Justice on Trial: Can the DOJ Hold Duterte Accountable for the Drug War Deaths?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — October 14, 2024

AS calls for justice grow louder, the Department of Justice is stepping into the most dangerous battleground in Philippine politics: the aftermath of Rodrigo Duterte’s deadly drug war. With damning testimonies from the House of Representatives setting the stage, the DOJ’s investigation could finally crack open the secrets of a campaign that left thousands dead. Will the truth emerge from the blood-soaked streets, or will political forces once again bury accountability?

Under the Microscope: The Quadcom’s Scrutiny of Duterte’s Drug War

The Quadcom’s hearings have cast an unflinching spotlight on allegations that Duterte himself directed extrajudicial killings as part of the government’s anti-drug strategy. Testimonies from police officers, inmates, and former officials have painted a grim picture of a systematic effort to target individuals deemed enemies of the state, with alleged orders originating from the highest levels. Witness accounts revealed a so-called “Davao model” of the drug war, characterized by payments for killings and cash incentives for law enforcement personnel who eliminated drug suspects. These testimonies suggest that the drug war was not merely a collection of isolated incidents, but rather a concerted effort with a structured chain of command.

The most explosive claims come from retired Police Col. Royina Garma, a former Duterte aide who implicated several key figures in these alleged extrajudicial killings, including former police officials and even Duterte himself. Garma’s disclosures during the hearings describe a culture where cash rewards were offered for every drug suspect killed, and where assassination squads operated with impunity. This grim narrative forces a reckoning with the notion that thousands of lives lost in the name of the drug war may have been casualties of an unlawful campaign waged at the state’s behest.

The Quadcom’s Findings: Testimonies that Shake the Foundations of Power

The testimonies presented during the Quadcom hearings reveal a pattern of targeting high-profile individuals and systematically silencing them under the guise of combating the drug trade.

Killings of Chinese Nationals in Davao Prison: Inmates testified that Duterte allegedly ordered the killings of Chinese drug lords who were fatally stabbed in the Davao prison in 2016. The testimonies not only pointed to direct orders but also suggested that such killings were meant to send a message to other alleged drug syndicates operating in the country.
Murder of Wesley Barayuga: Police Lt. Col. Santie Mendoza recounted how he was instructed by then Col. Edilberto Leonardo to carry out the hit on Wesley Barayuga, a PCSO Board Secretary. Leonardo allegedly claimed that the operation was sanctioned by Garma, with further insinuations that it had Duterte’s approval. This accusation, if proven, would indicate an abuse of power within the law enforcement community, suggesting that the killing was part of a broader agenda to eliminate potential threats to Duterte’s administration.
Assassination of Mayor Antonio Halili: Garma also testified that the murder of Tanauan Mayor Antonio Halili was orchestrated by a group of police officers, further alleging that Halili’s vocal criticism of Duterte’s anti-drug campaign may have made him a target. If these claims hold true, it implies a strategy to suppress dissent and intimidate critics of the government’s policies.

The Call for Legal Accountability

The testimonies have spurred calls from lawmakers, human rights groups, and the general public for the DOJ to pursue appropriate legal actions. Undersecretary Raul Vasquez has indicated that the DOJ will initiate preliminary investigations and proceed with a case buildup upon the referral of the House committee report. There is also pressure on the DOJ to take a proactive stance by investigating even without formal complaints from victims’ families or the police. The expectation is clear: there must be accountability for the thousands of lives lost, and justice must be served for the victims and their families.

Facing Justice: Potential Charges for Those Implicated

Bringing charges against Duterte and his alleged accomplices will require thorough legal, procedural, and evidentiary considerations. Below is a detailed analysis of the potential charges, relevant legal provisions, international precedents, and procedural challenges:

1. Crimes Against Humanity

Relevant Laws and Precedents

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC):
- Article 7 of the Rome Statute defines crimes against humanity as acts, including murder, committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians with state approval.
Precedents:
- Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba (ICC, 2016): Held a military leader responsible for failing to prevent or stop crimes committed by his subordinates.
- Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević (ICTY): Demonstrated that heads of state can be held accountable for systemic abuses.

Application to the Duterte Case

The widespread killings of drug suspects, with evidence suggesting a chain of command leading to Duterte, align with the definition of crimes against humanity. If it is proven that Duterte sanctioned the killings and used law enforcement as a tool to carry out these acts, he and other implicated officials could be charged under the Rome Statute, to which the Philippines was a party until 2019. The ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member state.

2. Extrajudicial Killings under Philippine Law

Relevant Laws and Precedents

Article III, Section 1, 1987 Philippine Constitution: Protects the right to life and due process.
Republic Act No. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law): Criminalizes extrajudicial executions as part of state or organizational policy.
Precedents:
- People v. Marti (1994): Affirmed the state’s duty to protect individuals from arbitrary state actions.

Application to the Duterte Case

The testimonies suggest that the police operated under direct orders to carry out targeted killings without judicial oversight. The murders of Wesley Barayuga and Chinese prisoners fall under this category, as they were denied due process. These killings can be prosecuted under Philippine laws governing extrajudicial executions, with state officials facing liability as principals or accomplices.

3. Abuse of Authority and State-Sponsored Assassinations

Relevant Laws and Standards

Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (RPC):
- Article 248: Defines murder as the unlawful killing of a person with premeditation.
- Article 208: Penalizes officials who neglect the prosecution of offenders or facilitate impunity.
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials (Republic Act No. 6713): Establishes standards of accountability and ethics in public office.

Application to the Duterte Case

If proven, Garma’s allegations regarding the use of state resources to finance assassination squads represent a gross abuse of power. The targeted assassination of Mayor Halili, allegedly due to his opposition to Duterte’s policies, exemplifies a misuse of authority that could be prosecuted under Article 248 of the RPC.

4. Civil Liability for Human Rights Violations

Relevant Laws and Precedents

Philippine Supreme Court Decisions:
- Aberca v. Ver (1988): Held that public officials can be held civilly liable for gross human rights violations.
- Oposa v. Factoran (1993): Affirmed the principle of state accountability for the protection of constitutional rights.

Application to the Duterte Case

Families of the victims may pursue civil damages against Duterte and implicated officials. Under Aberca v. Ver, the Supreme Court established the liability of public officials who commit acts in violation of constitutional rights. The state could also face civil claims for failing to prevent the killings despite numerous warnings.

Analyzing the Strength of the Cases Against Those Implicated

Building a case against former President Duterte and his alleged accomplices will be a complex task fraught with legal, procedural, and evidentiary challenges. Some of the critical issues that will shape the strength of the cases include:

Proving Direct Involvement and Orders: The testimonies alone may not be enough to establish Duterte’s direct role in ordering killings. The DOJ will need concrete evidence, such as recorded directives, written communications, or corroborating testimonies from multiple credible sources. Without such evidence, defense arguments could cast doubt on whether Duterte’s involvement was indeed as direct and explicit as claimed.
Chain of Command and Responsibility: Establishing a clear and systematic link between Duterte’s alleged directives and the actions carried out by law enforcement officials will be crucial. This involves proving that the killings followed a command structure that could be traced back to the former president, which may be difficult given the opaque nature of these alleged extrajudicial operations.
Procedural Hurdles and Legal Framework: Legal defenses could involve challenging the admissibility of testimonies, particularly if witnesses lack credibility or if their statements are inconsistent. The prosecution will need to ensure due process is followed meticulously to avoid any technical grounds for dismissal. Defense lawyers will likely scrutinize every aspect of the case, from witness credibility to procedural irregularities, leveraging any flaws in the investigation to undermine the charges. Furthermore, the statute of limitations for certain crimes might also pose an obstacle, depending on the timeline of the killings and whether the government can argue for exceptions based on the continuous nature of the offenses.
International and Domestic Legal Standards: The prosecution will also need to navigate legal frameworks at both national and international levels. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)—to which the Philippines was a party until its withdrawal in 2019—extrajudicial killings may amount to crimes against humanity. Although Duterte’s legal team might argue that the ICC no longer has jurisdiction following the withdrawal, the court retains authority over crimes committed during the Philippines’ membership. Domestically, the prosecution can invoke precedents from Philippine Supreme Court rulings on state accountability and the constitutional prohibition of extrajudicial executions, such as in People v. Estrada (2015), which reinforced the government’s duty to protect life and prosecute human rights violations.

The Defense Strategies: Counter-Arguments and Legal Defenses

The defense will likely present multiple legal strategies to contest both the credibility of the testimonies and the legitimacy of the investigation:

The Quadcom’s findings have opened the door to unprecedented legal challenges. The DOJ must proceed carefully, ensuring that due process is meticulously observed while building cases rooted in both domestic and international law. A successful prosecution of Duterte and his alleged accomplices would send a powerful message that no one is above the law, setting a precedent not only in the Philippines but also in the global fight against impunity.

Witness Credibility and Motives: Duterte’s legal team is expected to question the motives of the witnesses. They may argue that inmates or former officials testifying against him are seeking leniency for their own crimes or are being pressured by political opponents. This line of defense may resonate with Duterte’s base, which has long framed criticism of his drug war as politically motivated.
Lack of Corroborative Evidence: Defense lawyers will argue that the prosecution’s case relies too heavily on testimonies without sufficient physical or documentary evidence. They may point out the absence of concrete proof, such as written orders or recordings, to establish a direct link between Duterte and the killings. This strategy could create reasonable doubt, weakening the prosecution’s case.
Operational Justifications: The defense could claim that many of the deaths occurred during legitimate police operations, where suspects resisted arrest. They might argue that Duterte’s statements encouraging tough action against drug offenders were mere rhetoric and not intended to authorize unlawful killings.
Statute of Limitations and Jurisdictional Issues: Duterte’s legal team could raise the statute of limitations for certain offenses, claiming that the window for prosecution has expired. They may also challenge the jurisdiction of the ICC, contending that the Philippines’ withdrawal renders the court powerless to prosecute him.

The Road to Justice: Next Legal Steps

The path to resolution will be long and arduous, with several key phases ahead:

Preliminary Investigation and Case Buildup: The DOJ will conduct a thorough review of the House report, gather affidavits, and interview key witnesses to build a robust case. This phase will be crucial in determining whether formal charges can be filed.
Filing of Charges and Preliminary Hearings: If sufficient evidence is gathered, the DOJ will file charges against the implicated individuals. Preliminary hearings will follow to assess whether the cases have merit and should proceed to trial.
Trial and Judicial Review: Should the cases proceed, trials will be held in Philippine courts. Defense teams are likely to pursue appeals at various stages, potentially prolonging the process for years.
Potential ICC Intervention: If the Philippine judiciary is seen as unwilling or unable to prosecute, the ICC may intervene under the principle of complementarity. This could bring international scrutiny to the cases and add pressure on the Philippine government to act.

Recommendations: Navigating a Complex Path Toward Justice

Both sides face strategic decisions that could determine the course of these proceedings.

For the Prosecution:

Build a meticulous case with corroborating evidence — including financial transactions and forensic data — to bolster witness testimonies.
Focus on cases that fall within the statute of limitations or provide the clearest trail of evidence.
Engage international legal experts to anticipate procedural defenses and ensure alignment with international human rights standards

For the Defense:

Attack the credibility of key witnesses by exposing inconsistencies or potential ulterior motives.
Argue procedural flaws, including the lack of direct evidence linking Duterte to specific orders.
Highlight the limitations of the prosecution’s reliance on testimonies, particularly those from compromised or implicated individuals.

The Final Reckoning

The DOJ’s probe is not just a legal battle—it is a litmus test for the Philippines’ commitment to justice and accountability. With the House committee’s revelations raising questions about the rule of law under Duterte’s administration, the investigation carries enormous political weight. It also presents an opportunity for the Philippines to reclaim moral authority and signal to the international community that state-sponsored violence will not be tolerated.

Failure in this case would open the door to a future where leaders rule unchecked, safe in the belief that their actions will never be questioned. But success? It could mark the dawn of a new era—one where justice reigns, even in the highest halls of power. The stakes are immense, but for a nation desperate for healing, and for those who have waited too long for justice, this battle is not just important—it is imperative.