“Duterte’s tactics and Hontiveros’ fight for drug war justice”
AT A Senate hearing dominated by former President Rodrigo Duterte, a seasoned tactic played out: the artful dance between denial and evasion. Duterte, invoking “personal guilt” as his shield, commanded the chamber with familiar allies at his side, ensuring that the bloody aftermath of his drug war remained a mere footnote. But across from him, Risa Hontiveros stood unwavering, a lone sentinel against the tide, her questions piercing the silence on behalf of a nation scarred by violence. She was a reminder that, in this theater of power, not all were willing to look away.
The implication of “guilt is personal” was no idle deflection; it was a rhetorical maneuver meant to insulate Duterte from command responsibility and international scrutiny. Legally, however, this stance is tenuous. While Duterte contends that accountability stops with each individual, established principles in Philippine and international law suggest otherwise. The notion of “command responsibility,” rooted in legal precedent from the Nuremberg Trials to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, directly challenges Duterte’s stance. Command responsibility holds that leaders are liable for the actions of their subordinates, particularly when their policies or rhetoric contribute to an environment of impunity. Duterte, who at times encouraged violence in the pursuit of his anti-drug policy, would likely find this principle difficult to refute under close examination.
The Philippine legal system itself underscores this accountability. The Revised Penal Code and established Supreme Court rulings reinforce the idea that officials who allow or enable crimes to occur under their watch bear partial responsibility. Duterte’s rhetoric, which in many instances seemed to sanction the extrajudicial killings of drug suspects, may well qualify him for liability even if he did not explicitly order every individual act of violence.
International law, likewise, offers no refuge in Duterte’s claim of “personal guilt.” Under the Rome Statute, to which the Philippines was a signatory until 2019, leaders can be held accountable for crimes against humanity if they enable, encourage, or tolerate systematic violence. Duterte’s words, policies, and the pervasive climate of fear and brutality during his administration could potentially meet the threshold for such charges. Even his attempt to dodge responsibility with claims of “personal guilt” does not negate these established international principles.
Hontiveros, fully aware of these implications, repeatedly cornered Duterte on the point of accountability, bringing up specific instances like the tragic death of Kian delos Santos. Her relentless questioning not only highlighted the stark moral cost of the drug war but also the legal vulnerabilities Duterte faces, both domestically and internationally. Senators like her, who are skilled in both rhetoric and legal grounding, pose a direct challenge to Duterte’s carefully constructed deniability.
The hearing concluded with Duterte requesting a suspension, a move that hints at the pressure bearing down on him. As the Philippines wrestles with this thorny question of accountability, international eyes — particularly those of the International Criminal Court — are closely watching.
In light of this, recommendations are in order:
The Senate should mandate clear accountability standards for officials involved in state-sponsored operations, to reinforce the idea that responsibility extends to the highest offices.
Hontiveros should press forward, utilizing both local and international channels to build a robust case for justice for drug war victims, potentially rallying support for ICC involvement.
Duterte should carefully consider cooperating with investigative bodies, as any further evasion could compound his liability both in Philippine and international eyes.
The Philippine government ought to reassess its accountability mechanisms within the police and military to prevent a recurrence of similar state violence.
The ICC should expedite its investigation, taking note of the Philippines’ own legal processes while evaluating the potential for accountability under the Rome Statute.
In time, Duterte’s claim that “guilt is personal” may either shield him or shatter beneath the weight of justice. The world watches, and an international precedent looms—one that no maneuver or deflection can obscure. The question remains: will accountability finally outlast the rhetoric?
