From Power to Prosecution: Quad Committee Calls for Charges Against Duterte and Allies

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo – December 21, 2024

IN THE Philippines, where justice often feels elusive, the House of Representatives’ quad committee has made a daring recommendation: prosecute former President Rodrigo Duterte for crimes against humanity. Citing Republic Act No. 9851, the committee lays bare the alleged atrocities of Duterte’s “war on drugs,” a campaign marked by thousands of deaths and accusations of state-sanctioned violence. This turning point in Philippine governance demands closer examination—of the law, the challenges ahead, and the message it sends to future leaders.

The Legal Basis for the Charges: Crimes Against Humanity and RA 9851

The charges against Duterte and his associates stem from violations of RA 9851, which criminalizes acts such as murder and extermination when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians. The quad committee’s report draws heavily on evidence of:

Systematic Patterns of Extrajudicial Killings (EJKs): Police incentivization schemes, such as cash rewards for killing alleged drug offenders, fit the definition of “widespread or systematic attacks.”
Admissions by Duterte and Allies: Duterte’s public acknowledgment of compensating police officers for drug-related killings and the “Davao Model” approach to crime control provide damning evidence of state involvement.
Testimonies Linking Key Individuals: Witnesses, including former insiders, implicate Duterte’s closest allies in the operational chain of the alleged atrocities.

Additionally, the Philippines is a former signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which further contextualizes crimes against humanity under international law. While the Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2019, the court retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was a member.

Weighing the Arguments: For and Against Prosecution

For the Recommendation:

Upholding Accountability and the Rule of Law: The charges signal that no individual, even a former president, is above the law. This is crucial for reinforcing public trust in the justice system.
Deterrence: Holding high-ranking officials accountable may deter future leaders from abusing power or circumventing legal norms.
Adherence to International Norms: Pursuing these charges aligns the Philippines with global standards on human rights and accountability, countering the perception of impunity.

Against the Recommendation:

Separation of Powers Concerns: Critics argue that Congress oversteps its bounds by directly influencing the filing of criminal cases, potentially undermining judicial independence.
Political Weaponization: Skeptics may see the charges as politically motivated, exacerbating divisions and eroding trust in the impartiality of legal institutions.
Practical Challenges: Given Duterte’s significant influence and his allies’ prominence, ensuring a fair trial and securing convictions may prove difficult in a politically charged environment.

The Legal System in Transition: Practical Implications of the Decision

Impact on Future Leadership Behavior

If successfully prosecuted, the precedent set could redefine executive accountability, compelling future leaders to adhere more strictly to constitutional and human rights obligations.

Judicial Independence and Public Perception

This case places the judiciary under intense scrutiny. A transparent and fair trial process could bolster public confidence, while perceived bias or inefficiency could further erode trust in legal institutions.

Legislative Reforms

The committee’s call for amendments to RA 9851 to strengthen accountability mechanisms highlights the need for broader legal reform. For instance, bolstering the independence of investigative bodies and clarifying jurisdiction over international law violations are critical next steps.

The Future of Justice: Broader Societal and International Impact

Public Trust in Accountability

The case represents an opportunity to combat the culture of impunity. A successful prosecution would resonate beyond the Duterte administration, reaffirming that human rights violations will not go unpunished.

International Relations and the ICC

The ICC has already begun preliminary examinations into Duterte’s drug war. The Philippines’ domestic handling of these cases could influence its international standing, potentially mitigating or intensifying global scrutiny.

Challenges to Sovereignty vs. Universal Justice

Duterte’s administration often framed criticism of the drug war as an attack on Philippine sovereignty. However, prosecuting crimes against humanity demonstrates a nation’s commitment to universal human rights principles, challenging the rhetoric of sovereignty as a shield for impunity.

Recommendations

Ensure Judicial Independence: The courts must act independently, free from political influence, to foster confidence in the legal system.
Strengthen Investigative Mechanisms: A special tribunal or independent prosecutor’s office could ensure impartiality and efficiency in handling sensitive cases of this nature.
Promote Public Awareness: Informing citizens about the legal basis and necessity of the proceedings could counteract misinformation and foster public support.
Engage with International Bodies: Collaborating with the ICC and other international organizations could bolster the credibility and rigor of domestic proceedings.

Conclusion

The quest for accountability is never easy, but it is the cornerstone of a just society. In recommending charges against former President Rodrigo Duterte, the quad committee has lit a flame that could illuminate the path toward justice—or cast long shadows of doubt if mishandled. The Philippines now stands at a crossroads, where its actions will either affirm the rule of law or erode it further. The choice is clear: let justice guide the way.