EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING AS A MEANS OF FIGHTING CRIMINALITY
Cases which revolve around human rights violations will and always be a main concern
of the judiciary since the masses will constantly be on the edge of their seats waiting on the
courts ruling to either hold the perpetrators liable for their crimes or turn a blind eye and allow
them to walk away unscathed. In addition to this, cases such as mentioned apply to every
individual regardless of their class or position in the society and the fact that such abuse to their
basic rights may be inflicted upon them in certain instances makes it all the more relevant to the
people.
Based from the US Legal Definitions (n.d.), an extrajudicial killing is defined as
deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly
constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples.
A prime example of a period where a plethora of human rights violations were committed
was during Ferdinand Marcos reign, or to be specific, during the Martial Law. Severe torture,
murders and countless abduction were quite ordinary during the regime. These were supposedly
done to ensure the safety of the country and to inflict a massive change in order to create a New
Society. But this ambitious goal wasnt exactly achieved. On the contrary, it merely made people
anxious and terrified of the fact that they might find themselves six feet under then ground (that
is, if perpetrators even showed enough mercy and decency to at least bury the body) if they made
one wrong move against that administration. Come to think of it, the way that they executed their
plans for a better country defeated the entire purpose of said plans in the first place. Even until
now, majority of the Filipinos, particularly the victims, remain traumatized and haunted by what
transpired years ago.
Fast-forward to a couple of years later, we have another government official who prides
himself with the fact the city he once had jurisdiction over is one of the worlds safest cities due
to its low crime rates (ABS-CBN, 2015). But the downside is, underneath all that glory is quite
literally, a bloody truth. Former Davao city mayor and president-elect Rodrigo Duterte, admitted
that he had a hand in killing criminals, syndicates, and others that can be a threat in his city but
he also said that he was never involved in any extrajudicial killing. Even though others see his
behaviour as terrible and ill-mannered, he insisted that he still have values in life which grounds
him to resent extrajudicial killings (Ranada, 2016).
Even though he claims otherwise, many still wonder if extrajudicial killings will now run
rampant in the country just for the sake of maintaining peace and orderliness, like what can be
observed in Davao city, since he was elected as president in the May 2016 elections. During an
assembly, he stated that There will be killings but I will assure you there will be no
extrajudicial killing. I cannot gun down a kneeling man. There is no honor in it, (Ranada, 2016).
Guess we should prepare ourselves for the bloodshed that will occur in the coming years.
In analyzing the ethicality of extrajudicial killings, Kantian Ethics will be applied.
Kantian Ethics considers an act as moral if the said deed was done in accordance to duty and he
also argued that ends never justifies the means (Copp, 2006). It also involves Deontological
theories instead of Teleogical ones.
Deontological theories include an argument that states that an actions rightness or
wrongness is not determined by the consequences but by on how the act was done in accordance
to rules; hence the means are never justifiable by the end (Pojman & Fieser, 2012). In the sense,
rules and laws which are established to provide universality to different views are to be the basis
on what is right from wrong. With laws, together with intuition, action to maximize utility by
going against the rules is still deemed as an unjust action; therefore, firmly opposing utilitarian
ethics.
To support this argument, various propositions made great impact and good provisions in
relation to Kantian ethics. One of which is the Rule-Intuitionism proposition which states that
reason and intuition is needed when confronted with morality or ethicality of an act or doing.
Rule-intuitionists believes there is a necessity to consult the principle of rulessets of
recognized rules that conform to the aspect of universalityto judge right from wrong. Another
intuitionism proposition states that actions, to be determined if right or wrong, must first be
consulted to the conscience or intuitions (Klikauer, 2010). These aforementioned propositions
point out to statements such as: Do not lie, do not kill people, and other similar statements that by
intuition is already considered as constructed moral rules.
Kant also in lined his principles to the categorical or unqualified imperative which does
not need any conditions and shows recognition and respect to imperial status of moral
obligations which are of harmony with universal law hence acting immediately, and executing
the virtue of rationality in the form of intuition. The argument simply states that ones doing must
be aligned to duty (Pojman & Fieser, 2012).
Immanuel Kants Kantian ethics treats moral obligations as absolute commands or better
known as categorical imperatives (Pojman & Fieser, 2012). According to Copp (2006), the
aforementioned term is subdivided into four parts: (1) Normativity which states that a valid
explanation always lies behind an immoral act, this aspect is fairly relevant to the case at hand
but this will be hashed out as we move further into the discussion. (2) Universality, states that it
can be generalized and can be held true in any given circumstance, (3) Supremacy states that
the reasons against wrongdoing are invariably conclusive. Lastly, (4) Necessity which means
that all three of the abovementioned aspects all hold true in complete necessity.
Extrajudicial killings are quite rampant especially in the Philippines. Deaths of leftists or
even suspected civilians who never saw the privilege of going into court trials to prove
themselves innocent of the crimes that they are accused of mainly occur in order to spread a
sense of weakness to these people who are against the political rule of their own country and
most importantly, the main reason for such occurrences is to prevent communication or
compromise between the two parties involved, with one being the government (Alston, 2009).
Lets go back to the second example, which is more recent. It is with regard to the existence of
the so-called Davao Death Squad. Apparently, names of alleged criminals are put forward in
lists created by the communitys own barangay officials; these people are given the option to
terminate any suspicious activities, which rendered them as suspects in the first place, or to leave
the city. Maybe the latter option is the safest way out but if these suspected people refuse to do
either of the two, the only fate that awaits them is either abduction or death. And the fact that
these perpetrators are free to walk around without even a single case filed against them since
probable eyewitnesses to the crime are unwilling to cooperate or just plain afraid to go against
them is what makes the matter all the more alarming. And to add to that, the Mayor, which
coincidentally is the newly elected president of the Philippines, who merely encourages such
unjust violence only intensifies the fact that human rights violations are still condoned in certain
parts of the country (Alston, 2009).
Given the examples before, are we to say that these extrajudicial killings are ethical since
it was done to allegedly achieve the greater good for the masses? According to the deontological
theory which states that the rightness or wrongness of an act is not established by its end result,
rather, it is determined by the means or what specific actions were done to produce such outcome
(Pojman, et. al., 2012), or in simpler terms, we can quote the famous saying, the end never
justifies the means. Lets go back to the Davao Death Squad situation. Suspected criminals were
killed in order to prevent an increase in crime rates. Yes, the expected outcome was attained with
good intentions but keep in mind that the alleged criminals were robbed of their right to a just
trial, instead, the process was hastened and immediate death was granted upon them. So to
answer the question, no, it is completely unethical to lose lives over a matter that can be resolved
even without deaths involved.
Another way to evaluate the case of extrajudicial killing is through Kants second
formulation of the categorical imperative: The Principle of Ends. This principle states that So
act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an
end and never as merely a means. When applied to the case in hand, the people who were
subjected to the killings were in no way treated with respect or even an ounce of worth since they
were merely used as pawns to accomplish the authorities idea of a safer society/environment for
the majority of its citizens. Furthermore, Kant also stated that we cannot treat two people as
beings who have different degrees of worth, where in this particular instance was not necessarily
true given the fact one life was deemed more valuable than the other, since ones life was clearly
expendable in order for the other person to live in peace (Pojman & Fieser, 2012).
Lastly, we can apply Kants Principle of Autonomy which stresses that we need not rely
on a certain figure of authority to dictate whether something is moral or not (Pojman & Fieser,
2012). The government may argue that extrajudicial killings are ethical since they were done
with the intent of attaining a better community that is devoid of criminals but as individuals, we
can disagree that taking lives of people to compensate for their ill actions is in no way moral.
As famously quoted, everything has at least one exception. The arguments and situations
provided may have supported the Kantian ethics but some situations also deviate from the
abovementioned theories and propositions.
One would be the fluidity of law and constitution in a certain country or state.
Considering the relevance of the topic and situations presented earlier, changing or altering the
constitution or passing a new bill would cause modification of law. Laws and rules can change
depending on who has the upper-hand on a given situation. As an example, in a situation where
in one of the current constitutions section positions that suspects should undergo legal
jurisdiction and more powerful would want to put revisions to the constitution making legal
jurisdiction unnecessary would be unavoidable. Considering it as law and it is right to oblige
with the law, killing without proper jurisdiction would be morally acceptable and is recognized
as good action.
Relative to this, if extrajudicial killing will be considered as acceptable, soldiers are
expected to do what is taskedthat is to kill one who poses a threat to them. In this situation, the
task was given to them in order to protect the majority, to eliminate a threat not only to them but
for the majority which is deemed as a good act because a soldier performed an action based on
his duty. The only problem with the situation provided is that a soldier does not equate to the
masses and that judging someone as a threat is very subjective and can never be true for
everyone. Another loophole in the situation, since the act of killing without legal jurisdiction is
argued as unethical, are soldiers to be held responsible for the immoral act? He did his duty as a
soldier whom was commanded by high officials and can be considered only as a pawn; hence
should not be punished. Instead the upper-handed who ordered and commanded should receive
the consequences of his or her instructions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABS-CBN News. (2015, May 25). Duterte admits links to Davao Death Squad. Retrieved May
23, 2016, from ABS-CBN News- HALALAN 2016: [Link]
[Link]/halalan2016/nation/regions/05/25/15/duterte-admits-links-davao-death-squad-
says-hell-kill-100000-criminals
Alston, P. 2009. Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development: Report of the Special
Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions. United Nations Human
Rights Council. pp. 1-16.
COPP, D. 2006. The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oxford University Press, Inc. New
York, USA. p. 282-292.
Duterte admits links to Davao Death Squad. [Link]
[Link]/halalan2016/nation/regions/05/25/15/duterte-admits-links-davao-death-squad-
says-hell-kill-100000-criminals. Accessed last May 22, 2016.
Duterte Denounces Extrajudicial Killing: No Honor in it.
[Link]
denounces-extrajudicial-killing. Accessed last May 21, 2016.
Duterte to Binay: No Extrajudicial Killings, I Still have Values.
[Link]
extrajudicial-killings-values. Accessed last May 22, 2016.
KLIKAUER, T. 2010. Critical Management Ethics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
POJMAN, L.P., J. FIESER. 2012. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. 7th Ed. Wadsworth,
Cengage Learning. Boston, USA. p. 121-138.
Ranada, P. (2016, January 12). Dyterte denounces extrajudicial killing: No honor in it. Retrieved
May 23, 2016, from Rappler:
[Link]
denounces-extrajudicial-killing
US Legal. (n. d., ). Extrajudicial Killing Law & Legal Definition. Retrieved May 24, 2016,
from US Legal: [Link]
