“The chilling question now gripping the nation: was justice ever truly the goal?”
RODRIGO Duterte’s once-imposing legacy is now unraveling amid allegations his war on drugs—a campaign celebrated as a ruthless defense of law and order—may have been a cynical cover for corruption.
Rep. Romeo Acop, spearheading a House Quad-Committee investigation, has presented testimonies that challenge the very core of Duterte’s tough-on-crime persona. The chilling question now gripping the nation: was justice ever truly the goal?
The testimonies paint a harrowing picture of state-sponsored criminality.
Former police officer Col. Eduardo Acierto accuses Duterte of protecting Michael Yang, a former economic adviser, while implicating the president’s family in the drug trade.
Customs intelligence officer Jimmy Guban has testified about a 2018 shabu shipment allegedly tied to Duterte’s son Paolo, Vice President Sara Duterte’s husband Mans Carpio, and Yang.
These accounts are bolstered by statements from retired Col. Royina Garma, self-confessed hitman Arturo Lascañas, and police Col. Jovie Espenido.
Together, they suggest that Duterte’s war on drugs wasn’t about eradicating narcotics but rather eliminating competitors to consolidate control over the illicit trade.
At the heart of this narrative lies Acierto’s damning characterization of Duterte as the “lord of all drug lords.”
It is a claim that strikes directly at Duterte’s public image as a defender of the Filipino people.
Even more alarming is the alleged existence of a reward system incentivizing extrajudicial killings. Testimonies describe payouts of up to P100,000 per kill, creating a chilling economy of violence that devastated communities while enriching those at the top.
The legal implications of these revelations are staggering.
Duterte could face charges of crimes against humanity for the estimated 30,000 lives lost during his campaign, a potential violation of the Rome Statute and Republic Act 9851.
While the Philippines has withdrawn from the International Criminal Court, crimes committed while the country was a member remain under its jurisdiction.
Domestically, Duterte’s alleged role in ordering extrajudicial killings could render him criminally liable under the Philippine Constitution and Revised Penal Code.
Meanwhile, accusations tying his family and associates to the drug trade could constitute violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Code of Conduct for Public Officials.
Duterte’s defense rests on familiar strategies. Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, a former police chief and architect of the drug war, has dismissed the allegations as politically motivated.
Former presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo has labeled the testimonies as hearsay, framing the investigation as a ploy to derail Vice President Sara Duterte’s anticipated 2028 presidential bid.
Yet these counterarguments are faltering under the weight of corroborated testimonies and Duterte’s own admissions, such as his public acknowledgment of ordering the execution of 11 Chinese chemists in 2004.
The consistency of these revelations lends credibility to claims of a systemic operation rather than isolated incidents.
The stakes of this unfolding drama extend far beyond Duterte.
The investigation has exposed deep political fissures, particularly between President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte.
The findings could shift the balance of power ahead of the midterm elections and the 2028 presidential race, potentially reshaping the trajectory of Philippine democracy.
Public sentiment appears to be shifting.
Calls for accountability and justice for the victims of the drug war are growing louder, while international scrutiny mounts.
The ICC’s ongoing probe into the killings could gain traction if the House investigation’s findings are validated.
If that happens, Duterte may find himself not only fighting for his reputation but also facing justice on a global stage.
As the Quad-Committee continues its hearings into 2025, the road ahead is fraught with challenges. Rep. Acop must ensure the investigation is airtight, insulated from allegations of political bias, and grounded in incontrovertible evidence.
Anything less risks undermining the quest for justice.
Duterte and his allies, on the other hand, face a stark choice: cooperate and present credible counter-evidence or risk further alienating an increasingly skeptical public.
The coming months will test the resilience of the Philippines’ democratic institutions.
Can a country built on promises of order and justice confront the darkest truths about its leaders?
The answer to that question will shape not only Duterte’s legacy but also the soul of a nation grappling with the consequences of its pursuit of security at any cost.
