By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo
President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs, initiated in 2016, has been one of the most controversial and heavily criticized policies in recent Philippine history. Dubbed “Oplan Tokhang,” this campaign involved police officers knocking on the doors of suspected drug users and dealers, urging them to surrender. However, it quickly morphed into a series of violent raids, resulting in thousands of deaths, many under dubious circumstances. The International Criminal Court (ICC) estimates around 30,000 killings related to the drug war, with roughly 7,000 occurring during police operations.
The term “tokhang” combines the Visayan words “toktok” (knock) and “hangyo” (plead), reflecting the supposed non-violent approach of the campaign. However, allegations of extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses have marred the initiative, leading to international condemnation and an ongoing ICC investigation.
Morillo’s Case: A Fight for Accountability
Efren Morillo, who survived a 2017 tokhang operation in Payatas, Quezon City, is a symbol of resilience against the backdrop of Duterte’s violent drug war. After witnessing the deaths of his friends Marcelo Daa Jr., Rhaffy Gabo, Anthony Comendo, and Jessie Cule, Morillo miraculously escaped death by playing dead and rolling down a hill despite his injuries. His subsequent legal battle to hold the responsible police officers accountable highlights the complexities and challenges faced by victims seeking justice.
Grounds Supporting Morillo’s Argument
1. Due Process and Human Rights Violations:
- Philippine Constitution: Article III, Section 1 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The arbitrary killings during tokhang operations violate this fundamental right.
- Supreme Court Precedent: In People vs. Ompad (G.R. No. 112745), the Court emphasized the need for due process and the protection of human rights in law enforcement operations.
2. Police Accountability:
- Revised Penal Code: Article 248 defines murder and sets penalties for unlawful killings. Morillo’s case argues that the actions of the police officers meet the criteria for murder rather than frustrated murder.
- Supreme Court Rulings: In People vs. Genosa (G.R. No. 135981), the Court underscored the importance of holding state actors accountable for unlawful killings.
3. Judicial Oversight:
- Ombudsman’s Role: The Ombudsman is mandated to investigate and prosecute government officials involved in criminal activities. Morillo’s lawyers argue that the Ombudsman’s decision to dismiss the charges without sufficient investigation constitutes a dereliction of duty and a failure to uphold justice.
Rebuttals to Morillo’s Claims
1. Performance of Duty:
- Justifying Circumstance: The Ombudsman cited the police officers’ performance of duty as a justifying circumstance under the Revised Penal Code (Article 11), which can exempt them from criminal liability if their actions were in pursuit of their official duties.
- Supreme Court Precedent: In People vs. Oanis (G.R. No. L-47741), the Court ruled that police officers performing their duties in good faith could be exempt from criminal liability.
2. Probable Cause and Evidence:
- Lack of Substantial Evidence: The Ombudsman argued that the evidence presented by Morillo and his witnesses was insufficient to establish probable cause for the charges. This decision aligns with the principle that criminal liability must be based on substantial evidence, as reiterated in Bermas vs. People (G.R. No. 145637).
3. Witness Credibility:
- Credibility Issues: The Ombudsman questioned the credibility of Morillo as the sole eyewitness, given his involvement in the anti-drug operation. The credibility of witnesses is crucial in criminal proceedings, as highlighted in People vs. Credo (G.R. No. 132133).
Procedural Framework for Both Sides
For Morillo:
- Supreme Court Petition: Morillo has filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking to reverse the Ombudsman’s decision to dismiss the frustrated murder charges against the police officers. He argues that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion and failed to properly consider the evidence, thereby seeking a criminal trial for the accused officers.
- Court of Appeals Petition: In a separate legal move, Morillo has filed a petition with the Court of Appeals to review the administrative liabilities of the officers. This petition focuses on the administrative aspect, challenging the Ombudsman’s dismissal of complaints related to robbery, planting of evidence, and other administrative violations. Morillo contends that substantial evidence exists to hold the officers administratively accountable.
For the Respondents:
- Defense of Justifiable Acts: The police officers can argue their actions were justified under the principles of law enforcement and self-defense.
- Challenging Evidence: They can further contest the sufficiency and credibility of the evidence presented by Morillo.
Unbiased Evaluation
Morillo’s Case:
- Strengths: Strong emphasis on human rights violations and due process; substantial public and international support; potential to set a precedent for accountability in the drug war.
- Weaknesses: Reliance on a single eyewitness whose credibility is contested; the need to overcome the Ombudsman’s initial dismissal.
Respondents’ Case:
- Strengths: Legal provisions supporting justifiable actions in law enforcement; previous rulings favoring police officers acting in good faith.
- Weaknesses: Public and international scrutiny of the drug war; potential bias perceived in the Ombudsman’s decision under a Duterte appointee.
Verdicts and Recommendations
For Morillo:
- Pursue the Supreme Court Petition: Continue to seek a reversal of the Ombudsman’s decision and push for a full criminal trial to ensure accountability.
- Strengthen Evidence: Gather additional evidence and witness testimonies to bolster the credibility of the claims.
For the Respondents:
- Prepare Robust Defense: Focus on the legal justifications for their actions and the insufficiency of the evidence presented.
- Engage in Dialogue: Consider participating in mediated dialogues to address the broader issues of human rights and accountability in the drug war.
Conclusion
Morillo’s pursuit of justice represents a critical test of the Philippine legal system’s ability to address the human rights violations stemming from Duterte’s drug war. While both sides have compelling arguments, the overarching need for accountability and justice for victims of extrajudicial killings remains paramount. The courts must navigate this complex landscape with a steadfast commitment to upholding the rule of law and human rights.
- “Forthwith” to Farce: How the Senate is Killing Impeachment—And Why Enrile’s Right (Even If You Can’t Trust Him)
- “HINDI AKO NAG-RESIGN!”
- “I’m calling you from my new Globe SIM. Send load!”
- “Mahiya Naman Kayo!” Marcos’ Anti-Corruption Vow Faces a Flood of Doubt
- “Meow, I’m calling you from my new Globe SIM!”
- “PLUNDER IS OVERRATED”? TRY AGAIN — IT’S A CALCULATED KILL SHOT
- “Shimenet”: The Term That Broke the Internet and the Budget
- “We Did Not Yield”: Marcos’s Stand and the Soul of Filipino Sovereignty
KWEBA ni BAROK 
Leave a comment