Legal Liabilities and Defenses: Duterte and the Case of Quiboloy

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

The recent statements by former President Rodrigo Duterte regarding the whereabouts of fugitive televangelist Apollo Quiboloy have stirred a hornet’s nest of legal implications. Duterte’s admission that he knows Quiboloy’s location but won’t disclose it raises serious questions about potential obstruction of justice. The Philippine National Police (PNP) is currently examining whether Duterte’s comments might render him liable under Philippine law. This analysis explores the possible legal liabilities Duterte might face, his potential defenses, and the advisability of pursuing charges against him.

Potential Legal Liabilities

Obstruction of Justice under Philippine Law

Obstruction of justice in the Philippines is primarily governed by Presidential Decree No. 1829, which penalizes acts intended to obstruct, impede, frustrate, or delay the apprehension of suspects. Section 1(c) of PD 1829 specifically states:

“Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in the Philippines, or is required to be arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the judge or authority, or of an order of the court.”

Given Duterte’s statement that he knows Quiboloy’s location but is keeping it a secret, he could potentially be charged under this provision. If convicted, penalties include imprisonment and fines.

Possible Defenses

Context and Intent

One of the primary defenses Duterte might employ is the context and intent behind his statements. Duterte’s lawyers could argue that his comments were made in jest or as part of a casual conversation without any real intention to obstruct justice. As noted by PNP spokesperson Col. Jean Fajardo, understanding the context is crucial. The Philippine Supreme Court has previously considered intent and context in determining liability. In People vs. Andres, the Court emphasized that “mere statements without intent to obstruct are not sufficient to constitute the crime of obstruction of justice.”

Freedom of Speech and

Duterte could also invoke his right to freedom of speech under Article III, Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution. While this defense is not absolute and does not cover speech intended to obstruct justice, it could be argued that his statements were protected as free speech unless proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence of criminal intent.

Lack of Actual Harboring or Concealing

Duterte’s defense team might also argue that mere knowledge of a fugitive’s location, without active steps to harbor or conceal the fugitive, does not meet the threshold for obstruction of justice. The Supreme Court in People vs. Constantino ruled that “knowledge alone of a suspect’s whereabouts does not constitute obstruction unless accompanied by acts that directly impede law enforcement.”

Advisability of Pursuing Charges

Given the complexities of the potential case against Duterte, it might be prudent for the PNP to forego pursuing charges for several reasons:

Political Implications

Charging a former president could have significant political repercussions. It may deepen political divisions and lead to public unrest. The PNP must weigh the benefits of legal action against the potential for political instability.

Proof of Intent

Proving Duterte’s intent to obstruct justice could be challenging. His statement might be interpreted in various ways, and without clear evidence of intent, securing a conviction would be difficult.

Focus on Primary Offenders

The PNP’s primary objective should be the apprehension and prosecution of Quiboloy and his associates, who are facing serious charges of child abuse and human trafficking. Diverting resources to pursue charges against Duterte could detract from these efforts.

Conclusion

While Duterte’s comments about Quiboloy’s location certainly raise eyebrows and warrant scrutiny, the legal path to holding him liable for obstruction of justice is fraught with challenges. His potential defenses, particularly regarding the context and intent of his statements, make a conviction uncertain. Moreover, the broader implications of prosecuting a former president must be carefully considered. For now, the PNP might be well-advised to concentrate its efforts on bringing Quiboloy to justice and ensuring that the victims of his alleged crimes receive the justice they deserve.