Baste Duterte’s Courtroom Circus: Smearing Boying Remulla to Save the Dynasty

A 160-Page Legal Stunt Targets the Ombudsman Prize in the Marcos-Duterte Power Clash

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — September 16, 2025

Act One: Political Hit or Legal Heroics?

Welcome, dear readers, to the latest blockbuster in the Philippine political circus, where the plot is as convoluted as a teleserye finale and the stakes are higher than a Davao durian in a Manila market. Acting Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte’s 160-page criminal complaint is less a legal filing and more a theatrical manifesto, dripping with vengeance and wrapped in the thinnest veneer of justice. This isn’t about righting wrongs—it’s a high-stakes gambit in the Marcos-Duterte feud, staged for maximum chaos.

The Cast of this Farce:

The Plaintiff Protagonist: Baste Duterte, scion of the Davao dynasty, once synonymous with the alleged “Davao Death Squad” of extrajudicial fame. Now, in a plot twist worthy of a pulp novel, he’s donned the cape of a civil liberties crusader, decrying “state overreach” with the fervor of a born-again reformist. The irony? It’s so thick, you could hack it with a bolo knife and still choke on the fumes.
The Villainous Ensemble: Leading the pack are the Remulla brothers—Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla and Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Jonvic Remulla—cast as power-mad overlords who’d allegedly hijack judicial powers before their morning kapeng barako. Their co-stars? Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro, National Security Adviser Eduardo Año, former Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Gen. Rommel Marbil, ex-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) Director Maj. Gen. Nicolas Torre III, and bit players like Undersecretary Nicholas Felix Ty and Special Envoy Markus Lacanilao. These are the supposed masterminds behind a March 11, 2025, midnight snatch at Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Terminal 3, allegedly detaining eight souls at Villamor Airbase before whisking them to The Hague on a chartered jet—sans court order or basic decency.
The Damsels in Distress: The “eight individuals,” a thinly veiled reference to former President Rodrigo Duterte and his loyal posse, nabbed on an International Criminal Court (ICC) Interpol diffusion notice for drug war atrocities. They’re painted as hapless victims, stripped of counsel, medical care, and family visits, with Vice President Sara Duterte left in the dark.
The Stage: The Philippine justice system, a creaky arena where blind justice wears a blindfold dyed in political colors. Here, prosecutors swap roles with defendants, and the script is scrawled in press releases, not law books. The Office of the Ombudsman in Mindanao, already juggling Senator Imee Marcos’s parallel gripes, is the latest battleground. Will it deliver justice, or just another act in this tragicomedy?

Act Two: Shredding the Charges—Legal Bloodbath or Paper Tiger?

Baste’s complaint is a legal piñata, stuffed with charges from the Revised Penal Code (RPC) to special laws, swinging wildly in hopes of spilling convictions. Let’s crack it open, charge by charge, exposing the flimsy threads holding it together. We’ll dissect the elements, predict the defense’s smirking counters, and wield Supreme Court precedents like a katana to slice through the nonsense. Oh, and those pesky questions Baste’s team dodged? We’re asking them, loud and proud.

Eight Counts of Kidnapping (Art. 267, RPC)

Requires proving deprivation of liberty without legal cause, with intent for ransom or unlawful purpose. Defense: “We followed an Interpol diffusion notice—a lawful arrest, not kidnapping.” The Supreme Court in People v. Ustadz Ibrahim Ali, et al. (G.R. No. 222965, December 6, 2017) holds that detentions under color of law aren’t kidnapping if backed by probable cause, even with procedural hiccups. Baste’s affidavit screams “no warrant,” but Philippine-Interpol protocols allow provisional arrests on diffusion notices.

Unasked question:

If this was kidnapping, why did the Supreme Court deny Baste’s habeas corpus and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) petitions in March?

This charge leaks worse than a jeepney in a storm.

Eight Counts of Arbitrary Detention (Art. 124, RPC)

Public officers detaining without legal grounds, punishable if detention exceeds 3-18 hours. Defense: “National security exigency; detention was brief.” People v. Mahinay (G.R. No. 122485 February 1, 1999) demands strict custodial rights but permits delays for security ops with probable cause. Baste claims denial of counsel and meds at Villamor, but where’s the timeline? No proof of excessive hours, just a vague “chartered jet” tale.

Question ignored:

If arbitrary, why did the Ombudsman dismiss Imee Marcos’s similar charges on September 12? Dead on arrival.

Violation of Section 4, Republic Act (R.A.) 9745 (Anti-Torture Act)

Criminalizes torture by state agents, with command responsibility under Section 12. Elements: Intentional severe pain or suffering. Defense: “No proof of harm—just procedural whines.” David v. Macapagal-Arroyo (G.R. No. 171396, 2006) affirms judicial review of rights violations, but Baste’s claim—denied meds, no visits—lacks medical reports or victim affidavits.

Unasked:

If torture was so blatant, why no UN Special Rapporteur complaints or ICC addenda? Strong in theory, flimsy in fact.

Eight Counts of Qualified Direct Assault (Art. 148, RPC)

Assault on persons in authority during official duties. Baste claims force was used against the “eight” exercising rights. Defense: “They were suspects, not officials.” People v. Magat (G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000) requires victims to be public officers performing duties.

Un-asked-for-snafu:

Rodrigo as a “person in authority”? A stretch longer than EDSA traffic. Why include this? To puff up the charge sheet for headlines?

Expulsion (Art. 127, RPC)

Forcibly ousting someone from their residence. Baste calls the NAIA grab “expulsion.” Defense: “International handover, not domestic ouster.” People v. Alagao (G.R. No. L-2655, 1950) limits this to home evictions. No residence here—just a tarmac.

Blunder-dict:

This charge is a legal nonstarter.

Two Counts of Violation of R.A. 7438, Section 4

Rights to counsel, silence, and visitation for detainees. This has teeth; Mahinay slams procedural lapses. Defense: “Emergency protocols.” If Sara was blocked, as alleged, it’s a hit—yet the Ombudsman’s dismissal of Imee’s case suggests evidence issues.

Blurdict

Strong, but needs proof.

Usurpation of Judicial Functions (Art. 241, RPC)

Executives assuming judicial powers. Baste points to no court order. Defense: “Interpol compliance.” Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 213847, 2015) balances security and liberty but requires clear overreach. SC’s habeas denial undercuts this.

Petitionless:

Why no contempt filings if usurpation was real?

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019, Secs. 3(a) and 3(e))

Inducing violations (3[a]) or causing undue injury via bad faith (3[e]). Sison v. People (G.R. No. 170339, 170398-403, 2010) demands proof of benefit or injury. Defense: “No graft, just duty.” No financial trails, just political noise. This is the complaint’s weakest link.

Verdict:

RA 7438 and Anti-Torture have potential if evidence emerges; the rest are legal confetti—FLASHY BUT INSUBSTANTIAL.

Act Three: The Remulla Takedown—Sabotaging the Ombudsman Prize

Now, the real plot: Why now? This isn’t about saving Rodrigo—it’s about torching Jesus Crispin Remulla’s shot at the Ombudsman’s chair, a seven-year gig that could reshape the 2025-2028 political battlefield. With Samuel Martires’s term having m ended last July 27, 2025, and 17 hopefuls vying via the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), Remulla’s buzz as frontrunner made him target number one. Baste’s complaint? A precision-guided missile to blow up that ambition.

The Ombudsman is the holy grail of institutional capture. It investigates graft, sends cases to the Sandiganbayan (the anti-graft court), and disciplines officials—powers that linger past elections. A Remulla Ombudsman could unleash hell on Duterte allies, reviving drug war probes or targeting Sara’s VP funds, while potentially treating Marcos and Duterte allies with equal scrutiny. A neutral Ombudsman could offer the Dutertes leverage; a Marcos-aligned figure like Remulla might tilt the balance. Baste’s play—filed with the Ombudsman in Mindanao to dodge Remulla’s DOJ—is a masterstroke. JBC rules (JBC-01, 2025) flag pending cases as integrity red flags. With interviews looming and the October 25 deadline ticking, this filing ensures Remulla’s nomination drowns in headlines and delays.

The 2025-2028 stakes? Control the Ombudsman, control the legal noose. Graft cases can freeze assets, derail campaigns, and force concessions through 2028 midterms and beyond. A neutral pick buys the Dutertes breathing room; a Marcos loyalist like Remulla? Checkmate. This is elite warfare, where complaints are chess moves to secure immunity or unleash vengeance.

Act Four: Strengths and Weaknesses—The Brutal Scorecard

Strengths

Baste’s team isn’t entirely clueless. Tapping RA 7438 and RA 9745 is clever—rights-based laws play well in the court of public opinion, casting the Dutertes as victims of Marcos tyranny. Naming heavyweights like the Remullas and Teodoro? A media magnet, forcing defensive scrambles and public explanations. Multiple charges create a safety net—one might stick. Filing in Mindanao sidesteps DOJ bias, leveraging Ombudsman independence.

Weaknesses

This is a legal house of cards in a typhoon. No victim affidavits, medical reports, or forensic evidence—just 160 pages of hot air. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court demands prima facie proof for probable cause; Baste’s got vibes, not facts. Filing with DOJ (run by respondent Remulla)? A conflict so blatant it’s comedic—expect inhibition or dismissal. The “kitchen-sink” approach—piling on shaky charges like expulsion—screams desperation, risking frivolous suit backlash under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), 2023. Ombudsman’s September 12 dismissal of Imee’s case signals a rough road. This is a PR stunt, not a prosecution.

Act Five: Justice or Just a Show?—The Final Curtain

Is there a case here, or just political pyrotechnics? Spoiler: It’s a circus, with a few legit threads drowned in a sea of spectacle. RA 7438 violations could bite if Sara’s exclusion holds up, but the evidentiary void and overblown charges scream “weapon.” This is about derailing Remulla, not saving Rodrigo. The endgame? A quiet Ombudsman dismissal post-JBC chaos, maybe a plea deal if one count limps forward, or countersuits for malicious prosecution. By 2028, this’ll be a footnote in the Marcos-Duterte saga, its purpose served: smear rivals, stall nominations, and keep the Dutertes in the game.

Final mic-drop: If this is Baste’s idea of “defending liberty,” then the Philippines is just one affidavit away from turning justice into a reality TV rerun—starring the same old elites, laughing all the way to their dynastic thrones.