rejected a proposed they seem to

be prioritizing an offense if

violence? this is "inside story." police in the army in the philippines are being accused of killing human rights activists under the guise of having alleged communist rebels. the latest incident has been labeled bloody sunday. on march 7, nine people were shot dead when police and the military raided offices and homes south of manila. they say they found weapons and those they killed resisted arrest, but rights groups say the victims were community organizers, not fighters. the government insists the operation was law intimidation. >> there is a history >> is a history of human rights defenders being fronts for the armed ring of supporters. such public labeling has proved extremely dangerous, and the protection of human rights defenders, journalists, and others at risk was urged. in recent months, there have been dozens of other activists and several journalists arrested, including on human

rights day c1 >> all right, let's bring in our guests. in dubai, richer hey dairy, and academic and author of -- and also in manila, leanne guan. a warm welcome to you all. human rights watch says the sun -- bloody raids highlight the needs to address the worsening human rights in the philippines. what action would you like to see vu in take -- see the un t ake? > first of all, we would like the human rights council to take a more definitive role in the

country than they did previously. we definitely want more than just technical assistance. we want the human rights council to launch an independent, international investigation into the killings not just against activists, but also against terror suspects which have been going on since 2016. >> there's a report dated march 11 that police and military have prevented the families of 4 activists killed in the bloody sunday operations from claiming their bodies. what is the justification? why would the government be doing that? >> it is not the first time the government has done that. when an activist died last year, the same thing happened with police and military. of course, human rights lawyers will tell you that the police

have no right to take custody of the bodies and that families will always have the right to these bodies. >> the philippine president had told police early this month that if they have an encounter with armed communist rebels and security forces saw that those rebels were armed, to go ahead and kill them, don't mind human rights, how worrying is that to hear from the president of the philippines? >> as worrying as that is, it is also reversion to type. he came to office on an anti-crime, anti-drug agenda. some people have raised concerns if this will be a different direction in terms of the war on drugs. supporters of the president are asking if the president will stay committed to the war on drugs. this is a way for the president to say that he is not letting go, that there is no loosening

of the group in terms of the war on drugs as he enters his twilight years in office. at the same time, we see top officials like the justice minister in a recent address, suggesting the government is trying to get its act together and trying to launch investigations, and they revealed that there was a miscarriage of due process in perhaps half of the operations carried out by the government, so we see this bifurcation of the strategy of the government, the president signaling a commitment to maintain the war on drugs, while the government and justice ministers are trying to signal to the world that they are trying to get their act together, so we see this bifurcation which just shows the political situation. >> it seems to me you were reacting to what richard was saying. do you want to jump in? >> first of all, i just want to add that police have a reason

why they take custody of the parties. the families could opt for an independent autopsy. an independent autopsy would reveal if brute force had been applied, if excessive force has been applied, and how many bullets were pumped into the bodies of these activists, if it were true that they really resisted arrest. >> human rights watch says victims of many rates that have happened in the philippines belonged to groups the government earlier red tag. i want to ask you specifically about red tagging. can you explain to viewers what it means for those who are labeled with it? >> before you answer that, let me just add a little bit to what she said about the bodies. what is happening here i think

is that there is a legitimate fear among many filipinos that a cover-up is imminent or that what they are doing is a cover-up because why would they want to hold onto the bodies? why wouldn't they want families to go retrieve the bodies? there is a real fear that something is going on in terms of covering up what happened. having said that, the issue of red tagging -- this has been going on for decades in the philippines. this is not something new, but it has ramped up under this administration. it is really scary because in the philippines, being read text, being called a communist, and now being called a communist and a terrorist is practically a death sentence for people. this is quite serious, and this is one of the government's ways to try to intimidate and discourage people from speaking

out, from joining activist groups, and even the government thinks they are identifying these groups, these activists, they are going to stem the tide or discourage people from joining the communist insurgency, but the reaction is quite massive. it is extending a chilling effect. >> i saw you nodding to some of what carlos was saying. did you have something you wanted to add? >> on one hand, this is classic populism. one thing that is common among right-wing populist, is they claim or presentation of the people's will, so anyone who does not 100% agree with their point of view is automatically an enemy of the people. the definition can expand. it first started with criminals,

then liberal media, so-called yellows in the philippines, and now they are going after the rest. the conspiracy of the right has always been that the red, meaning the communists, will team up with the liberals -- with the yellows, meaning the liberals, to take on the government. that conspiracy theory has been going on for some time. there's another element, that the president has a tremendous amount of influence. if there is one thing hawkish elements live by, it is their hatred of the movement. there is also some hawkish element in the military to strike against their age-old enemy. again, the problem here is their identity of who is red, who is communist, is increasingly

amorphous. í@>> from your perspective, are you concerned that the escalation in violence will only get worse? also, what do you think -- either concrete steps that can be taken to lessen the violence? -- are there concrete steps that can be taken? >> on your first question, last year, we were already saying that if united nations human rights council does not take a stronger resolution on the killings, that people would die, and we saw that. nine people died this sunday, so i do not think it is a matter of us being concerned that more people would die. it is a matter of evidence that more people have indeed died. since last year, when these groups started calling for stronger resolutions, not just from the united nations human rights council, but from our own government, the killings of lawyers have started to rise as early as september, october of

last year, but there was no action from the department of justice or the supreme court. it was only in january that they started the meetings with the lawyers, and even then, lawyers still died after those meetings. we just found out that two days ago, the supreme court's office of the court administrator past judges to do an inventory of the cases, and we are wondering why it has taken them so long to issue such an order when the meeting started in january. lawyers were already being killed not just last year but the year before that. >> you heard her talk about the fact that it's not just activists who are being targeted in the philippines but also members of the legal profession. i want to ask specifically about that -- how bad has it gotten

when it comes to targeting members of the legal profession and attacks against them? >> it has gotten really so bad. there is something that keeps us awake in the philippines. one of the latest effects that happened was last week when a lawyer in the philippines was stabbed with a screwdriver. clearly evidently some people went after him for what he was doing as a lawyer for the national union of people's lawyer, which is a group of lawyers representing marginalized citizens. just today, the provincial police in the central philippines asked for the names of lawyers who may be representing or who are representing what they call communist terrorist groups, which, of course, is -- what

they mean are activist people or activist groups. as i said, if the court grants this list of lawyers represent and people from the activist sector, it's really bad. the police right now are going after not just activists, but also those who are defending them. there has been an increase of the number of lawyers who are being attacked in the philippines. more than half of these attacks are mortally. you have human rights defenders being attacked, journalists being attacked. society leaders, citizens -- citizen activists being attacked, and out even those who help them are also under threat. institutions now in the philippines, you know, for civil society, authorities are being

undermined and being intimidated. >> you mentioned a few moments ago the president was in a politically sensitive situation. i want to ask you about the fact that last december, the international criminal court released a preliminary report saying that there was evidence to show crimes against humanity had been committed in the philippines under president duterte. is this something that is of right to him? >> -- that is of great concern to him? >> absolutely. it is a convergence of factors. on one hand, the icc investigations are potentially moving toward potential prosecution or at least formal investigation against top officials in the philippines. it is not a good sign when you are entering the end of your term. at the same time, we saw top u.s. senators, especially democratic senators, agitating

for u.s. sanctions. some regions faced travel restrictions. bided himself may be pragmatic over zealous elements in the democratic party who may push for even tougher sanctions, so in all people directions, president dutere is s facing, in perception or reality, these kinds of threats, the potential for international intervention of one kind or another. now at the same time, the european union has a new ambassador trying to strike a pragmatic kind of position and trying to find an understanding. they also do not want to push president duterte into a corner because that might force him to resort to ask ordinary measures. he could run for office next year technically if everything -- he cannot run for office next year technically if everything goes according to the

constitution, but his daughter can run. his allies are in place and have a very dominant position, so if threatened, he might be tempted to stay in power in one way or another. maybe not as president, as vice president. that could complicate the situation. on the other hand, you have the european union or other elements thinking that the better approach is to play the long game and invest in european institutions with investment capacity. you have to understand the position of the justice minister on political institutions. this is the position we are in as we enter the twilight months of president duterte's term. the reality is it is not rule of law foot ruled by law. that means politics shape how landlocked is implemented. part of president duterte's

presidency is he promised law and order, but now we are seeing even more anarchy. that is why we are in a very delicate political situation. >> in his previous answer, carlos mentioned how journalists in the philippines have been targeted previously. we know your organization has been targeted. i want to ask you specifically how bad the situation is in the philippines right now for members of your profession? >> basically, i can answer it with one statement -- it's a really chilling effect. it is the threat that if you are critical, you might be sued for libel. you might be harassed online, called names, or worse, you could get attacked or killed. in the daily dilemma of the job, it is as simple as refusing

access to you, as simple as government officials not answering your question, as simple as them trying to block this lawyer going to publish. it is a chilling effect, that thought in your head that whatever i write next may lose me my next story or even cost my life, but the philippine media is pushing back. they're continuing to do their jobs, never mind the threats that happened to our colleague who was jailed for three months, and even after she was cleared, she had to stay a week or a month, two weeks in jail before she was able to leave. those are the kind of risks that we run into for doing our jobs here. >> it looked to me like you had something to say. please go ahead. >> i want to pick up on what was said about international response to what is happening

here. to be honest, our assessment of the international response to the crisis here has been quite disappointing for not just us, but other human rights defenders monitoring this catastrophe that we are facing. the human rights council resolution is a shameful resolution. many were distressed by it because we feel they bought into the agenda of the philippine government. keep in mind, the philippine government has been launching a massive disinformation campaign about what is happening in the philippines. they're promising the things they think the international community will want to hear, and you have also other countries -- foreign governments have been dragging their feet about what is happening in the philippines, and there are mechanisms they

can use to try to hold this government to account, but they have not been using that, and that is quite a disappointment. we now realize that there are considerations to be made because you are dealing with a federal government, but the situation here in the philippines, for decades now, the killings -- i mean, to put it bluntly, how many more dead bodies do they need to wait to see before they act? before these countries -- the european union, the united states, canada, ausalia -- they have human rights commitments, not just to the hrc but also to the philippines. we have not seen any of these commitments being held up by these countries, and in the meantime, thousands of people are being killed. when are they going to act? >> i saw you nodding your head a

lot to what carlos was saying. do you want to jump in? >> yeah, just picking up on what carlos said, what has been done is really to monitor what the philippine government has done. it was acknowledging that the philippine domestic system was doing something to address these killings, so we have an monitoring that. -- we have been monitoring that. as carlos said earlier, there was a request for local police for the court -- from local police for the court to give them names of alleged communists. lawyers have said this is like a kill list, comparable to the drug list that was the basis of the police raid in their antidrug campaign. i saw a comment from a prominent lawyer that they are demanding the supreme court say something

and publicly denounce that policeman are resorting to this kind of action. courts all over the world are passive institutions. they are not active. they will not be the one to speak out first, but lawyers are just saying that. these are not lawyers under threat. they fall exactly within your jurisdiction, and to note that the former chief justice did this during her time, she public we stood for the judges who were included in the president's narco list, and she said we have to protect these judges and give them due process, and what happened? she was ousted. she is no longer in position. when it comes to the department of justice, which is the executive agency, their efforts, their programs where the month just the ones mainly cited -- their programs were the ones mainly cited by the human rights

council. i'm just going to state fact -- the drug war panel was created in june 2020 when they already knew people were dying, and the technical assistance from the united nations had not even officially begun. yesterday, he said they are still waiting for a document to be signed before the technical assistance comes in. >> we have run out of time, so we have to leave the conversation there. thank you so much to all of our guests, and thank you, too, for watching. you can see this and previous episodes any time on al jazeera.com and for further discussion, visit our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter. bye for now. ♪

ú/