Landmark face-off

The recent Senate hearing on former President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on illegal drugs was nothing short of a landmark event in Philippine politics. Bringing former Senator Leila de Lima into the fray underscored the irony of a face-off between two pivotal, albeit adversarial, figures in modern Philippine governance.

As both a vocal critic and direct target of Duterte’s drug war, De Lima’s presence added a charged atmosphere to an already contentious issue. While many applauded the event as a necessary check on Duterte’s actions, it also rekindled questions about De Lima’s own decisions while in office, particularly why she did not aggressively pursue allegations of a Davao Death Squad (DDS) during Duterte’s tenure as mayor of Davao City.

Under the Duterte administration, the war on drugs was characterized by an unprecedented level of extrajudicial killings, sparking outcry both domestically and internationally. Accusations of human rights abuses surged as thousands of individuals, often poor and marginalized, were killed in the name of eradicating illegal drugs.

These events drew widespread criticism and led to accusations of a state-sanctioned “license to kill” that ignored due process and fostered an environment of impunity. De Lima, then a sitting senator, emerged as one of Duterte’s most vocal opponents, calling out the brutality of the campaign and pushing for an investigation into the drug war.

However, her stance led to a rapid backlash: Duterte accused her of involvement in the illegal drug trade herself, an accusation she vehemently denied, maintaining that she was framed for challenging the administration.

De Lima’s critics, however, raise an interesting point: why did she not pursue legal action against the alleged DDS when she was Secretary of Justice under President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III?

If the DDS existed and was as brutal as alleged, surely there was an urgent need for accountability. De Lima, at the time, would have had the authority and access to launch a thorough investigation into the killings, which allegedly targeted both criminals and Duterte’s political enemies in Davao.

Some point out that had she taken concrete steps against Duterte’s operations in Davao, it might have prevented the same tactics from scaling up to the national level.

The answer to this question is likely complex, with factors beyond a simple “failure” on De Lima’s part.

The DDS was shrouded in rumors, with anecdotal evidence and testimonies lacking hard, actionable proof that could withstand a legal investigation.

Moreover, local politics is notoriously protective of its own; any attempt to investigate Duterte could have been thwarted or even silenced by local officials and Duterte’s political allies. De Lima would have needed overwhelming evidence and powerful allies to make her case plausible, not only in court but before the bar of public opinion.

It’s also worth noting that the landscape of Philippine justice is deeply intertwined with political alliances and rivalries. A case against Duterte would have exposed De Lima to political risk, which was something even Aquino’s administration may have been reluctant to face.

There’s clear indication that De Lima’s effort to investigate the DDS would have backfired without sufficient support, diminishing her political capital or even cutting her career short. In the end, she may have chosen to prioritize other reforms within her purview as Secretary of Justice rather than taking on such a formidable task.

But was this caution justified? Many argue in hindsight that it would have been worth pursuing the DDS case, no matter the personal or political risk, as a stand for justice.

After all, standing up to abuse of power, particularly in the form of extrajudicial killings, is one of the highest responsibilities of public officials. Critics feel that De Lima’s decision not to tackle the DDS head-on left a critical accountability gap, which Duterte’s later war on drugs filled with tragic consequences.

Both Duterte and De Lima’s legacies will be defined by their responses to the same issue, but they highlight a sobering reality: justice is often delayed or compromised in the very institutions meant to uphold it.

This Senate hearing can either spark real change or remain another episode in the country’s long struggle with political impunity and selective justice.