Donate

KWEBA ni BAROK

Enrile’s U-Turn on Duterte’s Drug War: A Legal and Political Earthquake

Published by

Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

on

Enrile’s U-Turn on Duterte’s Drug War: A Legal and Political Earthquake

By Louis ‘Barok’ C Biraogo — February 4, 2025

JUAN Ponce Enrile didn’t get to where he is today by mincing words—or sparing egos. So when the 99-year-old political titan publicly questioned the legality of Duterte’s war on drugs, people listened. After all, this is the same man who helped build martial law—and dismantle it. Now, his words signal a seismic shift: the foundation of Duterte’s brutal campaign, built on fear and lawlessness, may finally be cracking.

Enrile’s Critique: A Constitutional Case Against Duterte

Enrile, who has survived both the Marcos dictatorship and the shifting tides of Philippine politics, argues that Duterte’s war on drugs was never a legitimate law enforcement policy. His reasoning is grounded in constitutional law:

  1. The Bill of Rights (Article III, Section 1) guarantees that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Yet Duterte’s campaign operated on the premise that suspected drug offenders could be eliminated without trial.
  2. The Absence of Legislative Authorization – Enrile stresses that “no Congress under our constitutional law ever authorized summary killings.” The Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Republic Act No. 9165) does not sanction extrajudicial executions, meaning Duterte’s policies were implemented outside the law’s framework.
  3. The Death Penalty Debate – The Philippines has abolished the death penalty, yet Duterte’s police force carried out thousands of executions without due process. In a democracy, no executive order can override constitutional protections.

By raising these arguments, Enrile forces the country to confront an uncomfortable reality: the drug war was never lawful to begin with.

Duterte’s Own Admissions: A Gift to Prosecutors

Duterte has always been a master of bluster, using hyperbole to both incite and deflect. But when he admitted that he ordered policemen to “coax” drug suspects to fight back to create a justification for their killings, he made a crucial error—not just politically, but legally.

This admission shatters any remaining pretense that police were acting in self-defense. It suggests a premeditated strategy to fabricate resistance in order to kill with impunity. Under international law, this constitutes a pattern of extrajudicial killings, a key element in crimes against humanity.

Moreover, Enrile’s decision to cite Beyond Will & Power, which quotes Duterte openly discussing his plan to eliminate 5,000 drug lords, further undercuts any claims that the deaths were incidental or accidental. If Duterte’s statements were “just jokes,” as his allies often claim, then why did thousands of bodies pile up in the streets?

The ICC Investigation: Will Duterte Face Justice?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) continues its investigation into Duterte’s drug war, focusing on alleged crimes against humanity. Key elements of the case include:

  • The Systematic Nature of the Killings – Prosecutors argue that these were not isolated incidents but part of a state-sanctioned campaign. Duterte’s statements provide damning evidence of intent.
  • Obstruction of Justice – The lack of credible domestic investigations into the killings strengthens the ICC’s jurisdiction. Under the principle of complementarity, the ICC steps in when national governments fail to prosecute crimes themselves.
  • The Role of Police and Vigilantes – Testimonies from whistleblowers, including former police officers, suggest direct orders from Duterte to execute suspects.

Duterte’s refusal to cooperate with the ICC mirrors the tactics of leaders like Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, who evaded arrest for years. But history shows that impunity has limits.

Power Dynamics: Why is Enrile Speaking Out Now?

Enrile’s timing is no accident. At 100 years old, he has little to lose politically, but his words carry immense weight. By challenging Duterte, he aligns himself with the legal establishment and international human rights advocates rather than the strongman loyalists of the past.

Meanwhile, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. faces a delicate balancing act. His administration has distanced itself from Duterte’s drug war, yet it remains hesitant to allow full cooperation with the ICC. Could Enrile’s remarks signal a shift in the government’s stance?

Toward Justice: Recommendations for Healing and Accountability in the Philippines

  1. For the Philippine Government – Acknowledge the failures of the drug war and initiate credible domestic investigations. Without real accountability, the country risks international isolation and continued scrutiny.
  2. For the ICC – Proceed with the case against Duterte and his top officials. The evidence, including Duterte’s own statements, makes a compelling case for prosecution.
  3. For the Filipino People – Demand justice. The victims of the drug war were not just numbers; they were fathers, mothers, and children. Their deaths cannot be erased by political convenience.

Facing the Truth:  The Philippines Must Address the Legacy of the Drug War

Enrile’s words aren’t just an attack on Duterte—they’re a reckoning for every Filipino who stood by as fear turned neighbor against neighbor. History is watching. What story will the Philippines choose to tell about itself when future generations ask: Did you speak out, or did you stay silent?

Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

Leave a comment

Hello,

I’m Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

Let’s connect

Join the fun!

Stay updated with our latest tutorials and ideas by joining our newsletter.

Recent posts