This photo taken March 9, 2017 shows members of a village watch standing next to a body, who according to witnesses was thrown from a car and then shot several times by suspects, along a road in Quezon City in suburban Manila.
While President Rodrigo Duterte’s unprecedented crackdown has claimed the lives of 7,000 people, the impacts on their families are the largely untold stories in what rights groups have called a “war on the poor”. Amnesty International said in a February report that the killings were overwhelmingly in poor urban areas, with the slain often male breadwinners. AFP PHOTO
The petitions that sought to nullify President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs were efforts to destabilize the government and sow anarchy, Solicitor General Jose Calida said Tuesday during the resumption of the oral argument at the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The petition filed by the Center for International Law (CenterLaw) sought the issuance of a writ of amparo to shield the residents of 26 barangays in San Andres Bukid, Manila against the government’s anti-illegal drug war.
The petition filed by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) on the other hand was seeking to declare as unconstitutional PNP’s CMC 16-2016, or “Oplan Double Barrel,” which Diokno said allowed police to neutralize suspected drug pushers.
Calida said what the petitioners were doing was simply “to harass, vex, or hinder public authorities in the legitimate exercise of their duties.”
“It is therefore not difficult to see that the present petitions are disingenuous moves to destabilize the Duterte Administration and sow anarchy,” Calida said.
He said the petitions should be dismissed because “the petitioners failed to show any clear legal right for the injunctive relief to issue, just as they have not shown any compelling evidence that their life, liberty, and security are in imminent danger to warrant the writs of prohibition and amparo.”
“The remedies they have resorted to can be considered as a broad plea to strike down prevailing law enforcement practices on dubious constitutional grounds rather than on distinct and personal threats to their lives and safety,” the Solicitor General added.