ISSP Philippines: Pioneering Sustainability Solutions

The Philippine History narrative is complex, marked by struggles for sovereignty, democratic aspirations, periods of profound social upheaval, and recurring challenges related to governance, human rights, and social justice. Within this intricate tapestry, recent events have cast a long shadow, demanding rigorous documentation and analysis. The presidency of Rodrigo Duterte (2016-2022) and his administration’s flagship campaign, the ‘War on Drugs’, became a focal point of intense domestic and international scrutiny due to widespread allegations of Human Rights Violations and Extrajudicial Killings (EJKs). It is in this critical contemporary juncture that the International State Crime Initiative (ISCI) State Crime Philippines (ISSP) project, often referred to as ISSP Philippines, emerged as a vital undertaking.

While seemingly focused on recent events, the work of ISSP Philippines in meticulously documenting alleged State Crime Philippines offers more than just a chronicle of the ‘War on Drugs’. It provides crucial data and analysis that must be understood within a deeper Historical Context. The patterns of violence, the challenges to the Rule of Law, and the pervasive issue of Impunity that ISSP investigated resonate with historical precedents in the Philippines, from colonial-era suppression to the abuses under Martial Law. Therefore, understanding ISSP’s work is not merely about understanding a single campaign, but about grappling with enduring questions at the heart of the modern Filipino experience.

This article delves into the significance of ISSP Philippines, exploring its origins, methodologies, and findings concerning alleged state crimes during the Duterte administration. Crucially, it places these findings within the broader narrative of Philippine History, examining the historical roots of state violence and impunity. Furthermore, it analyzes how ISSP’s work contributes to what the title suggests are ‘Pioneering Sustainability Solutions‘ – not in an environmental sense, but in the context of fostering sustainable peace, justice, Accountability, and robust democratic institutions capable of preventing the recurrence of such systematic violations. We will examine the role of key actors like the Philippine National Police (PNP), the potential involvement of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the ongoing pursuit of Transitional Justice in the country.

Understanding ISSP Philippines: Mandate and Methodology

ISSP Philippines is a research project operating under the umbrella of the International State Crime Initiative (ISCI), a multi-institutional research centre typically involving universities like Queen Mary University of London and the University of Hull. ISCI focuses on the study of state crime, defined broadly as criminal acts committed, instigated, or condoned by state agencies or officials.

The primary focus of ISSP Philippines was the systematic investigation and documentation of the alleged Extrajudicial Killings (EJKs) and related Human Rights Violations committed in the context of President Rodrigo Duterte‘s ‘War on Drugs’. Launched shortly after the campaign began in mid-2016, the project aimed to:

Document Cases: Collect detailed information on individual killings and other abuses attributed to state forces, primarily the Philippine National Police (PNP), or state-condoned vigilante groups.
Analyze Patterns: Identify systematic patterns in the killings, including victim profiles, locations, methods used, and alleged perpetrators.
Assess State Complicity: Examine evidence suggesting official policy, orders, or tacit approval contributing to the violence, moving beyond isolated incidents to potentially demonstrate state-sponsored or state-condoned criminality.
Contribute to Accountability: Provide reliable, evidence-based research that could potentially support efforts towards justice and Accountability, both domestically and internationally (e.g., informing processes related to the International Criminal Court (ICC)).

Research Methodology

Operating in a highly sensitive and often dangerous environment, ISSP employed a rigorous, multi-faceted research methodology:

Fieldwork: Researchers conducted discreet fieldwork, often collaborating with local human rights organizations, journalists, and community leaders.
Witness Testimonies: Gathering accounts from victims’ families, survivors, and eyewitnesses was crucial, despite the inherent risks.
Document Analysis: Reviewing police reports (where accessible), media accounts, government statements, and reports from human rights groups.
Data Triangulation: Cross-referencing information from multiple sources to enhance reliability and validity.
Focus on Systemicity: Analyzing data not just on individual killings but looking for command structures, incentives, and official rhetoric that might indicate a systematic campaign – a hallmark of investigating State Crime Philippines.

The outputs of ISSP Philippines often took the form of detailed reports, academic publications, and submissions to international bodies, providing a critical counter-narrative to official government accounts and contributing significantly to the global understanding of the ‘War on Drugs’.

The Shadow of the Past: Historical Context of State Violence and Impunity in the Philippines

The events documented by ISSP Philippines did not occur in a vacuum. Understanding their gravity and systemic nature requires placing them within the long and often turbulent Historical Context of the Philippines. Cycles of violence, challenges to the Rule of Law, and struggles against Impunity are recurring themes.

Colonial Legacies and Early Republic Struggles

Spanish Colonial Era (1565-1898): Resistance against Spanish rule was often met with brutal suppression. Revolts were quelled with significant violence, establishing patterns of state control through force.
US Colonial Period & Philippine-American War (1899-1902 onwards): The US “pacification” campaigns involved significant violence and human rights abuses, particularly in areas of strong resistance like Samar and Batangas. Institutions like the Philippine Constabulary (forerunner to the PNP) were established, primarily focused on suppressing dissent and maintaining colonial order.
Post-WWII and the Hukbalahap Rebellion: The government’s counter-insurgency campaigns against the Hukbalahap movement in the late 1940s and 1950s were also marked by reports of military abuses and extrajudicial actions.

The Marcos Dictatorship and Martial Law (1972-1986)

The declaration of Martial Law by Ferdinand Marcos Sr. represents a critical watershed moment in Philippine History regarding state-sponsored violence and impunity.

Systematic Repression: The regime systematically targeted political opponents, activists, journalists, and students. Thousands were arbitrarily arrested, detained, tortured, forcibly disappeared, or killed extrajudicially.
Military and Police Abuses: The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine Constabulary/Integrated National Police (PC/INP, later evolving into the PNP) were primary instruments of repression.
Erosion of Rule of Law: Democratic institutions were dismantled, the judiciary was compromised, and a climate of fear prevailed, entrenching Impunity for perpetrators.
Normalization of Violence: The Martial Law era normalized the use of state violence for political control, leaving deep scars on the nation’s psyche and institutions.

The experiences under Martial Law profoundly shaped the country’s subsequent democratic transition and the human rights discourse, highlighting the dangers of unchecked state power.

Post-EDSA Challenges (1986-Present)

While the 1986 People Power Revolution restored democratic institutions, the deep-seated problems of violence and impunity persisted.

Continuing Insurgencies: Ongoing conflicts with communist and separatist groups continued to involve reports of human rights abuses by state security forces during counter-insurgency operations.
Weak Justice System: A slow, under-resourced, and sometimes corrupt justice system often failed to deliver Accountability for abuses, reinforcing Impunity.
Private Armies and Political Violence: Local political dynasties often maintained private armies, contributing to election-related violence and localized abuses of power.
Crime Control and Vigilantism: Previous administrations also faced challenges with crime, sometimes resorting to harsh rhetoric or tacitly condoning vigilante actions, though not on the scale seen later.

This Historical Context reveals that the issues tackled by ISSP Philippines – Extrajudicial Killings (EJKs), Human Rights Violations, the role of security forces like the PNP, challenges to the Rule of Law, and persistent Impunity – are not entirely new phenomena. However, the scale, intensity, and arguably the overt state sanctioning of the violence during the ‘War on Drugs’ under Rodrigo Duterte presented a distinct and alarming escalation, demanding the focused investigation that ISSP Philippines undertook.

The ‘War on Drugs’: The Immediate Context for ISSP Philippines

The presidency of Rodrigo Duterte began in June 2016 with a central promise: to eradicate illegal drugs and criminality within months, employing brutal methods if necessary. This campaign, officially termed “Oplan Tokhang” (knock and plead) and “Oplan Double Barrel,” quickly devolved into what became widely known as the ‘War on Drugs’.

Key Features of the Campaign:

Aggressive Rhetoric: President Duterte repeatedly used inflammatory language, encouraging violence against drug suspects and promising protection for law enforcers involved in killings.
PNP-Led Operations: The Philippine National Police (PNP) was the primary implementer of the campaign, conducting widespread house-to-house operations, buy-bust operations, and establishing checkpoints.
Spike in Killings: Almost immediately, there was a dramatic surge in killings. Official figures acknowledged thousands killed in police operations (often justified as suspects “fighting back” or nanlaban), while human rights groups reported significantly higher numbers, including many thousands killed by unidentified assailants or vigilantes, believed by many to be operating with police complicity or tolerance.
Targeting the Urban Poor: Reports indicated that the vast majority of victims were from impoverished urban communities, often involved in low-level drug use or dealing.
Due Process Concerns: Critics highlighted a near-total disregard for due process, with arrests often replaced by summary executions.

It was this context of unprecedented violence and alleged systematic Human Rights Violations, largely attributed to state actors, that necessitated the rigorous, independent investigation provided by ISSP Philippines. Their work sought to pierce through the official narratives and document the reality on the ground, analyzing the patterns that suggested State Crime Philippines was occurring.

ISSP Philippines’ Findings: Documenting State Crime

Through its meticulous research, ISSP Philippines produced significant findings that challenged the government’s official narrative of the ‘War on Drugs’. Key findings often highlighted:

Systematic Nature of Killings: Evidence suggested killings were not random or isolated incidents of police responding to threats, but part of a coordinated effort. This included patterns in timing, locations, methods (e.g., suspects killed in alleged shootouts often found with guns planted on them, victims abducted and later found dead), and victim profiles.
Police Complicity: ISSP reports provided evidence linking the PNP directly to many killings, including alleged cover-ups (e.g., tampering with crime scenes, falsifying reports). Evidence also pointed towards police coordination with or tolerance of vigilante groups.
Incentives for Violence: Some reports suggested the existence of implicit or explicit incentives (monetary or promotion-based) for police officers based on the number of drug suspects neutralized.
Targeting Practices: Evidence indicated the use of often unreliable “drug watch lists” provided by local officials, leading to the targeting of individuals without proper investigation or evidence.
Failure of Domestic Remedies: ISSP’s work implicitly underscored the failure of domestic accountability mechanisms to effectively investigate and prosecute perpetrators within the state apparatus, strengthening the case for international scrutiny, such as through the International Criminal Court (ICC).

These findings were crucial in framing the ‘War on Drugs’ not merely as a tough-on-crime policy but as a potential instance of large-scale, systematic State Crime Philippines, involving widespread Human Rights Violations orchestrated or condoned at various levels of the state.

The Pursuit of Accountability: Domestic and International Arenas

The evidence gathered by ISSP Philippines, alongside reports from numerous Filipino and international human rights organizations, fueled calls for Accountability.

Domestic Challenges:

Commission on Human Rights (CHR): The independent CHR conducted its own investigations, facing significant challenges including lack of cooperation from police, limited resources, and political pressure.
Judicial System: While some cases reached the courts, progress was slow, and convictions of police officers involved in EJKs were rare exceptions rather than the rule, highlighting systemic Impunity.
Legislative Oversight: Congressional inquiries were held, but often failed to produce significant policy changes or ensure accountability during the height of the campaign.
Political Climate: The immense popularity of President Rodrigo Duterte and the political climate often discouraged robust investigation or criticism from within the government.

The International Criminal Court (ICC):

Given the perceived lack of effective domestic remedies, attention turned to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Preliminary Examination: In 2018, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor initiated a preliminary examination into the situation in the Philippines, looking into alleged crimes committed during the ‘War on Drugs’ since July 1, 2016.
Philippine Withdrawal: In response, President Duterte announced the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC, effective March 2019. However, the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed while the Philippines was a state party (Nov 2011 – Mar 2019).
Investigation Authorized: In September 2021, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber authorized the Office of the Prosecutor to open a formal investigation into alleged crimes against humanity (specifically murder) committed in the context of the ‘War on Drugs’.
ISSP’s Contribution: The detailed documentation and analysis provided by ISSP Philippines and similar groups served as crucial information sources for the ICC’s preliminary examination and ongoing investigation.

The ICC investigation represents a significant potential avenue for Accountability, although it faces political hurdles and challenges related to state cooperation.

Pioneering Sustainability Solutions: Beyond Documentation

How does the work of ISSP Philippines relate to “Pioneering Sustainability Solutions“? The connection lies in understanding sustainability not just environmentally, but in terms of the social, political, and institutional health required for a just and stable society. Addressing state crime is fundamental to achieving this kind of sustainability.

Sustainable Peace and Security: Rampant state violence, even in the name of crime control, breeds fear, distrust, and instability. It can fuel cycles of conflict and undermine genuine community safety. Documenting and exposing state crime, as ISSP Philippines did, is the first step towards breaking these cycles and building peace based on justice, not suppression. Sustainable security relies on Rule of Law, not arbitrary violence.
Sustainable Justice and Rule of Law: Impunity corrodes the foundations of the legal system. When state actors can commit crimes without consequence, it signals that the law does not apply equally to all, undermining public faith in institutions. ISSP’s work supports the demand for Accountability, which is essential for restoring and sustaining the Rule of Law. This includes strengthening judicial independence, prosecutorial capacity, and internal police accountability mechanisms.
Institutional Strengthening: Documenting the systemic nature of the abuses highlights weaknesses and potential complicity within institutions like the PNP. This knowledge is vital for designing reforms aimed at preventing recurrence – professionalizing law enforcement, improving oversight, instilling human rights principles, and ensuring operational transparency. These reforms contribute to the long-term sustainability of democratic institutions.
Transitional Justice and Reconciliation: For societies emerging from periods of mass violence, Transitional Justice mechanisms are often necessary. These can include truth commissions, reparations for victims, institutional reforms, and prosecutions. The evidence gathered by ISSP Philippines is invaluable for potential future transitional justice processes in the Philippines, helping to establish the truth, acknowledge victims’ suffering, and pave the way for reconciliation based on justice.
Memory and Prevention: Documenting atrocities ensures they are not forgotten or easily denied. This collective memory, supported by rigorous research like ISSP’s, serves as a crucial warning and can inform educational programs and public awareness campaigns aimed at preventing future Human Rights Violations. Sustainability here means learning from the past to build a future where such state crimes are less likely.

Therefore, ISSP Philippines, by meticulously documenting State Crime Philippines and contributing to the push for Accountability, was indeed pioneering solutions for a more sustainable future – one where human rights are protected, the Rule of Law prevails, and institutions serve the people justly and effectively.

Challenges, Criticisms, and the Path Forward

The work of ISSP Philippines was not without challenges:

Security Risks: Researchers and informants faced significant risks due to the sensitive nature of their work.
Access to Information: Obtaining official data and cooperation from state agencies, particularly the PNP, was often difficult.
Government Response: The Duterte administration frequently dismissed critical reports from human rights groups and international bodies, often resorting to hostile rhetoric against critics.
Disinformation: Counter-narratives and disinformation campaigns sought to undermine the credibility of independent investigations.

Despite these hurdles, the project, along with Filipino human rights defenders, journalists, and victims’ families, persisted in documenting the truth.

The path forward involves continued efforts on multiple fronts:

Supporting Domestic Accountability: Encouraging and supporting credible domestic investigations and prosecutions remains crucial.
Cooperation with International Mechanisms: Engaging constructively with the International Criminal Court (ICC) process.
Institutional Reform: Pushing for deep-seated reforms within the PNP and the justice sector to address Impunity and strengthen the Rule of Law.
Victim Support and Reparations: Providing support and seeking justice and reparations for the thousands of families affected by the violence.
Promoting Human Rights Education: Fostering a culture of human rights respect through education and public awareness.

The legacy of the ‘War on Drugs’ and the insights provided by ISSP Philippines continue to shape discussions about Social Justice, governance, and the future direction of the Philippines.

Key Takeaways

ISSP Philippines (ISCI State Crime Philippines) conducted vital research documenting alleged Extrajudicial Killings (EJKs) and Human Rights Violations during the ‘War on Drugs’ under President Rodrigo Duterte.
The project focused on the systematic nature of the violence, suggesting potential State Crime Philippines, often involving the Philippine National Police (PNP).
Understanding this period requires acknowledging the deep Historical Context of state violence and Impunity in Philippine History, including the Martial Law era.
ISSP’s work contributes to demands for Accountability, both domestically and internationally, potentially informing the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation.
Addressing state crime and impunity, as highlighted by ISSP, is crucial for achieving sustainable peace, justice, and Rule of Law – representing vital Sustainability Solutions for the nation’s future.
The pursuit of Social Justice and Transitional Justice remains critical for healing and preventing recurrence.

Conclusion: History, Accountability, and Sustainable Futures

The research undertaken by ISSP Philippines provides a critical lens through which to examine one of the darkest chapters in recent Philippine History. By meticulously documenting the patterns and scale of alleged State Crime Philippines during the ‘War on Drugs’, the project moved beyond anecdotal evidence to build a case for systematic Human Rights Violations. This work is not merely a historical record; it is an urgent call for Accountability and a foundational element for building genuine Sustainability Solutions.

Understanding the findings of ISSP Philippines requires situating them within the nation’s longer struggle against Impunity and state overreach, recalling the painful lessons of Martial Law and other periods of conflict. The actions attributed to state actors, particularly elements within the PNP, during the Rodrigo Duterte administration severely tested the resilience of the Rule of Law and democratic institutions.

The pursuit of justice, whether through domestic mechanisms or international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC), remains paramount. Achieving accountability is not about retribution alone; it is about affirming the value of human life, rebuilding trust in institutions, and ensuring that such widespread violence does not recur. This is the essence of sustainable Social Justice. The legacy of ISSP Philippines lies in its contribution to truth-telling, its support for victims, and its vital role in demanding a future for the Philippines built not on fear and violence, but on justice, human rights, and the enduring strength of the Rule of Law. Only through confronting this difficult history and demanding accountability can the nation truly pioneer sustainable solutions for a more just and peaceful future.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):

1. What does ISSP Philippines stand for? ISSP Philippines generally refers to the International State Crime Initiative (ISCI) State Crime Philippines project, a research initiative focused on investigating and documenting alleged state crimes, particularly the Extrajudicial Killings (EJKs) during the ‘War on Drugs’ under the Rodrigo Duterte administration.

2. What is state crime? State crime refers to criminal acts committed, instigated, or condoned by state officials or agencies as part of their official duties or policies. This can include acts like genocide, torture, political assassinations, corruption, and systematic Human Rights Violations like those alleged in the Philippine ‘War on Drugs’. State Crime Philippines specifically refers to the study and documentation of such acts within the Philippine context.

3. What were the main findings of ISSP Philippines regarding the ‘War on Drugs’? Key findings often pointed towards the systematic nature of the killings, direct involvement or complicity of the Philippine National Police (PNP), the targeting of specific populations (often the urban poor), failures in due process, and the creation of a climate of Impunity. Their research suggested the violence was potentially state-sponsored or state-condoned.

4. How does the work of ISSP Philippines relate to Philippine History? ISSP’s work provides crucial documentation of a recent period, but the issues it addresses – state violence, Human Rights Violations, Impunity, challenges to the Rule of Law – have deep roots in Philippine History, echoing patterns seen during Spanish colonization, the Philippine-American War, counter-insurgency campaigns, and notably, the Martial Law period under Ferdinand Marcos Sr. Understanding this Historical Context is vital.

5. What are ‘Sustainability Solutions’ in this context? In the context of ISSP Philippines, ‘Sustainability Solutions‘ refers not to environmental issues, but to solutions that promote long-term social and political stability. This includes ensuring Accountability for past abuses, strengthening the Rule of Law, reforming institutions like the PNP to prevent recurrence, promoting Social Justice, and fostering a political environment where human rights are respected – creating a sustainable foundation for peace and democracy.

6. What is the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in relation to the ‘War on Drugs’? The International Criminal Court (ICC) authorized an official investigation into alleged crimes against humanity (murder) committed in the Philippines during the ‘War on Drugs’ (specifically between November 2011, when the Philippines joined the court, and March 2019, when its withdrawal became effective). The investigation seeks to determine individual criminal responsibility for these alleged crimes, particularly given perceived failures in domestic Accountability mechanisms. Research by groups like ISSP Philippines provided important information for the ICC’s assessment.

7. Is the ‘War on Drugs’ still ongoing? While the intense killing campaign significantly subsided after the end of the Rodrigo Duterte administration in 2022, concerns about EJKs and Human Rights Violations related to drug enforcement persist, albeit reportedly on a lesser scale. Human rights groups continue to monitor the situation and advocate for Accountability and policy changes.

Sources:

(Note: Specific ISSP/ISCI reports may require accessing university or research archives. General sources providing context and corroborating information are listed below.)

International State Crime Initiative (ISCI) Website & Publications: (Search for ISCI publications related to the Philippines, State Crime, and the ‘War on Drugs’). Likely hosts primary ISSP findings.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) Reports on the Philippines: Numerous reports documenting EJKs, police abuses, and the ‘War on Drugs’. Example: “License to Kill: Philippine Police Killings in Duterte’s ‘War on Drugs’” (2017) and subsequent updates. https://www.hrw.org/asia/philippines
Amnesty International Reports on the Philippines: Detailed investigations into the ‘War on Drugs’ killings. Example: “‘If you are poor, you are killed’: Extrajudicial Executions in the Philippines’ ‘War on Drugs’” (2017) and follow-up reports. https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-east-asia-and-the-pacific/philippines/
Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Reports: Official reports from the independent national human rights institution investigating abuses. https://chr.gov.ph/
International Criminal Court (ICC) Documents: Publicly available documents related to the Situation in the Republic of the Philippines, including decisions on the preliminary examination and investigation authorization. https://www.icc-cpi.int/philippines
McCoy, Alfred W. (2009). Policing America’s Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State. Provides historical context on the origins and development of policing and state control mechanisms in the Philippines.
Cullinane, Michael. (2003). Ilustrado Politics: Filipino Elite Responses to American Rule, 1898-1908. Offers insights into the dynamics of the early American colonial period and state formation.
Relevant News Archives: Reputable sources like Rappler (particularly their investigations into the Drug War), Philippine Daily Inquirer, Reuters, Associated Press, New York Times, covering the period 2016-present.
Books and Articles on Martial Law in the Philippines: Various historical accounts detailing the abuses and systemic issues during the Marcos dictatorship (e.g., works by historians like Ambeth Ocampo, publications from Ateneo de Manila University Press, University of the Philippines Press).

Category: Contemporary Period (1986-Present)