubles of the Remulla family. How this issue is handled will also have repercussions, for better or for worse, on President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.’s government.

Illicit drug enforcers arrested Juanito Jose Remulla III, the son of Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, through a “controlled delivery operation.” That is, instead of immediately confiscating the contraband at the port of entry, the operatives allowed the parcel containing 937 grams of high-grade cannabis delivered to the young Remulla. Under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, a person convicted of possessing 500 grams or more of marijuana faces the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine ranging from P500,000 to P10,000,000.

But the Philippines is way behind the curve with respect to drug rules and enforcement. We witness an increasing number of countries or societies accepting the use of marijuana and hallucinogens. Cannabis legalization is spreading all over the world. Among countries that have legalized the recreational use of cannabis are Canada, Mexico, Uruguay, South Africa, and neighboring Thailand.

In the US, a growing number of states have made recreational marijuana legal. At the federal level, US President Joe Biden has pardoned thousands convicted of mere possession of marijuana.

Other countries have limited the scope of legalization to medical use or have decriminalized drug use (not just cannabis consumption).

This shift from punitive action to a humane policy is a recognition of the failure of the violent war on drugs. Harm reduction is the emerging framework and strategy.

Indeed, it makes no sense that cannabis use is criminally punished, but the sale of alcohol and tobacco is legal. Yet, the scientific evidence shows that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than cannabis. (Our society should then be understanding towards the younger Remulla and sterner towards politicians who peddle tobacco and alcohol.)

Prohibition, as economic history has demonstrated, is costly and damaging to society. A “war on drugs” is less effective in curbing consumption, for this merely drives users underground. Worse, it abets corruption and violence (including extra-judicial killings especially during the time of Rodrigo Duterte).

Strong regulation — by distinguishing between hard and soft drugs and using a variety of tools to discourage consumption and apply harm-reduction strategies — is more effective to address substance abuse.

As pointed out by a Time article (Aug. 1, 2018), “Want to win the war on drugs? Portugal might have the answer.” What Portugal did in 2001 was to decriminalize the use of all drugs if individual consumption does not exceed a certain amount for 10 days. According to Portugal’s Health Ministry, 15 years after decriminalizing drug use, heroin use went down by 75% and death from overdose dropped by 85% although this increased slightly in the wake of an economic crisis. Overall, Portugal’s drug mortality rate is one of the lowest in the whole of Europe.

The explanation above should lead us to rethink our drug policy. It should also lead us to sympathize with the younger Remulla and many others accused of or convicted for using drugs.

Moreover, the Remulla controversy is an opportunity for Marcos Jr., to overturn Duterte’s failed war on drugs. Was it Winston Churchill who said: “Never let a good crisis go to waste?”

Turn the Remulla crisis into an opportunity to reform. Marcos Jr. in fact has already taken a different approach, having rejected the violence and brutality that characterized Duterte’s drug policy. He can take a bigger, bolder step by overhauling the Dangerous Drugs Act. At the minimum, decriminalize drug use. (Note that decriminalization is very different from legalization.)

But to do this, Marcos Jr. and the older Remulla must make a sacrifice. Specifically, Remulla, the father, must resign from his being Justice Secretary. And Marcos Jr. must encourage him to do so.

Secretary Remulla’s pronouncement that he will not intervene in his son’s case, nor will he influence the process is nonetheless insufficient. Similarly, Marcos Jr.’s statement that the calls for Remulla’s resignation “have no basis” is off the mark.

Those demanding Remulla’s resignation have raised the questions of delicadeza* and potential conflict of interest. Delicadeza and avoidance of conflict of interest are strong reasons why Secretary Remulla should resign.

I do not doubt Remulla’s statement to “let justice take its own course.” But this is objectively difficult to happen so long as he heads the Department of Justice. Remulla may not intervene, but his employees or subordinates will still regard him as their boss and will continue dealing with him even after the resolution of his son’s case. It is but natural for them to butter up and please their chief.

Here’s the dilemma. The law is the law, and the law is hard. The law must apply to the younger Remulla.

Aspiring for a new direction regarding drug policy, we want the harm reduction approach to prevail. That means giving the lightest sentence to Remulla if he is found guilty.

Prima facie, the case against the younger Remulla is strong. But having a light sentence is the way to go. Doing this sends a clear message that the whole of government will, from now on, lean towards harm reduction.

But giving Remulla, the son, a light sentence in a situation when the father remains Justice Secretary will arouse public suspicion and anger. That will lead to a political backlash.

The public will accuse the administration of having a double standard of justice. The poor are severely punished, even killed, in the course of the war on drugs. The son of a powerful politician gets a light sentence. But as I have argued, everyone charged with drug use or possession deserves humane treatment.

Upholding harm reduction means sparing anyone, including the younger Remulla, from heavy punishment. For Marcos Jr. and Secretary Remulla to show credibility in doing the right thing, they must make the ultimate sacrifice: Remulla, the father, must resign. It is for their own good.

Having himself acknowledged that he used drugs, Marcos Jr. has sympathy for drug users and understands the need for reform. At the proper time, Marcos Jr., using his political capital, can announce that henceforth, government will terminate Duterte’s war on drugs, amend the Dangerous Drugs Act, and adopt harm reduction.

This essay is written in memory of Edgardo Araneta Kalaw, Jr. He was a Filipino pioneer in championing harm reduction.

* Maintaining dignity by avoiding embarrassing situations and comporting oneself properly. A sense of propriety.

 

aguirre’s anti-drugs rhetoric

At the Senate hearing on Delos Santos’ death on Thursday, August 24, Aguirre asked human rights groups why they are not as vocal whenever drug addicts kill or rape victims, echoing his statements at a House budget hearing on Wednesday, August 23.

“Bakit ‘yung sa Bulacan, mayroong ni-rape na babae tapos may 3 minor, bakit ni isa walang dumalaw? Even one from human rights. [But] the (human rights) chairman went to the wake of Kian yesterday. So ‘yun po disproportionate; parang ‘di pantay. Anong diperensya ng pinatay na bata ng mga adik sa pinatay na bata ng mga pulis?” (What’s the difference between a child killed by an addict and a child killed by police?)

the justice secretary is being the president’s lawyer, of course, defending duterte’s drug war and the besieged police, muddying the waters without compunction, and distracting from the real issue at hand.  on social media, the ka-DDS (duterte diehard supporters) have picked it up, echoing and affirming aguirre’s question as the correct response to bleeding hearts crying for an end to the killings of kids such as kian.

isang taon na tayong stuck sa usaping ito.  read marvin bionat’s PH social media drowning in fallacies and incivility posted 31 aug 2016.  even then, nakakanerbiyos na ang takbo ng isip ng maraming pro-duterte.

… supporters of extrajudicial killings often post on social media their now ubiquitous question: “Where is the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) when innocent civilians are murdered, raped and robbed by drug addicts?” There is a straightforward answer to that question—that is, the CHR’s constitutional mandate is not fighting crime but fighting human rights abuses involving civil and political rights, so they have nothing to do with daily crimes and police work. It is like asking where the nurses and doctors are (not the fire department) to put out a raging fire. But the emotion-laden rhetorical question suits those who would rather not see the CHR meddle in the government’s war on drugs.  

read too fr. ranhillo aquino’s Fallacy as the new normal, posted 25 august 2017.  

When bishops decried Kian’s murder only recently, there almost immediately followed a flurry of regurgitated issues about clergy abuse of minors. There was also posed what, I can only presume, was meant to be rhetorical question: “Bakit hindi kayo nag-ingay nung may pinatay ag ginahasa ang mga adik?”  It is not the fallacies that alarm me, because they can occur even in the discourses of the learned—of course, at a very high, almost indiscernible, degree of subtlety.  But the fallacies on Facebook and other social media sites are blatant and arrant.  What makes me quake in my shoes though is that they are no longer recognized as fallacies and have in fact been accepted as the “rhetoric” of the age.  Fallacy is irrationality and to make it the mode of thinking is pathetic, tragic even.

…When a bishop cries out “This is murder” and you answer “Direct your priests first who molest children”, the fallacy should be clear.  The question is whether the deed is murder or not.  The molestation issue is quite another — which is not to say that it is not a legitimate issue.

AGUIRRE:  Anong diperensya ng pinatay na bata ng mga adik sa pinatay na bata ng mga pulis?

may tama si aguirre: walang pinag-iba ang batang pinatay ng adik sa batang pinatay ng pulis.  if we’re talking about the bata as victim, well, they’re both dead. if we’re talking about the killers, well, parepareho silang nawala sa sarili, yung adik under the inflluence of shabu, yung pulis under the influence of the president’s kill kill kill orders — i have your backs, say niya, and that must be so nakaka-high.

and, hey, they all deserve due process and rehab options, crazed addicts and trigger-happy cops alike.

Murderous Manila: On the Night Shift

James Fenton

One night in December, I was standing in heavy rain, under an umbrella, in a dark Manila alleyway, outside a house known to be a drug den, waiting with “the night shift,” the photographers and reporters on the crime beat, on the off chance of being shown upstairs to the scene of the killings. We knew the story in outline only: four men had been getting ready for a pot-smoking session on the second floor when a masked intruder burst in and shot them all dead. There was one witness, a sixteen-year-old boy, but he was said to be too shocked to speak.

Read on…