Definitions of ‘negate’, ‘neutralize’ in context of drug war tackled

Supreme Court (SC) justices on Tuesday zeroed in on the claim of the petitioners against the government’s war on illegal drugs that a Philippine National Police (PNP) circular may have given policemen the license to kill drug suspects.

The petitioners, represented by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), have claimed that the use of the terms “negated” and “neutralized” in the PNP Memorandum Circular 16-2016 was synonymous to “killing.”

During the oral arguments on the consolidated petitions against the war on drugs, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio quoted PNP chief Director General Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa as saying in August last year that “neutralized” could mean “surrender,” “arrested,” or “killed.”

Carpio also said the terms “neutralized” and “negation” had been included in the 2014 Revised PNP Manual of Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation during the time of then-Interior Secretary Manuel “Mar” Roxas II.

“If it can be interpreted in many ways, per se, you cannot claim that
the manual or circular is unconstitutional. You have to show that in the implementation they are violating rights; you cannot subject that to facial interpretation,” Carpio said.

FLAG chairman Jose Manuel Diokno, however, said the terms “neutralized” and “negate” were “vague” which could be construed as “to kill.”

“There is a maxim of construction that words have to be interpreted by how they are used,” he said, adding that the circular’s provisions on respect for human rights were just there to pay “lip service.”

In asking the SC to junk the petitions, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) turned to Black’s Law dictionary to prove its point that the assailed PNP circular did not direct the killing of drug personalities.

"Black’s Law Dictionary defines 'negate' as to deny; to nullify; to render ineffective. On the other hand, 'neutralization' is defined as the act of making something ineffective. Viewed in its purely legal context, 'negate' and 'neutralize' should not be construed as code words for extralegal killing," the OSG said.

Associate Justices Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Marvic Leonen, on the other hand, said Section 8 of the PNP circular provides that all operations must “strictly observe” the Rules of Court, international law, and the rights of the accused.

“It (CMC No. 16-2016) tells its men and women (policemen and policewomen), all the personnel, that these are the frameworks and guidance in the operations. Should we assume they do not mean what they say? Where do we get the idea that [these provisions] are only lip service, that they are not commands from the chief PNP to personnel?” Leonen said.

Leonen said declaring the PNP circular and Department of the Interior and Local Government Memorandum Circular 2017-112, which establishes a system of anonymous reporting of suspected criminals, unconstitutional “will have the effect of probably clarifying certain rights of certain individuals vis-a-vis the power of the government to go against illegal drugs.”

Carpio, meanwhile, raised to the petitioners the issue on whether the right to privacy can be violated when the police conduct a case build-up just because a member of a household refused police entry.

Diokno said anyone can refuse entry if there is no search warrant issued by the court.

The oral arguments will continue on November 28 for the OSG to present its case. —KBK, GMA News