IS THE LEVIATHAN PRESENT IN THE PHILIPPINES?

One of the pressing issue in the Philippines during President Duterte’s administration is
the alarming increase of crimes against human rights. For this paper, I would be using the political
philosophy of Thomas Hobbes in analyzing this issue. I would show two ways of applying this –
a) inclined with current administration; b) in conflict with current administration.
Human rights are “commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights which a person
is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being” according to UN Declaration of
Human Rights1. By unalienable it means that it cannot be separated from the individual and cannot
be turn over to any authority. In formulating the 1987 Phil. Constitution, it loosely follows the
structure of Hobbes’ formulation of the state. This is in the sense that the purpose of building the
state is to seek peace and order which can be seen in the 1987 Phil. Constitution art. II sect. 42,103
and 114; and that even though the Leviathan is irrevocable and has absolute power, he cannot make
man surrender his unalienable right to live and to defend oneself from violence which is showed
in art. VIII sect. 15. There are many rights included here like privacy of communication and
correspondence (Sect. 3.1), freedom of speech/ of expression/ of the press (Sect. 4) and freedom
to choose religion (Sect. 5) However, I would only focus on man’s right to live and right against
violence (and the violations against it) since it is the unalienable right given by Hobbes in his
Leviathan. Some alarming crimes about this are the increasing cases of extrajudicial killings, cases
of collateral killings, drug-related overcrowding of jails, and harassment and prosecution of drug
war critics. More than 7,000 deaths of suspected drug users and dealers have been reported since
July 1, 2016; 3,116 killings being operated by police force. This account does not include the
collateral damage or deaths of civilians caught during the operations. It is also to be noted how
brutal the drug of war, in which victims were harassed and killed without proper hearing, dead
bodies were thrown at street corners wrapped in packing tape, their showing torture6.
Thomas Hobbes’ political philosophy centers on seeking peace and order, and in avoiding
a violent death. The state of nature refers to the condition of men before the emergence of society.
Every man has equal freedom, and the drive to actions is one’s own survival. The tenet for this is
war of all against all. He also recognized that man by nature is evil and egoistic; and that man has
fear of a violent death. Because of this state of nature, every man can kill any man for his own
interest, and this would produce to chaos and anarchy. He said that even the potential of danger in
this state is worse since man has to live in fear. To solve this, men should enter a social contract,
which follows from natural laws (a. To seek peace and follows it; b. By all means we can defend
ourselves). In this social contract, men would voluntarily renounce their rights to do anything they
please for better survival. They then would enter a state or commonwealth in which the Sovereign
would take over their rights and would command them. The Sovereign or the Leviathan represents
the people’s will and judgements; he is the embodiment of the citizens. The social contract is not
between the Sovereign and the people, but among the people. Since this is Hobbes’ solution to the
state of nature, he gave the Leviathan absolute power. Since his will is the will of the people, and
the will of the people is for their peace and survival, the Leviathan cannot have unjust laws. The
Leviathan is also irrevocable. In Hobbes’ philosophy, one can see the absence of morality as seen
on man’s nature, the state of nature, and his solution to this. For him, it is only natural for man to
1
NSTP1 Module: Citizenship Training (Lecture Class). Department of Military Science and Tactics (2017, August 14).
2
art. II sect. 4. “The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. …”
3
art. II sect 10. “The state shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.”
4
art. II sect. 11. “The state shall value the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. “
5
art. VIII sect. 1. “The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human
dignity, … for the common good.”
6
Human Rights Watch,” Human Rights Consequences of the “War on Drugs” in the Philippines”, (2017), https://news.mb.com.ph/2017/09/10/cpp-
duterte-purging-administration-of-reds/ (accessed October 23, 2017).
harm others in order to survive. (Civil) law begins when there is Sovereign.
Hobbes’ political philosophy can be applied in the current issue in two ways. In the first
way, I would assume the current administration as the Leviathan or the Sovereign. For this, I would
be giving four premises supporting the rule of current administration even against violations on
human rights. By offense against human rights, what would only be acceptable in this Hobbesian
account are those that are acceptable by the government. For example, if a man is killed or harmed
during a drug operation, it would be accepted since the administration views drug abuse as vitally
dangerous for the state. However, crimes that are against laws are not part on this “acceptability
of unjust acts”. In the first premise, just as the Sovereign and the state were created in order to seek
peace, people entered a social contract and turn over some of their rights to the Sovereign. In this
social contract among the people, there is the acceptance that the Sovereign is their embodiment,
and so should be followed. The people themselves created the Sovereign and willingly surrendered
their rights; and so, in applying to the Philippine government, people cannot oppose the decisions
and commands of the administration. This contract can be seen on the democratic election done in
the country, which follows the plurality of people. Following Hobbes, even though some people
may find the crimes against human rights as unjust, they cannot oppose the administration because
in doing so they are also opposing themselves (and reverts back to anarchy). Since the Sovereign
is the embodiment of their will and judgement, the will of the government is the people’s will. It
would be better for protesters and rebels to leave the state if they think the administration cannot
fulfill its main duty. This also follows from the idea that the Sovereign is irrevocable. The second
premise focuses on the absolute power of the Sovereign, by which his commands are the only one
with authority. Hobbesian justice means obeying the law and keeping the social contract (and v.v.
for injustice). This means that the ideal Sovereign would know what is best for men and the state,
and is the only one with central power to implement such decisions and commands. In application
to Philippines, letting people be killed or harmed is acceptable if it is for the “betterment” of the
state, and if this is what is deemed as the way to pursue by the Sovereign or the current
administration. The third premise focuses on the notion of “bad laws”. As mentioned, there is no
conception of morality in Hobbes’ political philosophy. And so, injustice can only mean voiding
of entering social contract. This means that the current administration cannot have unjust laws/
actions/ decisions, but only a bad one, however that can be defined. Though, it also has to be noted
that the judgement of this “goodness” and “badness” are not within the scope of man’s ability but
by Higher Being. And so, since men cannot judge the administration, they would be inclined to
follow Hobbes’ notion that the Sovereign is absolutely powerful, right, and irrevocable. The fourth
premise is the notion of Hobbes that the only option of man except for following the Sovereign is
to revert back to anarchy and the dangers of it. Since Hobbes’ Sovereign is his only solution against
state of nature, then opposing it would lead man to return back to the state of nature. However, if
we also follow Hobbes’ account of men (as being egoistic), then it would be worse for men to
revert here. It is because even though there is no actual danger to man, he would always have to
live in fear thinking that he can be killed anytime. The very idea of trying to come up with a
solution to state of nature hints that ideally, building a state is better than anarchy. And so, the
current state of the Philippines is better than anarchy.
After giving four premises to support the command and rule of the current administration,
it should also be noted that there is an exception to the Sovereign’s absolute power. As mentioned
above, man only gives up some of his right in forming a state. This is because man has unalienable
right that cannot be turned over, and that is the right to live. This means that even when a man
violated the law, he has the right to remain silent or to deny accusations as a way to protect oneself.
This takes precedence over the power of the Sovereign since this is the very reason the state is
created – for man’s survival. In application, people may resist the violence done to them even
under the rule of the administration if necessary. However, it is to be noted that this resistance does
not lead to a rebellious act since what the administration is doing is “right”; one is only defending
oneself from a violent death as he can. Overall, in assuming the compatibility of Hobbes’ political
philosophy and the Philippine administration, it gives the current administration absolute power
with exception of man’s right to resistance in cases of death and violence. Aside from irrevocability
of the Sovereign (since there is notion of impeachment), Hobbes’ thesis can apply to Philippine
Constitution which is built in order to seek peace and order, and focuses on right of man to live.
There is a second way to interpret the connection of Hobbes’ political philosophy to the
current administration even against violations on human rights. I would question the assumption
of the current administration as the Leviathan. In the first premise of the first way, it focuses on
the social contract and the surrendering of rights; however, continuous rallies and protests
contradict this. This can question the validity of social contract done by the people. One plausible
explanation is that the administration first fails to do their duty which is to seek peace and maintain
survival of people, which lead to nullity of the contract. Even if it is contract among people, if the
purpose of contract is not met, then for what purpose does the contract serve? It is to be noted
however that in Hobbes’ account, in agreeing to surrender rights to the Sovereign, man cannot
make his voluntary act void; and this lead to absurdity. And so, this states that the application of
Hobbes’ thesis in the first place is not applicable. Also, even though President Duterte was voted
by plurality of people, thousands of people continue to protest against his administration. Since
Philippines does not follow the majority rule in election but rather plurality7, one cannot say that
the election results were a representation of people’s will and judgement. For the second premise,
it is said that only the Sovereign has the power to decide and command – by which only the current
administration has the authority. However, it is also evident that even people in the government
do not agree with each other. This is evident on “purging” the government of Left-leaning
activists8. If the administration then is the embodiment of people’s will and judgement, how can
there be conflicting ideologies and interests in the current administration? The third premise tells
that there can only be bad laws and that man cannot serve as judge here. However, in analyzing
the violations of administration against human rights, can it still be considered as only bad laws if
it is violating the core purpose of having Sovereign which is peace and survival of men? Even
though there is no notion of morality for Hobbes, the will of the current administration still poses
danger to man’s survival and peaceful society, as seen on advent killings and fear of individuals
in day-to-day living. The fourth premise states that the only option aside from following the
Sovereign is to revert to state of nature, which is considered as worse state of man. However, given
the conditions of the people in the Philippines, hints similar to state of nature are manifested. Since
some Filipinos experienced the violence during Martial Law, there is the fear and anxiety today
that the Philippines might be entering another tragic. And even to those who haven’t experienced
it, there is still fear of danger from the agencies of government itself because the news is full of
killings and violence without proper judicial hearing (which should have protected the people).
Can this not be considered as the same fear for life the people had during the state of nature? Also,
aside from the potential danger, there is actual danger for one’s life since some deaths happened
during police operations and without hearings. These counter arguments give contradictions in
applying Hobbes’ thesis to the Philippines, especially against violations on human rights.
7
Majority means 50+1; Plurality means greatest number among all but not necessarily majority (ex. A- 40%; B- 35%; C- 25% , A is the plurality)
8
Yas Ocampo, “CPP: Duterte purging administration of Reds,” Manila Bulletin, September 10, 2017,
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/20/human-rights-consequences-war-drugs-philippines (accessed October 23, 2017).

2014-00303
References:

1987 Phil. Const. art. II, § 4

1987 Phil. Const. art. II, §10
1987 Phil. Const. art. II, §11
1987 Phil. Const. art. VIII, § 1
Human Rights Watch. “Human Rights Consequences of the “War on Drugs” in the Philippines”.
2017. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/20/human-rights-consequences-war-drugs-philippines
(accessed October 23, 2017).