De Lima’s Gambit: Pursuing Justice or Political Reckoning?

THE stage is set for a political showdown that could reshape the Philippines: Leila de Lima, once imprisoned on charges she calls a political vendetta, is now ready to face off against Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, the architect of Duterte’s brutal drug war. This isn’t just a personal battle—it’s a clash that could define the future of justice and power in the country.

At the heart of this controversy lies the testimony of Kerwin Espinosa, a self-confessed drug lord. Before the House Quad Committee, Espinosa dropped a bombshell: he claimed that in 2016, Dela Rosa coerced him into implicating De Lima in the drug trade, using his father’s violent death as leverage. Espinosa’s father, a former mayor, was killed in prison under murky circumstances, raising questions about extrajudicial executions that have haunted the Duterte administration.

Retribution and Rivalries: The Context of De Lima’s Ordeal

Leila de Lima, a former Justice Secretary, became one of the fiercest critics of President Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war. In response, the administration retaliated. De Lima was accused of benefiting from the illegal drug trade through testimony from convicted drug lords—a narrative that landed her in prison for nearly six years. Her imprisonment symbolized Duterte’s merciless political retribution. But De Lima’s recent release and Espinosa’s testimony now shift the spotlight onto her accusers, most notably Dela Rosa, a loyal foot soldier of Duterte.

Dela Rosa, the former police chief turned senator, was Duterte’s right hand in executing the brutal anti-drug campaign. As head of the Philippine National Police (PNP), he oversaw thousands of drug-related deaths, many under suspicious circumstances. His loyalty to Duterte is unflinching, and his political survival hinges on defending the former president’s legacy. Now, with De Lima considering filing cases against him, Dela Rosa faces accusations that could threaten not just his career but his freedom.

Espinosa’s Testimony: Credibility in Question

Espinosa’s allegations are damning, but they come with complications. Dela Rosa was quick to dismiss Espinosa as a liar, untrustworthy because of his criminal background. It’s a familiar defense—discredit the accuser to undermine the allegations. Dela Rosa insists the PNP had no involvement in the case build-up against De Lima, emphasizing that the Department of Justice (DOJ) handled the case.

But there is a crucial inconsistency: Espinosa’s account of a conversation with Dela Rosa in a vehicle, where he was allegedly threatened with his father’s fate. If proven, this incident could constitute obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Under Philippine law, threatening a witness is a grave offense, punishable by imprisonment and disqualification from public office.

The Legal Minefield: Possible Outcomes for Dela Rosa

De Lima’s potential case against Dela Rosa could revolve around several legal angles:

Perjury and Witness Tampering
If Espinosa’s testimony is corroborated, Dela Rosa could face charges for suborning perjury and obstructing justice. Under the Revised Penal Code, tampering with a witness is punishable by both imprisonment and dismissal from public service.
Abuse of Authority and Malfeasance
The use of threats to influence testimony constitutes a misuse of Dela Rosa’s powers as PNP chief, potentially falling under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Obstruction of Justice
If Dela Rosa’s alleged actions hindered justice by fabricating charges against De Lima, he could face severe penalties.
Human Rights Violations
Espinosa’s account could trigger an investigation into systemic abuses under the Duterte administration’s drug war, possibly implicating Dela Rosa in human rights violations.

Dela Rosa’s Counteroffensive: A Battle of Credibility

Dela Rosa will likely argue that Espinosa’s testimony is a fabrication, orchestrated to target Duterte allies ahead of the 2025 elections. He might emphasize procedural gaps—such as the PNP’s non-involvement in the DOJ’s investigation—arguing that any coercion claim is legally untenable. Moreover, Dela Rosa’s defense will likely focus on Espinosa’s motives, questioning whether his testimony was influenced by political pressure or promises of leniency.

He may cite Supreme Court precedents involving unreliable testimony from compromised witnesses. The case of People v. Webb (2010) demonstrated the danger of relying heavily on witness statements without corroboration. Dela Rosa’s legal team may also invoke Section 38 of the Revised Penal Code, which allows for exemptions when the defendant proves good faith or lack of malicious intent—arguing that any interaction with Espinosa was routine, not coercive.

Political Stakes: A Clash of Narratives Ahead of 2025

The timing of this controversy is crucial. Both De Lima and Dela Rosa are expected to contest seats in the 2025 midterm elections. A trial would place the Duterte drug war—already under scrutiny—at the center of political discourse. For De Lima, pursuing the case offers a chance to redeem her tarnished legacy and reclaim the moral high ground. But the risk is high: a failed case could cement the narrative of her culpability.

For Dela Rosa, the legal battle is existential. Losing would not only end his political career but also open the door to further investigations into his tenure as police chief. Duterte loyalists, too, would view a conviction as an indictment of the former president’s entire anti-drug campaign, potentially fracturing the coalition ahead of the 2028 presidential race.

Recommendations: Navigating a Complex Political-Legal Terrain

For De Lima: Build a solid, evidence-based case and avoid overreliance on Espinosa’s testimony. Focus on systemic abuses beyond personal grievances.
For Dela Rosa: Emphasize procedural defenses and challenge the credibility of the witness. Maintain transparency to avoid public backlash.
For the Philippine Government: Ensure impartiality in the legal proceedings. This case must serve as a litmus test for judicial independence.
For the Public: Demand accountability and transparency, regardless of political allegiances. The resolution of this case will shape the country’s future political landscape.

In the end, this isn’t just a courtroom showdown—it’s a referendum on the values that will define the Philippines moving forward. The verdict may settle the score between de Lima and dela Rosa, but the true judgment lies in the hearts of the people, as they grapple with what kind of nation they wish to become.