I. Are you in favor of extrajudicial killings?

No, I am not in favor of Extrajudicial Killings. I am a citizen of this State and

by that it is obliged upon every Filipino citizen to uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land, pay taxes and duties, and to cooperate with the duly constituted
authorities in the attainment and preservation of a just and orderly society. In line
with this and in relation to the question at hand, it would be first wise to define
extrajudicial killings and to consult the laws of the state holding jurisdiction over
this land.
Extrajudicial killing is a term used to describe an execution, killing, or
deprivation of life of a person absent any judicial determination of guilt for an act or
omission punishable by law. However, the very term "extrajudicial killing" cannot
hold water in Philippine law because, simply put, there is no "judicial killing" in this
jurisdiction. Beyond Paragraph (1) Section 19, Article III of the 1987 Constitution,
and its prohibiting of the imposition of the death penalty, Republic Act no. 9346,
AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE
PHILIPPINES, was passed in June 24 of 2006, specifically repealing the legal
imposition of any death penalty followed and applied by special laws in the past.
The worst punishment imposable by the Judiciary(Philippine courts)now is the
punishment of Reclusion Perpetua or Life Imprisonment. Thus, no person, even
if guilty of any of the most heinous crimes, can ever be put to death or be killed
legally upon order of the court which would result in a "Judicial killing". That being
said, the only killings now recognized under Philippine law are those stated under
Special laws and under the Revised Penal Code such as Parricide, Death or
Serious Physical Injury Under Exceptional Circumstances, Murder, Homicide, Death
Caused In A Tumultuous Affray, Giving Assistance to Suicide, Infanticide, and
Abortion, under Article 246 -249, 251, 253, 255, 256 - 259, respectively. Thus, in
view of the foregoing, all killings will fall under those terms and laws. To perform
"Extrajudicial Killings" is tantamount to committing a crime pursuant to the abovementioned Articles of the Revised Penal Code, and as a Citizen of this Nation, we
cannot condone the performance of any crime, be it for any purpose.
Also, it would be beneficial to the question raised to point out that Philippine
Criminal Law is not consistent with mere vengeance or punishment. The same
recognizes that Criminals are still citizens of this Nation and as such still enjoy their
rights under law. Philippine Criminal Law is also built around the premise that
citizens are to be rehabilitated for the purpose of making them persons who may
once again be of no threat to any other person, society or government, and may
contribute to the welfare of the Philippines as a nation. Thus, to kill a person for his
commission of a crime would not be an end sought after by law for it ends the
possibility of rehabilitation or re-entry of a convict into society and for him or her to
be a productive member of the same.

In view of the above-mentioned facts, laws, rights and obligations of a Filipino

citizen and all other points discussed in furtherance of an answer as to whether I am
in favor of Extrajudicial Killings, it can then be derived that my answer is as clear as
day: as a responsible and morally intrinsic citizen of this Nation, No, I am not in
favor of extrajudicial killings.

II. Do you think Extrajudicial killings should apply to Drug Lords, Pushers,
and Drug dependents?
No, extrajudicial killings should never be applied to anyone. Beyond the
question of morality that no one shall take the life of another for any purpose, the
law also answers this question. Pursuant to Section 1, Article III of the 1987
Constitution," No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws". This provision in the 1987 Constitution bestows upon all
persons a constitutional protection of all their legal rights, putting the right to life as
first among others. This sequence is not a mere coincidence as in construing the
above-mentioned provision, putting life before all sets it to be the most important
right to be protected before liberty and property. Thus, no person, under all legal
circumstances, shall lose his right to live due to this legal provision under the most
important and powerful law of the land, the Constitution.
Second point to take cognizance of in the said provision is the line "..nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws" which is also
known as "The Equal Protection Clause". This is very relevant to the inquiry at
hand since it sheds light on the question as to whether criminals, specifically Drug
Lords, Pushers or Drug Dependents, may be stripped of their right to live due to acts
that are deemed detrimental to the welfare of other persons and the nation itself.
The answer to the same is no. The Equal Protection Clause ensures that good
citizens as well as the worst of the worst are afforded the same rights to life, liberty,
property, legal due process and other rights bestowed by law. This may be believed
by some to be inconsistent with the concept of retribution or the persecution of
those persons who have acted against others unlawfully, but there is the legal
maxim "Dura Lex Sed Lex, The Law May Be Harsh But It Is The Law". To act
in contravention of this is tantamount to non-observance of one's duty as a citizen
to uphold the law, which in short is Illegal.
Thus my answer is No, for the law is the law, be it that you concur with it or
not. But it is all that stands between this hopeful life and a dog-eat-dog world.

by: Cecil Apolinar D. Fojas