Mabilog vs. Dela Rosa: The Battle for Truth or Political Survival?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — September 21, 2024

JED Mabilog has returned—not to the Philippines, but to the national spotlight—bringing with him explosive allegations that could reshape the narrative of Duterte’s drug war. Once accused of protecting drug syndicates, the former Iloilo City mayor now claims he was forced into naming Senators Franklin Drilon and Mar Roxas as drug lords under threat of death. As the 2028 presidential race heats up, Senator Ronald ‘Bato’ Dela Rosa is already firing back, calling Mabilog’s testimony nothing more than a ‘demolition job.’

But beyond these accusations lies a much deeper question: Is Mabilog’s testimony a courageous stand for justice, or a politically motivated tactic to rehabilitate his tarnished image?

Mabilog’s Flight and the Shadows of Duterte’s Drug War

Jed Mabilog’s name was thrust into the national spotlight in 2017 when President Duterte, in his relentless pursuit of drug criminals, publicly named him as a protector of the drug trade. The accusation, however, was never supported by concrete evidence. Faced with mounting threats, including one from Duterte himself, Mabilog made the difficult decision to flee the country and seek asylum in the United States. His departure coincided with the violent peak of the Duterte administration’s war on drugs, which left thousands of suspected drug dealers and users dead, many without due process.

For years, Mabilog lived in exile, a symbol of the far-reaching consequences of Duterte’s anti-drug crusade. But when the political landscape shifted with the rise of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., Mabilog saw an opportunity to return to the Philippines and clear his name. His appearance before the House Quadruple Committee marked his first public foray into the controversy since fleeing the country.

In his testimony, Mabilog described how he was pressured to implicate Drilon and Roxas in the drug trade, accusations that he steadfastly refused to make. His assertions have put him at odds with Dela Rosa, the face of Duterte’s bloody crackdown on drugs, who insists that there was no political persecution or undue pressure on Mabilog. Dela Rosa maintains that Mabilog was offered a chance to clear his name but chose to flee instead.

Dela Rosa’s Defense and Political Motives

Dela Rosa’s response to Mabilog’s testimony has been unequivocal. He denies any knowledge of a plot to link Drilon and Roxas to drug activities and vehemently rejects the idea that Duterte’s administration would engage in such tactics. Moreover, Dela Rosa frames Mabilog’s accusations as part of a broader political strategy aimed at undermining Duterte’s political legacy, particularly as his daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, is seen as a strong contender for the presidency in 2028.

Dela Rosa’s argument centers on the idea that Mabilog’s testimony lacks concrete evidence and is part of a “fishing expedition,” an attempt to dredge up allegations that could weaken Duterte’s allies. He further points out that despite being offered a safe haven at Camp Crame, Mabilog chose to leave the country, implying that the former mayor’s fear for his life may have been exaggerated for political purposes.

Arguments For and Against Mabilog’s Testimony

For Mabilog:

Historical Context of Duterte’s Drug War: Duterte’s drug war has been criticized both domestically and internationally for its lack of due process and widespread human rights violations. Mabilog’s decision to flee the country after being publicly named by Duterte can be seen as a rational choice given the thousands of extrajudicial killings that occurred during this period.
Coercion Allegations: Mabilog’s testimony suggests that the Duterte administration’s tactics were not just limited to extrajudicial killings but also extended to coercing political figures into implicating opposition figures like Drilon and Roxas. Such claims, if substantiated, would point to a deeply politicized war on drugs.
Lack of Evidence Against Mabilog: No substantial evidence has ever been presented to support Duterte’s accusations that Mabilog was a drug protector, raising questions about the motivations behind the accusations in the first place.

Against Mabilog:

Timing and Political Context: Mabilog’s return to the Philippines and his testimony come at a politically charged moment, just as the 2028 presidential race is beginning to take shape. Dela Rosa and his allies argue that Mabilog’s testimony is a strategic move designed to weaken the political influence of the Duterte camp, particularly Vice President Sara Duterte.
No Direct Evidence of Coercion: Dela Rosa and others have challenged Mabilog to name the individuals who allegedly pressured him to implicate Drilon and Roxas. Without such details, Mabilog’s accusations remain speculative and risk being dismissed as politically motivated.

Arguments For and Against Dela Rosa’s Position

For Dela Rosa:

Absence of a Coherent Plot: Dela Rosa points out that there has been no credible evidence linking Drilon or Roxas to the drug trade. Moreover, he asserts that Duterte never instructed him to engage in politically motivated persecution, undermining Mabilog’s claim of a broader conspiracy.
Opportunity for Mabilog to Clear His Name: According to Dela Rosa, Mabilog was offered the opportunity to meet with Duterte and clear his name, but he chose to flee instead. This casts doubt on Mabilog’s motivations, suggesting that his flight may have been more about self-preservation than fear of a legitimate threat.

Against Dela Rosa:

Pattern of Political Persecution: Duterte’s drug war was not only about eradicating drugs; it was also a tool for targeting political opponents, as seen in the cases of Senator Leila de Lima and others. Mabilog’s allegations fit into a broader narrative of political persecution under the guise of anti-drug operations.
Failure to Address the Threats: Dela Rosa’s defense does not fully account for the very real threats faced by those named in Duterte’s drug list. The extrajudicial killings that characterized Duterte’s war on drugs lend credence to Mabilog’s fear for his life.

The Legal Chess Game: Who Has the Winning Strategy?

At this point, Mabilog’s testimony raises serious questions about the conduct of the Duterte administration’s drug war. However, the lack of specific evidence supporting his claims weakens his position. Dela Rosa, on the other hand, benefits from the absence of any direct link between Drilon, Roxas, and the drug trade, but his dismissal of the broader political context of Duterte’s drug war could be seen as evasive.

Recommendations

For Mabilog: He needs to present more concrete evidence to substantiate his claims, including naming the individuals who allegedly pressured him. Without such evidence, his testimony risks being dismissed as politically motivated.

For Dela Rosa: He should engage with the accusations more seriously, perhaps even calling for an independent investigation into Mabilog’s claims. This could provide a clearer resolution and prevent the issue from becoming a lingering political controversy.

The struggle between Mabilog and Dela Rosa is not just about two men—it’s a fight for control over the narrative of Duterte’s controversial legacy. As the nation inches closer to 2028, the outcome of this power struggle could alter the trajectory of Philippine politics for years to come. The final act has yet to be written, but when it is, its echoes will be felt across the country.