“It allows the senator (Bam Aquino) to appear principled while committing to nothing concrete”
SENATOR Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino IV, the Liberal Party’s perennial optimist, remains the eternal boy scout of Philippine politics, clinging to “institutional faith” as though it were a lifeline amid a decade of bloodshed.
On Feb. 17, 2026, he declared that cases involving extrajudicial killings during the Duterte administration’s drug war “should ideally be tried here in the Philippines” because “this is where the victims are.”
The sentiment sounds compassionate on its face.
In truth, it is profoundly disconnected from the grim realities that have defined justice in this country for far too long.
The word “ideally” carries the full weight of evasion.
It allows the senator to appear principled while committing to nothing concrete.
He suggests local trials would be “more meaningful” for victims and their families.
Yet thousands of grieving mothers and widows have waited eight years or more for even a single credible prosecution.
They have watched police records vanish, witnesses disappear or die under suspicious circumstances, and judges receive quiet pressures that ensure cases never move forward.
Bam’s respect for the International Criminal Court process is noted, but respect without insistence on real accountability is hollow.
The strongest arguments for domestic jurisdiction are familiar and textbook.
The 1987 Constitution vests judicial power primarily in Philippine courts, while Article II, Section 2 incorporates generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.
The Rome Statute’s complementarity principle under Article 17 requires the ICC to defer when a state genuinely investigates and prosecutes.
Victim proximity—witnesses, evidence, and communities all here—promises culturally sensitive proceedings in familiar settings.
Reality dismantles these ideals. Philippine courts have proven unwilling and unable to deliver genuine accountability for systemic crimes.
Zero high-level convictions have emerged from the drug war’s estimated tens of thousands of deaths. Police routinely “cleansed” or lost records.
Witnesses faced intimidation, relocation failures, or outright elimination.
The Department of Justice spent years in endless “reviews” while the body count rose.
When alleged architects of the killings—Senators Bong Go and Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa—sit in the Senate, influencing budgets and judicial confirmations, impartiality becomes a cruel joke.
The legal framework offers no shelter for this illusion. Republic Act 9851 domesticates crimes against humanity, mirroring Rome Statute Article 7 on widespread or systematic murder.
It explicitly recognizes complementarity and permits surrender to international tribunals when domestic justice falters.
Supreme Court rulings, including Pangilinan v. Cayetano, affirm that withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019 does not erase jurisdiction over prior crimes.
The pattern of impunity stretches back through Marcos-era atrocities, the Davao Death Squad, and now the drug war—a machine built to protect power, not punish it.
Bam Aquino’s framing—“more meaningful” local trials—rings especially cruel against this backdrop. Which courtroom will safeguard witnesses when the accused wield presidential access and legislative immunity?
Which prosecutor will file charges when careers hinge on political alliances?
Which judge will convict when appointments trace back to the very figures under scrutiny?
“Ideally” is not a legal argument; it is a deferral tactic dressed in concern.
The motivations are transparent.
For Bam Aquino, it may blend reformist instinct with Senate survival—avoiding a full rupture with Duterte allies.
For Go and dela Rosa, it buys time, delays, and forum-shopping in a controllable system.
The Marcos administration balances its Duterte base against international pressure, content to let the Senate murmur while quietly navigating obligations.
The ICC Prosecutor seeks precedent and enforcement of complementarity.
Victims’ families seek only credible justice, many preferring The Hague because local promises have repeatedly failed.
As ICC confirmation hearings unfold this week, the path forward grows clearer.
Full ICC proceedings are likely, with possible trials in absentia amid strained diplomacy. Cosmetic domestic cases may emerge to trigger deferral, but the Court is not easily fooled.
A hybrid mechanism—special tribunals under RA 9851 with international oversight, akin to Cambodia’s Extraordinary Chambers—remains theoretically possible but demands genuine political will that has never materialized.
The consequences are stark.
Winners are those who orchestrated mass violence and retain influence. Losers are the victims, their families, the nation’s reputation, and the fragile notion that Philippine institutions can confront state-sponsored killing.
Enough with platitudes.
Demand prosecutions and convictions, not task forces.
Investigate destroyed records and witness killings publicly.
Amend RA 9851 for truly independent special courts.
Fully fund and depoliticize witness protection under RA 6981. Congress should legislate hybrid-capable tribunals with ICC technical aid. If deference is truly desired, initiate genuine cases tomorrow—the ICC is watching.
To Senator Aquino: abandon “ideally.”
Victims do not inhabit ideals. They inhabit grief, fear, and a country that killed their loved ones then offered to investigate itself.
The graves are full. It is time to stop digging.
