Andres Speaks Out: Holding Duterte and Dela Rosa Accountable for Their Words

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — November 26, 2024

IN A nation where politics often mimics theater, the latest act has left the audience stunned. Vice President Sara Duterte’s revelation of a murder threat against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has shattered the fragile facade of unity at the top, igniting debates that span law, ethics, and power. As Senator Bato Dela Rosa downplays her words, the Department of Justice, led by Undersecretary Jesse Andres, delivers its verdict with chilling clarity: a threat is a threat.

The Powder Keg: A Political Inferno Looms

The controversy stems from Duterte’s public threat against the President—a statement later characterized as conditional by Dela Rosa but deemed unequivocally criminal by DOJ Undersecretary Andres. The Vice President reportedly engaged an assassin, an act that transcends political posturing and delves into the realm of actionable crime. Adding fuel to the fire is Dela Rosa’s defense, which borders on legal absurdity, and Duterte’s own defiant justifications, which suggest a worrying disdain for the rule of law.

This political saga unfolds against a backdrop of a nation grappling with corruption, impunity, and the erosion of democratic institutions. It raises a troubling question: If the nation’s second-highest official feels emboldened to make such statements, what does this mean for the integrity of governance in the Philippines?

Jesse Andres: A Voice of Legal Clarity

Undersecretary Andres’s response is not just legally sound—it is a clarion call for accountability. Under Philippine law, specifically Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, a threat, whether conditional or not, is a punishable offense if it instills fear of harm in the person to whom it is directed. Duterte’s public statements, paired with her alleged actions of engaging an assassin, suggest not only intent but the initial steps of execution, which fall under the rubric of grave threats.

Moreover, her statements violate the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713), which mandates that public officials act with the utmost integrity and professionalism. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has repeatedly emphasized that public officials must exercise a higher standard of conduct, as seen in cases like Paredes v. Sandiganbayan, where accountability and trustworthiness were highlighted as essential to public service.

Sara Duterte: Recklessness and Misjudgment

Duterte’s justifications—that her statement was taken out of context—do not hold water. By her own admission, she intended the threat to be taken seriously. This rhetorical recklessness not only undermines the office she holds but also casts a shadow over the Marcos administration’s stability. A sitting Vice President, as DOJ Undersecretary Andres aptly pointed out, is the constitutional successor to the President, making such threats deeply suspect and politically volatile.

Her misdeeds reflect a troubling pattern of impunity—a mindset perhaps inherited from her father’s controversial tenure as president. Her statements betray a dangerous flirtation with authoritarianism, reminiscent of her father’s hardline rhetoric during his war on drugs.

Dela Rosa: A Legal and Ethical Misstep

As a former police general, Dela Rosa’s attempt to justify Duterte’s statements as conditional reflects a profound misunderstanding of the law. His argument contradicts both logic and legal precedents, reducing the serious nature of a threat to semantics. Worse, his defense of Duterte undermines his credibility as a legislator who is supposed to uphold the rule of law.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the dangers of reckless speech by public officials, as in David v. Arroyo, where the Court warned against state actors overstepping constitutional bounds. Dela Rosa’s defense, rooted in political loyalty rather than legal reasoning, only serves to deepen the public’s disillusionment with the Philippine political elite.

Strategies for Redemption and Recommendations

For Vice President Duterte, the path to redemption begins with accountability. She must publicly retract her statements, issue an unambiguous apology, and cooperate fully with any investigations. Transparency and humility, while difficult, are necessary steps to restore public trust.

Dela Rosa, for his part, must cease his partisan defenses and focus on legislative reforms to strengthen accountability among public officials. He should champion amendments to the Revised Penal Code that clearly address threats by public officials, ensuring that future misconduct is met with swift justice.

For DOJ Undersecretary Jesse Andres, his courageous stand should be bolstered by institutional reforms. He could advocate for a more robust system for investigating and prosecuting high-ranking officials, ensuring that no one is above the law.

Finally, the Filipino people must demand more from their leaders. Civic engagement, vigilance, and the exercise of democratic rights are the most potent tools against the erosion of governance.

A Final Thought

In this unfolding drama, the stakes transcend the personal rivalries of Duterte, Marcos, and Dela Rosa. At its core, this is a test of the Philippines’ democracy—whether it can hold its leaders accountable and reaffirm the rule of law. The world is watching, and history will judge not just the actions of a few but the collective will of a nation to demand justice and integrity.