Blood Money: The Reward System Driving Duterte’s War on Drugs

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — October 12, 2024

IN A chilling moment before the House of Representatives’ quad committee, Royina Garma didn’t just testify—she detonated a bombshell. She exposed a covert system, born in Duterte’s Davao, that incentivized officers to kill. This “Davao template” was more than a strategy; it was a machine, powered by blood money, that fed on the corpses of drug suspects. Now, the world’s eyes would turn to this dark engine of fear and ask: how far did it reach?

A Tangled Web: Garma, Leonardo, and the Quad Committee

This controversy isn’t just about the drug war; it’s a web of political and legal entanglements that could unravel the legacies of powerful figures like former President Rodrigo Duterte, his trusted confidante, Senator Christopher “Bong” Go, and key allies within his administration. Garma and Napolcom Commissioner Edilberto Leonardo, both close to Duterte, stand accused of orchestrating extrajudicial killings. Their alleged involvement in the murder of former PCSO board secretary Wesley Barayuga, purportedly a high-value drug target, exposes a chilling side of the Duterte administration’s war on drugs: extrajudicial executions masked as national security operations.

Lt. Col. Santie Mendoza’s testimony further implicates Leonardo, asserting that he orchestrated Barayuga’s death with Garma’s approval. This revelation suggests that the death wasn’t merely a rogue operation but part of a state-endorsed practice, one that fostered a dangerous culture of impunity. The Quad Committee’s investigation now shifts toward exposing how these operations were funded, how watchlists were manipulated, and how those involved in the killings were shielded from accountability.

The ICC and Crimes Against Humanity: Duterte in the Crosshairs

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has long been circling Duterte. Its ongoing investigation into his alleged crimes against humanity, particularly regarding the thousands of killings during his brutal drug war, is now intensified by Garma’s damning testimony. The existence of a reward system that incentivized the extrajudicial killings is strong evidence of a state-sanctioned policy of violence. Under international law, particularly the Rome Statute, such a system can be construed as a form of systematic or widespread attack against a civilian population, qualifying as a crime against humanity.

Duterte’s administration, by encouraging extrajudicial killings through this reward system, violated not only the right to life but also the principles of due process enshrined in both Philippine law and international human rights treaties. The reward structure Garma described points to a calculated attempt to bypass legal procedures, using financial incentives to encourage killings without judicial oversight—an affront to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Philippines is a signatory.

The “Davao Template” and its Deep Legal Ramifications

Garma’s revelations about the reward system directly implicate key Duterte allies, including Bong Go and Leonardo, painting them as architects of a scheme designed to incentivize extrajudicial actions. Her statement that Leonardo conducted briefings for all high-ranking officials—including Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and Philippine National Police (PNP) chiefs—underscores the breadth of the systemic abuse. Furthermore, Garma’s link between Leonardo and Bong Go, who reported the killings to Duterte himself, solidifies the vertical command structure within the drug war, stretching from street-level enforcers to the highest political offices.

The controversy surrounding the reward system has exposed the administration’s reliance on violence as a tool of governance. It has weakened public trust in law enforcement, leading to widespread corruption and a culture of impunity. Officers who should be custodians of justice were instead molded into executioners, benefiting financially from a deeply flawed and brutal approach to criminality. Garma’s account of how officers were rewarded with cash for each drug suspect killed shocks the conscience and demands an overhaul of both legal accountability mechanisms and law enforcement ethics.

The key legal provisions violated under this system include:

Philippine Constitution: The reward system directly undermines the Philippine Constitution, specifically Articles III, Section 1 and 14, which guarantee due process and the presumption of innocence. These provisions ensure that individuals accused of crimes have the right to a fair and impartial trial, including the right to be informed of the charges against them, the right to legal counsel, and the right to confront their accusers.
Philippine Ethical Standards: The reward system violates the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713), which mandates that public officials act with integrity and transparency.
Philippine Supreme Court Precedents: The extrajudicial killings contradict the Supreme Court’s long-established rulings on the protection of life and liberty, including the rulings in Manalo v. Secretary of National Defense (2008), which emphasized the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens from illegal violence.
The Rome Statute: The Duterte administration could face liability for crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute, specifically Article 7, which includes murder as part of a widespread or systematic attack on civilians.
International Precedents: The case could draw parallels to precedents in international courts such as Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo in the ICC, where systematic violence against civilians by military forces led to a conviction for crimes against humanity.

Challenging the Accusations: Defending Duterte, Garma, and Leonardo

Defenders of Duterte, Go, Garma, and Leonardo may argue that the drug war was necessary to maintain national security, invoking the government’s obligation to protect citizens from the scourge of illegal drugs. They could claim that the reward system was a pragmatic, if harsh, tool to curb rampant criminality in a nation plagued by drugs. Furthermore, Duterte’s camp may argue that the ICC lacks jurisdiction, particularly following the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019, contending that domestic courts should handle the allegations.

The Battle of Arguments: Strengths and Weaknesses of Both Cases

While Garma’s testimony strengthens the ICC’s case by demonstrating the existence of a top-down directive for extrajudicial killings, Duterte’s refusal to cooperate with the ICC poses significant hurdles. The withdrawal from the ICC and the administration’s rejection of the court’s jurisdiction could hinder evidence-gathering, while Duterte’s political allies in the Philippine Senate may continue to block domestic investigations. However, the weight of Garma’s admissions, alongside the previous testimonies of Arturo Lascañas and Edgar Matobato, among others, provides the ICC with substantial evidence to support its investigation into crimes against humanity, potentially leading to further action.

On the other hand, Duterte’s defenders may exploit legal technicalities, arguing that the killings were conducted under the legitimate exercise of police powers and that there is insufficient evidence linking him directly to any crimes. Still, the ICC’s principle of command responsibility and the doctrine of superior orders—codified in both international and domestic law—could prove pivotal in holding Duterte accountable.

Justice in Sight: Legal Steps and Recommendations

The ongoing investigations by both the Quadcom and the ICC present opportunities for accountability, but justice is far from assured. The ICC, for one, faces a difficult path, particularly with Duterte’s resistance to cooperation. However, continued pressure from international bodies and the strengthening of witness testimonies, like Garma’s, could push these cases forward.

For the Philippine side, the path to resolution will depend on the judiciary’s independence and its capacity to operate without political interference. The Supreme Court, in cases like Estrada v. Desierto (2001), has shown that it can hold powerful figures accountable, but whether it will do so again remains to be seen.

Both sides must reckon with the mounting legal pressures. For Duterte and his allies, denial and defiance will only delay the inevitable need to answer these grave allegations. For the victims and those pushing for accountability, persistence in the pursuit of justice remains their strongest weapon.

In the end, justice for the drug war’s victims may still seem distant, but Garma’s revelations have turned the spotlight on a government that must now answer for its sins. As the Philippines faces its violent past, the question is no longer whether justice will be sought—it’s whether the nation is prepared to confront the truth and pay the price for redemption.