Royina Garma’s Dilemma: State Witness or Scapegoat in Duterte’s War on Drugs?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — November 19, 2024

ROYINA Garma’s arrest in the U.S. is more than a scandal—it’s a spotlight on allegations of corruption, human rights abuses, and the Duterte administration’s crumbling defenses. With global legal ramifications and domestic political fallout looming, this case could redefine what accountability means for Philippine leadership.

The Garma-Duterte Connection: A Look Back

Royina Garma, a retired police colonel and former Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) general manager, has been a close ally of former President Rodrigo Duterte. Her career trajectory, notably during Duterte’s tenure, positioned her as a key figure in his administration’s controversial policies. She gained notoriety for her alleged involvement in implementing Duterte’s war on drugs, which has been criticized for extrajudicial killings and systematic human rights abuses. Garma’s testimony before the House QuadComm revealed her direct participation in the execution of the “Davao model,” a reward-based system for killing drug suspects, further cementing her role in Duterte’s administration.

The War on Drugs: Garma’s Role

Garma’s alignment with Duterte’s policies was marked by her alleged role in operationalizing strategies targeting drug suspects. Her testimony before Congress disclosed that Duterte, shortly after his 2016 election victory, sought her assistance in identifying a police officer from the Iglesia Ni Cristo who could lead the nationwide implementation of the Davao model. This model, emblematic of Duterte’s campaign, has drawn widespread condemnation from international human rights groups for fostering a culture of impunity.

The QuadComm Committee: Garma’s Testimony and Its Significance

Garma’s testimony before the House QuadComm committee is pivotal. She directly implicated Duterte in the systematic orchestration of extrajudicial killings. While Duterte has categorically denied these allegations, Garma’s detailed account provides potential evidence linking him to policies that facilitated human rights violations. However, her involvement in these activities raises questions about her culpability and whether she could serve as a credible witness.

Garma: A Potential State Witness for the DOJ?

Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla has suggested the possibility of using Garma as a state witness. This strategy could provide crucial testimony against Duterte, but it also risks criticism. Garma’s deep involvement in the alleged crimes may undermine her credibility, and offering her immunity could be seen as enabling impunity. Nevertheless, her insider knowledge could strengthen the DOJ’s case, provided the evidence she offers is substantiated.

The Magnitsky Act: Legal Analysis of Potential Charges Against Garma

The Global Magnitsky Act targets individuals involved in significant corruption or human rights violations, imposing sanctions such as asset freezes, visa bans, and reputational harm. If applied to Garma, the implications include:

Asset Freezing and Financial Repercussions
Any US-held assets linked to Garma could be frozen, severely impacting her financial stability. Allegations of money laundering further amplify the scope of potential sanctions.
Travel Restrictions
Sanctions would likely result in Garma’s prohibition from entering the US, further isolating her internationally.
Catalyst for Criminal Prosecution
While the Magnitsky Act focuses on sanctions, it often prompts deeper criminal investigations. Garma could face criminal charges if evidence substantiates her role in human rights violations.

Garma’s Defense: Potential Legal Strategies

Garma’s legal team could argue:

Due Process Violations: Challenge the procedural basis of her detention and the evidence supporting Magnitsky Act sanctions.
Political Targeting: Frame the charges as politically motivated, emphasizing her role as a scapegoat to shield higher-ranking officials.
Absence of Direct Evidence: Contest the link between her actions and the alleged human rights violations or money laundering activities.

The MLAT: Exploring Its Legal Implications

The Philippine government’s reliance on the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) to repatriate Garma highlights diplomatic complexities. The MLAT facilitates legal cooperation, but challenges arise:

US Reluctance to Repatriate: Given the human rights concerns surrounding Duterte’s administration, US authorities may hesitate to repatriate Garma without guarantees of a fair trial.
Impact on Duterte’s Prosecution: Securing Garma’s cooperation could bolster cases against Duterte, but her return to the Philippines could also risk undermining investigations if due process is compromised.

Recommendations

For the US Government

Ensure that the application of the Magnitsky Act adheres to due process, preserving its credibility as a tool for addressing human rights abuses.
Collaborate with Philippine authorities cautiously, ensuring that Garma’s repatriation does not compromise ongoing investigations.

For the DOJ

Build a robust, evidence-based case against Duterte, prioritizing accountability while avoiding reliance on potentially compromised witnesses.
Leverage international legal mechanisms, including ICC proceedings, to reinforce domestic efforts.

For Garma

Cooperate with investigations to mitigate potential legal consequences while ensuring her rights are protected.
Strategically position herself as a whistleblower to secure a more favorable outcome.

For Filipinos

Demand transparency and accountability from all parties, ensuring that justice is pursued without political interference.
Advocate for systemic reforms to address the root causes of impunity and corruption.

The case of Royina Garma exemplifies the intricate intersection of domestic and international law, raising critical questions about justice, accountability, and governance. As the legal battles unfold, the stakes for the Philippines’ rule of law and its political legacy remain exceptionally high.