In the Philippines, a country with one of the most vibrant civil society worldwide, the government under President Duterte launched a so-called “war on drugs”, which has since drawn international attention and outrage. In February 2018, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opened a preliminary examination to look into the allegedly thousands of killings of supposed illegal drug users or dealers since July 2016. But not only alleged drug dealers are being killed.  

Throughout the last four years, the international NGO Global Witness listed the country as the deadliest country in Asia for land and environmental defenders.

A recent study highlighted the particular combination of killings, trumped up charges and discrediting labels to silence activists that criticize land-grabbing, call for a real implementation of the land-reform, and unionize to improve working conditions on agricultural plantations. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre’s database of attacks also found it to be the most dangerous country in Asia for defenders confronting businesses.

Already before Duterte’s term in office, the Philippines was infamous for the large number of killings of trade unionists, indigenous activists, and landless peasants for their land claims, criticism on mining projects and struggles to protect the environment. The Filipino government under President Arroyo identified many of such civil society organizations as “front group” for the National People’s Army (NPA), a communist guerilla group. Once military officials put these civil society leaders on a list of identified “insurgents”, they became a legitimate target for extra-judicial killings.

To gain international attention, back then, civil society groups in the Philippines launched a “stop the killings” campaign in alliance with transnational advocacy networks to invite the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Killings. They succeeded, and in February 2008, Philipp Alston visited the Philippines and wrote a damning report. The human rights vocabulary and moral weight of the UN Special Rapporteur had effect on the administration. In a follow-up visit in 2009, Alston reported that there was a “drastic reduction in the number of leftist activists killed.”

According to social scientists, civil society has strategically mobilized transnational advocacy networks to put norm-violating states on the international agenda; legitimize domestic opposition groups vis-à-vis norm-violating governments; and combine pressure from “above” and from “below.” Thus, when in 2006 Amnesty International published a report on the killings in the Philippines, three days later the Arroyo administration appointed the Commission to Address Media and Activist Killings. Pressure by other governments as a consequence of the Amnesty report played a role. Things have become more complicated now. 

Even though the Philippines signed and ratified the essential international human rights treaties and despite its seat in the UN Human Rights Council, Duterte openly challenges the moral and legal weight of the human rights regime. This fundamentally challenges the very logic upon which (transnational) civil society operates to draw attention to human rights violations.

Can civil society draw on the existing toolbox to put pressure on the Duterte government by using human rights arguments and the advocacy strength of transnational networks? This challenge of the limits of human rights leverage on governments was addressed in a recent study “Tricky Business” about repression of civil society activists that challenge natural resource exploitation projects in the Philippines and elsewhere. The limits of human rights leverage on the Duterte government have become self-evident: renowned human rights institutions such as the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders have called upon the Duterte administration to stop their illegal practices – without making any impression. Michel Forst, the current UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, has tried to visit the Philippines, but so far, has been denied an official invitation. Civil society around the world has sent solidarity statements to their Philippine partners and counterparts. Foreign governments have raised the issue in informal diplomatic contacts.

Yet, such preaching is not welcomed by the Duterte administration. On the contrary, every call invoking human rights is answered with ferocious replies. Media reports show how president Duterte insulted UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples, of Philippine citizenship, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz has been listed as an insurgent by a presidential decree essentially declaring her a persona non grata to be hunted down by the military. 

A resolution adopted by the EU-parliament calling for an end to the extra-judicial killings, the release of political detainees and the taking of Victoria Tauli Corpuz’ name of the list of terrorists was answered by Philippine foreign secretary Cayetano stating that the EU has crossed a red line and that this is clearly trespassing Philippine sovereignty.

In April 2018, a number of organizations conducted an international fact-finding mission in the southern part of Mindanao in and around Davao, Duterte’s hometown. Involved were Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP, a nationwide peasant organization), KARAPATAN (a human rights organization) and the Pesticides Action Network Philippines. Their conclusions are devastating. Land rights activists face trumped-up charges, often without any possibility for bail. The administration repeatedly extended martial law throughout the whole island, while no one seems to remember that the initial justification for martial law was the ongoing Islamist insurgency. The government’s armed campaign heavily impacts on peasant and indigenous communities who are driven from their homes, deprived of their livelihood, and their families broken apart for their alleged connection to the National Peoples’ Army.

Just as the Amnesty report in 2006 led to the appointment of a commission the current fact-finding report must have consequences. To maintain credibility, human rights rhetoric needs to be backed with real sanctions. Trade relations provide the leverage necessary to urge Duterte to take human rights seriously. In this vein, the EU-Parliament called upon the EU-Commission to withdraw trade preferences, but the threat was not implemented. All too often, embassies and foreign governments are careful not to harm their own economic interests and not willing to exert the necessary pressure despite their commitments to support HRDs. 

Not only governments, though, also business actors can step in and call upon Duterte to end the killings. Many foreign companies conduct business in the Philippines, be it in mining or industrial agriculture. As the study “Tricky Business” noted, all too often, companies fail to speak up about these extra-judicial killings, abductions, trumped-up charges even though they profit when opponents of their projects are silenced. 

The silencing of their critics allows them to continue mining the gold or harvesting pineapple, bananas and palm-oil produced in Mindanao. In line with similar recommendations from the UN Special Rapporteur on HRDs and the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, the report recommends that businesses could “denounce the threats of project critics and make it clear that they will withdraw if anyone gets hurt.” Similar recommendations are made by a number of other civil society actors and investors.

In the face of the serious limits of other types of human rights leverage on this government, any business profit generated by taking advantage of Duterte’s practices must be considered impermissible.