Human rights violations alleged against former President Rodrigo Duterte, similar to those leveled against him during the recent Senate Blue Ribbon Subcommittee probe on the war on drugs, are mostly either inflated or bogus, as reflected in a recent Supreme Court (SC) decision.

The High Tribunal issued a final dismissal of petitions for protective writs filed by several human rights groups, which had impleaded former President Rodrigo Duterte for alleged threats made to members of left-wing groups.

Accused along with Duterte as the source of threats were several former officials of the Department of National Defense, the National Security Council, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and the Philippine National Police.

The complaints were then repackaged to serve as the basis for allegations of persecution of human rights defenders, with the New York-based Human Rights Watch leading the charge.

Immediately after, through the global liberal movement’s network, United States and European legislators joined the bandwagon against Duterte.

The rights group Karapatan, in its petition, sought court protection for rights advocates. The petitioner then blamed the deaths of three of the group’s members as the hearings proceeded regarding security forces.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on 28 June 2018. A petition for review on certiorari was filed exactly a year later with the Supreme Court.

This was followed by two more petitions filed by the militant group, claiming that its slain members were supposed to testify at the hearings.

In an entry of judgment dated 21 August 2024, the SC stated that the petition failed “to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in the challenged decision as to warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction.”

The left-wing organization hinted that it may use the ruling to seek redress elsewhere.

“This decision further exposes the failure of domestic redress mechanisms, including the judiciary, to protect the rights of human rights defenders. It also shows the hypocrisy of those in the previous and current regimes in claiming that a robust justice system exists in the Philippines,” it said.

Critics of the government are urging the International Criminal Court (ICC) to interfere in the functions of the local judiciary by ordering the arrest of Duterte and his officials for alleged crimes against humanity in the conduct of the war on drugs.

Claiming that local courts were paralyzed when it came to cases against Duterte supports the ICC’s excuse to meddle in domestic affairs.

The ruling was a vindication for the government, which is often the target of smear campaigns such as the loose charge of red-tagging of personalities who have been blatantly calling for the downfall of regimes for half a century.

“The decision serves as a vindication for the Philippine government and its law enforcers, who have faced baseless allegations of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances,” National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) executive director Undersecretary Ernesto Torres said.

The SC’s absolute ruling highlighted the mostly fictitious nature of unlawful acts or omissions by the government regarding rights violations, which are spun and inflated to suit partisan interests.

With the ruling, the SC affirmed that issuing writs of amparo and habeas data requires concrete grounds while clarifying the President’s immunity from suit.

Consider the demeanor of the leftist fronts, which are now claiming that the local courts are impotent because the SC decision did not favor them.

These rebellious characters should learn to abide by the legal procedures in the country and not call for interference from meddlesome groups when the situation does not go their way.