The Militarized Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Philippines: An Escalating Threat to Human Rights

Michael Yusingco & Angelika Pizarro

Ateneo Policy Center

The response of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to the COVID-19 pandemic was to implement emergency measures under the authority of two statutes. The first one was the Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of Public Health Concern Act of 2018 which empowers the President to declare a state of public health emergency and mobilize governmental and nongovernmental agencies to respond to the threat. (Section 7) 

This law was the legal basis for his Presidential Proclamation No. 922 issued 8 March declaring a state of public health emergency throughout the country and ordering the lockdown of the National Capital Region to stop the spread of the coronavirus. The entire country has since been in a state of health emergency until President Duterte says otherwise. 

The second statute operationalized was the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 which authorizes the President to declare a state of calamity (Section 16). This was the legal basis for Presidential Proclamation No. 929 issued 16 March declaring a nationwide state of calamity for 6 months. The proclamation also expanded the coverage of the lockdown to encompass the biggest island of the country, Luzon, which is home to about 57 million Filipinos, accounting for more than half of the national population. 

However, these two executive directives were not enough. Congress, exercising emergency powers under the 1987 Constitution (Article VI, Section 23 (2)), enacted on the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act of 2020 (Bayanihan Act) on 24 March with the sole purpose of giving “necessary special powers” to President Duterte to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This piece of legislation was swiftly enacted with virtually no opposition, even though it contained provisions that give the President “fiscal leeway” to use public funds. However, as an oversight mechanism, it mandated the President to submit a weekly report to Congress. This law was intended to be in full force and effect for only three months, unless extended by Congress.  

Lawmakers worked expeditiously to draft the bill extending the Bayanihan Act for three more months. But they failed to finish the bill before Congress adjourned on 5 June. Surprisingly, President Duterte did not certify the bill as urgent, which would have considerably expedited its enactment process.  Consequently, the Bayanihan Act is deemed terminated upon the adjournment of Congress as prescribed by the constitution. (Article VI, Section 23 (2))  

A “Militarized” Approach to Containing COVID-19   

The lockdown directive effectively meant home quarantine for all, suspension of public transportation, strict regulation of food distribution and of essential health services, and a heightened presence of fully-armed uniformed personnel in strategically positioned checkpoints. While the government deployed measures to address the impact of the coronavirus to public health, it is the visible presence of police and military on the streets enforcing the lockdown which evinced a “militarization” of the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This containment strategy, reminiscent of the military tactic of “hamletting”, was made more ominous by President Duterte himself. Particularly concerning was the President’s “shoot them dead” declaration during a television address, pertaining to how the police should treat recalcitrant violators of the lockdown order. Many Filipinos found this remark appalling because it disregards the fact that a significant portion of Metro Manila’s population have to leave their homes to work to ensure their daily survival. There was a strong social media backlash which compelled the head of the Philippine National Police to clarify that this statement from the President was just hyperbole and that no police personnel will adopt a shoot-first mindset in enforcing the lockdown order.  

In another public address, reacting to reports of increasing number of citizens flouting his community quarantine order, the President threatened to place the Philippines under a martial law-like lockdown.  Law enforcement authorities took this statement as a signal to deploy more police to guard checkpoints and to execute “many arrests” to ensure strict compliance with the lockdown order. The aggressive and punitive enforcement of the lockdown directive resulted in police apprehending 188,348 Filipinos for alleged violations as of 31 May. Of this number, 57,177 were arrested, 23,377 were fined and 2,875 are still detained.  

Behind these dire statistics are thousands of families burdened with legal costs as they also grapple with the severe adverse economic impact of the lockdown. But even these costs pale in comparison to the experience of the family of a former soldier who was shot by police in broad daylight at a checkpoint. It was later revealed that the deceased was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his military service. 

Notably, the focus on punitively enforcing the lockdown has not produced commendable public health outcomes. With a national population of about 108 million, only around 483,901 tests  have been conducted (as of 11 June). The latest available data (as of 12 June) show 24,787 positive cases with 1,052 deaths and a fatality rate of 4.24%, which is just below the world’s 5.53%. Currently, the Philippines ranks third in terms of the total number of COVID-19 infected individuals in Southeast Asia,after Indonesia (with 35,295 cases) and Singapore (with 39,850 cases).  

Human Rights under Threat  

The United Nations Human Rights Office recently released a report covering an investigation on human rights in the Philippines strongly opposed by the Duterte administration.  Poignantly, one of the conclusions of the report states, “The response to COVID-19 has seen the same heavy-handed security approach that appears to have been mainstreamed through the ramped-up drug war and counter-insurgency imperatives.” 

Hence, just like the War on Drugs, the government’s militarized approach was inevitably followed by reported cases of human rights violations, which ranged from police attacks against activists and the detention of relief workers to the arrests of individuals who posted anti-Duterte sentiments on social media.  

Indeed, the government’s response to the current public health crisis had veered so much towards punitive law enforcement that the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) had to issue stern public warnings reiterating the fundamental duty of the state in this unprecedented global pandemic to protect citizens from all forms of human rights violation. The CHR even had to create a special task force to respond to quarantine-related concerns, including complaints of illegal arrests and arbitrary detention.  

And yet even the right of the people to peacefully assemble guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution (Article III, Section 4) is now under threat. The restrictions on movement have been eased slightly since the beginning of June. Disturbingly however, the head of the Justice Department is still adamant that rallies or any form of mass protest must be prohibited, even on the very day Filipinos celebrate their nation’s independence from colonial rule (12 June).  

Bringing in the People 

The Philippines has a robust tradition of human rights activism. But the acutely adversarial attitude of the Duterte administration in dealing with human rights advocates, and even with the CHR, has, according to the UN report, “muddied the space for debate, disagreement and for challenging State institutions and policies, resulting in deep mistrust between Government and civil society.” 

Caught in between these two sides are citizens who so desperately need help in asserting their civil liberties and human rights guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution. It is worth noting that, according to a 2019 survey, 76% of Filipinos believe that human rights abuses were committed in the name of President Duterte’s drug war. Also worth noting is that, according to a 2018 survey, around 75% of the population know very little about the national charter. Hence, it is possible that about 3 out of every 4 Filipinos have no clear and firm understanding of the Bill of Rights enshrined in their Constitution (Article III).  

There is an urgent need to educate and empower a significant section of the population to vigorously uphold their civil liberties and human rights guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution. The majority of Filipinos, despite their likely limited appreciation of the Bill of Rights, deeply comprehend that government abuse of power cannot be countenanced, pandemic or not. Like the rest of the world, these Filipinos stand witness to current mass movements in the United States and Hong Kong which clearly demonstrate that the mobilization of an awakened citizenry can still make a massive difference for the human rights cause.   

Michael Henry Yusingco is a Senior Research Fellow at the Ateneo Policy Center. Angelika Lourdes Pizarro is a Research Assistant at the Ateneo Policy Center. The views expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Ateneo de Manila University. 

Suggested citation: Michael Henry Yusingco and Angelika Lourdes Pizarro, ‘The Militarized Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Philippines: An Escalating Threat to Human Rights’ IACL-IADC Blog (18 June 2020) https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/2020-posts/2020/6/18/the-militarized-response-to-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-the-philippines-an-escalating-threat-to-human-rights