The issue of extrajudicial killings (EJKs) during the Duterte administration remains a significant topic of concern, both within the Philippines and internationally.

These killings, allegedly linked to the government’s war on drugs, have raised serious questions about human rights abuses, accountability and the rule of law.

Amid these controversies, the Philippine Senate has an opportunity — and arguably an obligation — to launch its own investigation into these allegations. Convening a Senate committee of the whole to address EJKs would be a necessary step towards ensuring transparency, justice, and institutional checks on executive power.

The Senate plays a vital role in ensuring government accountability and maintaining checks and balances, particularly in situations where the executive branch might be perceived as overstepping its bounds.

Under the Constitution, the Senate has the power to investigate issues of national importance and offer legislative solutions based on the findings of its inquiries.

Given the gravity of the allegations surrounding the extrajudicial killings, an investigation by the Senate would underscore its commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights.

The Duterte administration’s war on drugs, which officially began in 2016, has been marred by accusations of widespread human rights abuses. Reports from international human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as local watchdogs, estimate that thousands of individuals — many of whom were poor and marginalized — died in drug-related police operations.

The government often described these deaths as results of legitimate encounters with drug suspects who resisted arrest, but multiple reports suggest that a significant number of these killings were carried out with impunity. Investigating these claims is not only a matter of justice but also a means of restoring public trust in the rule of law.

A Senate inquiry into the extrajudicial killings would provide an open and transparent platform for witnesses, victims’ families and law enforcement officers to testify under oath. This process can uncover previously unknown information, clarify existing narratives, and put on record the nature and extent of the violence.

Moreover, it would show the public that the government takes the issue seriously and is committed to addressing it, which could restore trust in institutions that may have been damaged during the war on drugs.

One of the key merits of convening a Senate committee of the whole is that it has the potential to be perceived as a more impartial body than a specific Senate committee, such as the Justice or Human Rights Committee.

A committee of the whole, which includes all sitting senators, represents the full diversity of political opinions in the Senate. This means that any findings or recommendations it produces would likely carry more weight and be viewed as credible by the public and international observers.

It would also reduce the perception of partisanship, given that some committees might be seen as aligned with either the administration or the opposition.

Beyond investigating the facts, a Senate inquiry can lead to meaningful legislative reforms.

If the investigation confirms widespread abuses, the Senate could propose new laws or amendments to existing legislation to address gaps in the legal system that allowed such abuses to occur.

The Philippines’ standing in the international community has been affected by the war on drugs and the alleged EJKs. Several foreign governments, the United Nations, and international human rights bodies have expressed concern over the killings.

By initiating an impartial, credible investigation, the Senate could demonstrate to the world that the country is committed to upholding international human rights standards and that it is willing to hold accountable those responsible for abuses.

This would improve the Philippines’ international reputation and potentially ease tensions with global institutions like the International Criminal Court, which has also been investigating the Duterte administration.

Critics may argue that such an investigation could be seen as politically motivated, especially given the proximity of the 2025 midterm elections. There is also the risk that the investigation could be derailed by partisan interests or be seen as a mere exercise in political posturing.

However, these challenges can be mitigated by ensuring that the inquiry is conducted in a non-partisan, transparent, and accountable manner. The Senate can emphasize that the investigation is about ensuring justice and upholding the rule of law, rather than settling political scores.