To investigate or not to investigate?

    To start, who is PRRD, better known as President Rodrigo Roa Duterte? PRRD was the President of the Philippines from 2016 to 2022. He was the first president in the Philippines from Mindanao and is the oldest to assume office beginning his term at 71 years of age. He also is the chairperson of PDP Laban, the ruling political party in the Philippines during his presidency. Last but not least, he is the only President in the Philippines not to declare his assets and liabilities.

    First, in my opinion, should President Rodrigo Roa Duterte be investigated? Yes or No? Yes, the former President of the Philippines PRRD, or President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, should be investigated. Whether we base it on morals, laws, or just plain common sense, every individual knows and is aware that killing is not the right thing to do. It never was, and it never will be. However, the President was very open about such acts and the measures he took to battle his so-called drug war. He even dared to publicly state and confirm that he himself has been able to kill criminal suspects during his term in Davao City as a Mayor before being the President.

    It can also be easily true due to his personal beliefs in killing, as he is very vocal in his support for the extrajudicial killing of drug users and other criminals. As for his individual career, he has also provoked numerous protests and drawn criticism, mainly over human rights problems and his outspoken comments. In simpler terms, his reputation preceded him, as he was known as "The Punisher" due to the fact that he instilled fear and terror in Davao City while being a mayor.

    President Duterte has also been evidently worried about the International Court, as he is aware that he violates certain rights and laws. By September 15, 2021, the ICC formally opened an investigation into allegations that he had committed crimes against humanity. On October 2, 2021, President Duterte announced his retirement. Upon retirement, he has been obviously rattled and has criticized International organizations like the United Nations and The Human Rights Council and disqualified the U.N. experts in human rights from entering the nation. He and his representatives maintain that the Philippines is outside the purview of the ICC because, among other things, the country's signing of the ICC treaty in 2011 was not announced in the official gazette. This absurd and irrelevant claim is refuted by Manila's act of withdrawing from the statute.

    With all this being said, it is crystal clear that his method of dealing with political problems is wrong and has clearly violated the laws that must have been absolute. He has broken the Universal Declaration of Human rights and the Rome statute of the ICC, better known as the International Crime Court, specifically, crimes against humanity. The chances of him being found guilty are very likely as numerous claims, evidence, and even statistical, factual data can be found to support it. The law must be absolute and does not exempt anyone, regardless of who they are or the position they withhold in a state. The people, officials, and everyone must be shown that the law is fair, just, and has no biases, regardless of their status. If people see that the law, when it matters the most, is not absolute, people may have the idea to use it for personal gain and benefit instead. Not to mention that it exists and has been existing, but future generations may follow such examples. The world has never been fair, but if there was one thing that could possibly exist to be fair and equal, it is the law.

Geneva Conventions

    War is a prevalent and ongoing occurrence worldwide, as each country struggles for power and has unending conflicts due to politics. The Geneva Conventions is a practical method that has minimized its threat to the utmost extent. Now, what are the Geneva conventions? According to Britannica, The Geneva Conventions are a series of international treaties concluded in Geneva between 1864 and 1949. Two additional protocols to the 1949 agreement were approved in 1977. The conventions were intended to alleviate the effects of war on soldiers and civilians. 

    The first Geneva convention focused on the wounded and sick on the field. They protect the injured and ill on the battlefield; this means that those who are unable to continue participating in the conflict must be excluded and not experience further harm or, worse, death. It also includes protecting those who are medical personnel capable of treating the wounded and healing them from the damage of the war. The first convention identifies and understands the significance of medical personnel and their transportation in minimizing the effects of war to an impactful extent. Next is the second convention; the second convention divulges the same structures and contents of the first convention but is intended for those in conflict at sea. The medical personnel or hospital ships at sea must be protected and not be harmed in any way whatsoever. However, the second Geneva convention only has 63 articles, one less than the first Geneva convention, which has 64 articles. The third Geneva convention talks about the prisoners of war. In the third Geneva convention, the prisoners of war are the highlights of this convention, the labor of these prisoners, their financial resources, the relief they receive, and the judicial proceedings instituted against them. This convention also states that these prisoners must be released without delay and sent back to their country after the war ends. The convention respects the prisoners' rights and how they must be treated. Despite being foes during the war, they must not be treated with indifference and still receive the due respect they deserve. Last but not least is the fourth Geneva convention which focuses on the Civilian Population. The fourth Geneva convention is not long, and it is a short section concerned with the general protection of the populations against the particular consequences of war. Initially, it did not address the conduct of the hostilities but was later examined in the additional protocols of 1977.

    To conclude, on a global scale, we must realize that the Geneva Conventions are for all. The Geneva conventions limits the suffering and damage we inflict upon each other, regardless of being fierce enemies. The Geneva Conventions serve as a reminder of our shared humanity. They limit the devastation caused by battle since they have been based on concepts that have been present in all civilizations.

 

Ending Wars

    War, what is war? According to Britannica.com, war, in the broader sense, is a conflict between political groups involving hostilities of considerable duration and magnitude. Yes, wars are inevitable because each individual is different, and having different opinions on various matters will always be likely. Having said this, each individual would also resolve each conflict in another way, leaving the other individual or party no choice but to defend themselves from such violence. Another reason war is inevitable is that the powerful take advantage of their power. Being powerful means being assertive, and if people defy a purely assertive person's order, they then have the choice to deal with them violently. A concrete example of how wars are inevitable is that people at any place or time have conflicts that lead to physically hurting one another. 

    Wars are not essential to human survival. How so? If wars were essential, why is everyone trying to achieve or maintain peace if wars were essential to survival? It simply means it was, is, and will never be. Living together and coexisting without conflict is not easy, yet it is possible. In the past, maybe, war was essential due to the scarcity of resources, and the means of easy and convenient communication were not present. However, at present, communication is continuously being improved due to its usefulness and convenience. Despite the ease and convenience of communication, wars still occur. So, how can it be prevented? The most effective method of preventing wars for countless ages is laws. The presence of laws has prevented, intervened, or stopped wars from happening. These laws have prevented the different nations from abusing their power and being disciplined enough not to overstep their boundaries. Within these laws, consequences are present. Consequences enhance the laws and their effectiveness in being followed by the people; this then builds up a sense of responsibility and discipline to abide by the laws for the betterment of themselves and the people around them.

    The first way to limit the impact of war is through laws. A specific law that lessens the impact of war or prevents its damages from being on a maximum scale is the Rules of War or International Humanitarian Law. Such laws prevent civilians, medical staff or aid, injured service people, and prisoners from taking damage or further damage from the conflict. As we can see, the laws control the damages and the effects they can produce at large. The second method to limit the impacts of war is communication. Communication may produce wars but at the same time may also prevent or put an end to them. An example of communication proving its reliability is through peace talks and negotiations, which can be seen from the past until today.

Change

The Philippines. The Philippines is a third-world country with a population of 110 million as of 2022. With a population of 110 million, does each individual's rights violated get addressed? A simple answer would be no. Rights in the Philippines can be seen being violated everywhere, with little to no measures to address the issue. Rights such as Article 3, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person." Article 5, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Last is article 19, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." These are a few rights seen violated in a prevalent manner.

Now, why do rights in the Philippines prevalently get violated, and why does redressing them seem to be difficult? An appropriate answer for this would be an example that explains how the Government in the Philippines works. In the past, human rights defenders sought the 100 percent prosecution and conviction of human rights violators in the Philippines, specifically during the term of Duterte and its war on drugs.

Nonetheless, Karapatan Secretary General Cristina "Tinay" Palabay stated that this is "wishful thinking," especially since liability was never present in the killings in the country's war on drugs. Later on, during an investigative Philippine media event, Palabay stated that efforts are already being made to look further into the killings. She also stated, "However, these are hitting one dead end after another." "We need results, actual results," she stressed. "Those who are killing on the ground should stop what they are doing." Despite that, Palabay gave thanks to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for citing the human rights violations happening in the country. Last December 15, 2020, ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda released a report revealing a basis behind the claims that murder, torture, and crimes against humanity occurred during Duterte's first three years. Bensouda reported that "The Office is satisfied that information available provides a reasonable basis to believe that the crimes against humanity of murder (Article 7(1)(a)), torture (article 7(1)(f)), and the infliction of serious physical injury and mental harm as other inhumane Acts (Article 7(1)(k)) were committed on the territory of the Philippines. Between at least July 1, 2016, and March 16, 2019, in connection to the War on Drugs campaign launched throughout the country."

Although the report was convincing, the Government officials of the Philippines still refuted the statement, with our previous president, Duterte himself, saying that ICC prosecutors do not read. The previous Senate president, Vicente Sotto III, also dismissed the report. Sotto then stated facts from law enforcement agencies such as the PNP and PDEA to counter Bensouda's initial findings. After stating figures from law enforcement agencies, he then asked, "Ano pinagsasabi nitong si Bensouda na  reasonable basis of crimes against humanity?" "That is what she believes," Sotto stated of Bensouda's statements. Despite all of this, Palabay is still hopeful that the report will stimulate action for accountability, even stating, "This can make an impact even after this government finishes this term." Having all said this, it is clear why redressing human rights in the Philippines seems hopeless. The Government itself shuts down anything that may cause their actions to harm to prevent their ways from being halted. We can only hope that change will come sooner or later, and that the current Government will be different.

 

Rights of one, Rights of many.

Human rights, what are human rights? Human rights are norms or principles that belong to every individual regardless of different factors. Rights that benefit everyone and must never be formed based on prejudice. In the Philippines, specifically during Duterte's term, such rights have not been given deference by its administration. It was mainly due to Duterte's "War on drugs." The "War on drugs" significantly affected the Filipino people, and the country itself greatly struggled and attracted unwanted criticisms due to the deaths that were its effects. Such deaths are classified as Extrajudicial killings since their deaths did not go through any legal proceedings. We must aim to reform and fight for these things because the rights of one must also be the rights of the many.

 

In our everyday lives, we can see many people being deprived of their rights, some people we know, and some we do not. A simple analysis such as this would help us understand that despite the rights being absolute, not everyone seems to think of them as such. However, before we act on the deprivation of rights that other people or we experience, we first must understand what our rights are and what is the scope of such rights. To be specific, we first must investigate or study what are our rights and their descriptions. After all, as they say, knowledge is power, and knowing more will enable us to do more. After acquiring enough knowledge about such matters, we can then act upon it.

 

First, we must reflect upon ourselves. Are there instances in our everyday lives wherein our rights are being deprived? If yes, then it is good we were able to reflect upon them and recognize such things to enable us to help others easier. As they say, to help others better, we must first help ourselves. Afterward, we can then proceed to help other individuals with human rights problems in many different ways.

 

Nevertheless, the easiest and most convenient way of helping others these days is through awareness, which would be through social media platforms. By posting infographics, short videos, or even short descriptions about rights, people's minds would then be reminded of what our rights are and what we should and should not tolerate. Their minds would engage in thoughts such as why some people are deprived of some rights while others do not experience such a thing at all. Can we honestly say that the rights of one are the rights of many? Or perhaps should we strive again for such a thing? A world wherein the rights of one are genuinely the rights of many.

A PEACE THAT LASTS LONGER THAN TOMORROW.

    In a world where violence is prevalent, laws are present to ensure that there are still things that must never be violated and, no matter the circumstances, must still be respected. As Political science students, peace and the law are directly connected to each other. For what reason does Politics even exist if not for the betterment of the state or the individuals' lives? We could then say that the International Humanitarian Law, or IHL, was made for that purpose. Politics exists to permeate peace, and thus the International Humanitarian Law or IHL was created. The IHL then makes that peace achievable.

    To understand better the nexus of these three, we must first have a better understanding or grasp of each. Politics? What is politics? Politics is the exercise of limited power within a specific group or number of people. People say that it is limited because, in politics, power is exercised within a jurisdiction.

    Another point that was mentioned above is that Politics aims for the betterment of the people or individuals. The second is peace. Peace is the absence of conflict; a society wherein the people do not rebel and fight. However, peace is the complete opposite of chaos. Unlike chaos, peace is difficult to attain since each individual is different, and our ideas and opinions differ from one another. The third but not the last is IHL. The International Humanitarian Law or IHL exists for the sake of international or non-international conflicts. It is a law that protects individuals and the property they own in cases that they or their property are included in the conflict. If, in any case, they are caught in a conflict, they then have a choice to partake in the conflict by the means they deem necessary.

    To summarize, politics, peace, and the International Humanitarian Law. These three things exist for the sake of one another. The goal of Politics is to attain peace, and that peace is made possible through the creation of Laws like the International Humanitarian Law. Politics exercises power to create laws, and these laws then make up for every individual's difference. These laws then prevent individuals from doing things without regard and pave the way for peace to exist. Their existence promotes the growth of one another, and their connection is undeniably evident. One exercises and creates, the other prevents, and the third is the order attained by the two. This method may not have been the best solution in some cases, but in some, it has also produced significant results. May we all achieve a peace that lasts longer than tomorrow.