State-sanctioned killing

THE KILLING of Osama bin Laden has brought joy and euphoria to the United States and to most of the civilized world. The world’s most wanted and feared terrorist who promised the destruction of the United States and its allies, and orchestrated the murder of thousands of people, has finally been terminated, literally. With direct orders from no less than the president of the United States of America, the world’s richest and most powerful country, Bin Laden was killed. The majority of the world agreed with the order to kill rather than capture Bin Laden. Countries and even some states in the United States that ban capital punishment celebrated the killing of Bin Laden, setting aside whatever they may have said or believed about the value of life.

Few would disagree that the killing of Bin Laden was justified, and from a practical standpoint, most would agree that it was a better option than capturing him alive and trying him in a court of justice. Considering the gravity and heinous nature of the crime, the American people and the world wanted him dead without having to go through the motions of an indictment, a hearing and conviction. That the United States and the civilized world do not always follow the judicial path is also true in the case of Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi, with Nato bombing his residence but without openly admitting that the attack was meant to kill him.

The orders to kill rather than capture Bin Laden and ostensibly to assassinate Gadhafi raise a moral question on the propriety of such orders, for they run counter to the rule of law and to the fundamental legal principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It should be noted that such orders to kill are worse than capital punishment, for the accused is even deprived of his right to be heard, tried and convicted.

Incidentally, the Bin Laden killing also raises the question of the acceptability and morality of capital punishment, for how do you deal in a civilized fashion with those who are uncivilized and who clearly do not value or respect the life and rights of their fellowmen? We have seen the clamor in this country for the return of capital punishment whenever we have killings that are so gross or crimes so grizzly that the perpetrators are perceived more as vicious animals than human beings, or where the victims are important personalities in government or media. In an ideal world, the judicial process is paramount, but the world has shown us that we do not live in an ideal world and that there are times when we can no longer wait for the slow wheels of justice to take their course. Applied in our local situation, the Maguindanao massacre is a crime so heinous that the victims’ relatives are crying more for blood than justice. Over 18 months have passed and we are still nowhere near the conviction of the accused. And since we do not have capital punishment, it is not unlikely that if convicted, perhaps in 10 years or so, the accused will still live a comfortable life in jail considering their considerable resources and influence. Is this true justice then?

In our country, more than a few share the view that some crimes are so heinous that the accused, if clearly guilty, should be summarily executed. We have seen how authorities and others have opted to take the law into their own hands and just summarily kill drug pushers, robbers, kidnappers and murderers. If state-sanctioned, would these activities not be that much different from the state-authorized, and widely welcomed, killing of Bin Laden? Are such killings justified for the sake of society, particularly where the justice system does not work and thus fails to protect the citizenry from criminals? Both the local and international human rights groups would of course not agree, but how do they really differ from the killing of Bin Laden? Would any of these groups look into the possibility that Bin Laden’s rights were violated? Or should we accept that there are times when summary execution is “justified”? To the ordinary Filipino citizen who does not have the fortune of living in a gated community and is instead constantly exposed to robbery, rape, theft, extortion and murder, summary killing is oftentimes welcome. The problem here of course is where do you draw the line on what is and what is not justified killing, and who is going to make that determination? These leave a lot of ethical, moral and legal questions to answer, but there is another option. And this option is the ideal situation where the state is able to protect the life and property of its citizenry from criminal elements, and the justice system works. This justice system would have courts that are fair and credible, where the judges are honest and competent, and cases are resolved swiftly. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near this ideal situation. This, to me, is one of the challenges that President Aquino should address for the sake of the Filipino people.

David L. Balangue is a former chairman and managing partner of SyCip Gorres Velayo & Co., founder of the TitaCory Movement, and chairman of the Coalition Against Corruption. Comments may be sent to [email protected]