MANILA: Jailed drug user Bitoy Paras perks up when describing his support for Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s deadly war on narcotics, an unlikely fan of a campaign that has left Filipinos deeply conflicted.
“Duterte talks tough, saying he will get rid of addicts... I am happy he’s doing that,” he told AFP at Manila’s main jail, which is packed with drug suspects.
“But I feel uneasy about the killings,” said the 22-year-old rickshaw driver, whose real name cannot be used due to prison policy.
Paras’s seemingly paradoxical backing echoes that of millions of Filipinos, who polls say support the crackdown but not the thousands of slayings that are central to it.
Duterte’s drug war — his signature initiative — helped bring him to power in mid-2016, promising to rid society of narcotics by any means necessary.
Since then, police say they have killed 4,854 alleged drug users or dealers in self-defense, while rights groups estimate the true toll is at least triple that.
According to the latest survey by pollster SWS, the campaign still has the backing of 78 percent of Filipinos, a figure undented in over a year.
Drug war proponents regularly point to these statistics as proof that the internationally-condemned crackdown is the will of the people.
But those same polls show near unanimous agreement — 96 percent — among the nation in opposition to the killing, saying the suspects should be taken alive.
Experts say Duterte’s campaign has tapped into genuine popular outrage over disorder, crime and dysfunction in a developing nation with millions of poor people and a turbulent political past.
“It’s not like they’re turning a blind eye (to the killing) but they’re really worried about the drug problem,” said Steven Rood, a fellow-in-residence at pollster SWS.
“It has been a problem for a long time and finally the president of the Philippines is doing something about it,” he added, describing how many Filipinos view the narcotics issue.
But for the family of Duterte voter Katherine Bautista, that belief was suddenly turned on its head by tragedy last year.
Bautista supported the crackdown until her stepson John Jezreel David was shot dead in what police said was an anti-drug operation even as she insisted her son was not a drug user.
“I was even saying that the tears of families (of those killed) seemed fake. But when it happened to us, I felt the pain they were feeling,” Bautista told AFP.
“If it doesn’t happen to your family, you won’t wake up to the truth,” she added.
A significant strand in the opposition to the killings is the fear a loved could be slain just by being in the wrong place, not necessarily because of involvement in drugs.
“People feel very afraid that their families or their relatives might be placed in a situation where they could be the targets,” Randy David, a sociologist and newspaper columnist in Manila, told AFP.
“But how can you possibly disagree or not lend support for a campaign to rid this country of illegal drugs?,” David added, saying the lethal methods were what prompted questions.
There has been broader condemnation of the crackdown, at home and abroad.
Rare protests were held in the Philippines last year following the deaths of teenagers, while outrage over alleged abuses has prompted Duterte to twice remove police from the frontlines of the campaign — only to reinstate them, and promise to pardon officers convicted of murder.
The International Criminal Court has launched a preliminary examination into the killings, while rights groups say Duterte may be overseeing a crime against humanity.
Meanwhile, Duterte hammers the menace posed by drugs in near daily speeches in which he has described addicts as “not human.”
Analysts say the president uses clear and repeated messaging in an effort to buttress backing for his campaign.
“The way (the message) is delivered is that there is a very big threat, so first there’s the production of massive fear,” said Ateneo de Manila University psychology professor Cristina Montiel.
“Then (comes) the salvific message that this program or this leader is here to save you,” she added. “That’s how popular support is produced.”
As the campaign continues, the death toll is well over Amnesty International’s count of 3,240 people killed during the nine years of martial law rule under dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the country’s darkest chapter since World War II.
Duterte recently addressed the thorny issue of the killings, delivering what critics called a clear admission they are suspect.
“What are my sins? Did I steal money? Even just one peso? Did I prosecute somebody I sent to jail?” he asked in a September speech. “My only sin is extrajudicial killings.”
Filipinos deeply conflicted on Duterte’s drug war
Filipinos deeply conflicted on Duterte’s drug war
- Police say they have killed 4,854 alleged drug users or dealers in self-defense, while rights groups estimate the true toll is at least triple that
- The International Criminal Court has launched a preliminary examination into the killings
Trump set to repeal scientific finding that serves as basis for US climate change policy
- The endangerment finding is the legal underpinning of nearly all climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet
WASHINGTON: The Trump administration on Thursday will revoke a scientific finding that long has been the central basis for US action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, the White House announced.
The Environmental Protection Agency will issue a final rule rescinding a 2009 government declaration known as the endangerment finding. That Obama-era policy determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin will “formalize the rescission of the 2009 Obama-era endangerment finding” at a White House ceremony, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday.
The action “will be the largest deregulatory action in American history, and it will save the American people $1.3 trillion in crushing regulations,” she said. The bulk of the savings will stem from reduced costs for new vehicles, with the EPA projecting average per vehicle savings of more than $2,400 for popular light-duty cars, SUVs and trucks. Leavitt said.
The endangerment finding is the legal underpinning of nearly all climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet. It is used to justify regulations, such as auto emissions standards, intended to protect against threats made increasingly severe by climate change — deadly floods, extreme heat waves, catastrophic wildfires and other natural disasters in the United States and around the world.
Legal challenges would be certain for any action that effectively would repeal those regulations, with environmental groups describing the shift as the single biggest attack in US history on federal efforts to address climate change.
EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch said the Obama-era rule was “one of the most damaging decisions in modern history” and said EPA “is actively working to deliver a historic action for the American people.”
Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax,” previously issued an executive order that directed EPA to submit a report on “the legality and continuing applicability” of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans have long sought to undo what they consider overly restrictive and economically damaging rules to limit greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
Zeldin, a former Republican congressman who was tapped by Trump to lead EPA last year, has criticized his predecessors in Democratic administrations, saying they were “willing to bankrupt the country” in an effort to combat climate change.
Democrats “created this endangerment finding and then they are able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources, to basically regulate out of existence ... segments of our economy,″ Zeldin said in announcing the proposed rule last July. ”And it cost Americans a lot of money.”
Peter Zalzal, a lawyer and associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund, countered that the EPA will be encouraging more climate pollution, higher health insurance and fuel costs and thousands of avoidable premature deaths.
Zeldin’s push “is cynical and deeply damaging, given the mountain of scientific evidence supporting the finding, the devastating climate harms Americans are experiencing right now and EPA’s clear obligation to protect Americans’ health and welfare,” he said.
Zalzal and other critics noted that the Supreme Court ruled in a 2007 case that planet-warming greenhouse gases, caused by burning of oil and other fossil fuels, are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Since the high court’s decision, in a case known as Massachusetts v. EPA, courts have uniformly rejected legal challenges to the endangerment finding, including a 2023 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Following Zeldin’s proposal to repeal the rule, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reassessed the science underpinning the 2009 finding and concluded it was “accurate, has stood the test of time, and is now reinforced by even stronger evidence.”
Much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 is now resolved, the NAS panel of scientists said in a September report. “The evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute,” the panel said.
