Two summits ended recently. The executive department had the “Peace and Security: Legacy to the Filipino People” in Mindanao and the judiciary lead the other on “Extrajudicial killings: Searching for solutions” in Manila. It seems that national leaders are finally coming together to make sense of what is happening. But first, let us unconfuse ourselves.“Extrajudicial killings” (EJK) refer to those killed outside of the sanction of the law. We used to have judicial killings, i.e. the death penalty, until we abolished it. Strictly speaking then, all killings are extra judicial; hence there is an objection to the use of this label. Another way to understand it is that the killing is done in disregard to the law and in fact committed in the most blatant matter with full knowledge of its illegality and its grave penal consequences. This is linked to the perception that some state agents are involved.

Others propose to call it “political killings” meaning that the killing is politically motivated. For example, Shrek is killed because he believes in living in swamps. The difficulty with this proposition is that we will now have to define the word ‘political’. Consider the following: the killing of a media person for exposing corruption of a mayor and the killing of candidate by the incumbent to ensure electoral victory. Will these qualify as “political killings”?

What compounds the situation in this type of crime is that the motive is generally known – that the victims are subverting our social order employing various methods including violence and the use of force and thus, justifying retaliation. The tricky part is it is not traceable to a specific individual but rather a possibly shadowy group with seeming access to state actors. Note that for ordinary killings, the motive can establish the identity of the murderer.

It is trickier when the regular investigation and prosecutorial functions cannot be engaged because of planning and the absence of witnesses. We feel we know who did it but we can’t pinpoint them exactly. It is trickiest when we don’t trust our protectors to whom we report. Remember the scourge of kidnapping when rogue policemen were involved?

Considering these factors, to ask for a specific legislation is perhaps an approach to tailor fit the rules of procedure to the particular circumstances. We cannot however increase the penalty anymore because murder, which the killings basically are, is already punishable in the maximum reclusion perpetua short of the injection chamber.

On the other hand, the word “salvaging” has a more restrictive meaning and is used for the liquidation of ex-convicts who have not reformed or known drug pushers. The violators may be vigilante groups and the bodies are usually recoverable to serve as example and to send a message. As early as now, there are preliminary reports that the mouth of the PasigRiver is already spewing out tattoos and undergarments.

In order to solve the problem, we need to first identify it. I propose to call this phenomenon “impunity killings”. We avoid the judicial and extrajudicial dichotomy and need to define ‘political’. The elements of an impunity killing then are: a) a person is murdered, b) the victim is known to espouse or support another society to be attained by violent means, and c) committed by state agents or sanctioned by them.

Any solution must be targeted at the elements. For the non-government organizations, they should focus on element (a) – establish a system to track down missing persons within the first three (3) days with best chance of recovery. The three branches of government, primarily the executive, will have to work on element (c) – to make a strong commitment to the rule of law by implementing the summit recommendations and to quickly punish the wayward.

For the other stakeholders to renounce and denounce the use of force and violence in whatever form or shape to take away element (b). Absent one element does not a crime make and significantly, it holds all of us accountable for killing ourselves slowly.