Dilemma

Is it at all possible to conduct the war against drugs without incurring the costs of a high body count?

The Duterte government now faces a dilemma.

The police campaign against the drug syndicates has been a stupendous success. Drug users and pushers have surrendered en masse. The volume of street crimes dropped dramatically. Citizens generally support the campaign and egg on the police.

But the violence that accompanied this campaign, not all of which legitimate, has raised global concern. International human rights monitors, the US government itself and domestic advocates of due process chorused against the bloodshed that accompanied government’s decisive campaign against the drug scourge.

International media, over the past few days, paid increasing attention to the death toll this anti-drug campaign seems to be taking. That death toll is attributed to the tough methods employed by policemen involved in this effort.

The BBC, the other day, featured an interview with a female assassin contracted by police officers to do the dirty job of eliminating drug personalities. She admitted to being involved in five operations, receiving a fee of P20,000 for every hit.

This is not a surprising admission. But it is a damning one.

People have long suspected police involvement in a campaign aimed at eliminating drug dealers. It is not clear, whether from the BBC interview itself or from anecdotal information from the streets, if assassins were subcontracted to take out police assets to prevent them from testifying about police involvement in the drug menace or as a tactical option resorted to for the campaign to produce quick results.

It does not help that the PNP chief and the President himself are heard encouraging violence against the drug pushers. Speaking before an audience of drug dependents the other day, Bato de la Rosa urged them to kill drug lords and burn their houses down.

That might be just his manner of speaking, laced with exaggeration and bravado. But saying the things he did does not diminish the critical view now forming here and abroad about the conduct of the current war against drugs.

When UN human rights rapporteurs raised concern about how the war on drugs was being conducted, an angry President Duterte threatened to take the country out of the international organization. The remark created much news. Our Foreign Secretary had to call a press conference to say the Philippines is not pulling out of the UN. The President himself had to come out and say he was joking.

The community of nations might lack a sense of humor. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to laugh at the death toll the anti-drug effort has now posted.

On one hand, those speaking on behalf of respecting human rights have a valid point. It has taken us many generations to build a society governed by the rule of law and the respect for life. That ethical, cultural and legal edifice is being seriously eroded by summary executions.

On the other hand, the drug menace confronts our national community with an existential threat that requires a drastic response. Our leaders must present their case with a lot more delicacy.

Suspended

It turns out Customs Commissioner Nicanor Faeldon had already suspended the two “midnight” orders issued by his predecessor last June 2. The orders became the source of dispute between two government agencies: the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) and the Bureau of Customs (BoC).

Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) 11-2016 allowed foreign vessels to dock and their cargos handled and cleared at the “sub-port” of North Harbor.  Its accompanying CMO 12-2016 prescribes the operational guidelines for the first order.

The PPA, which has jurisdiction over the port, objected to those orders. The port regulatory body entered into a contract with Manila North Harbor Port Inc. (MNHPI) to manage and develop the port facilities. The suspended orders would have enhanced the benefits of the existing concession contract to the disadvantage of government.

Historically, foreign vessels could only dock at the South Harbor where they are processed and customs duties are collected. The South Harbor is not large enough to feasibly handle our current volume of trade. This has led to port congestion, long processing periods and delays that exasperate both our importers and exporters.

Experts are suggesting that more foreign vessels be moved to the Batangas port, although this will require upgrading the cargo-handling capabilities of that port. They have likewise suggested the entire North Harbor be moved to Batangas as well in order to relieve port and road congestion in Metro Manila.

The PPA made its objection to the questioned CMOs by issuing its own instructions to North Harbor personnel. The port authority ordered stevedores and cargo handlers to refrain from servicing incoming foreign vessels and cargos.

Faeldon’s suspension of the questioned CMOs nearly upon assumption of office defused the confrontation between the two government agencies. The incident nevertheless underscores the crying need to upgrade our port facilities – most urgently the Batangas international port.

The Port of Manila is for the galleon trade. It is truly insane to continue receiving the bulk of our trade through this crowded port and then truck the cargo through the congested streets of a crowded metropolis.

Moving ship berthing and cargo handling to Batangas will not kill the Port of Manila. It will simply reduce the congestion substantially.

Meanwhile, upgrading cargo handling at the Batangas Port and improving the roads leading to it ought to be high on the priority list of government. Our ancient ports highlight the deficient infra that hold back our economic development.