The Quad Committee hearing with former President Rodrigo Duterte last Wednesday was both an intense and entertaining showcase of political maneuvering, as committee members attempted to scrutinize Duterte’s war on drugs.

The former president’s appearance, a much-anticipated event, was supposed to shed light on the controversial anti-narcotics campaign that defined his presidency. However, for all intents and purposes, Duterte managed to evade potential pitfalls through a mix of wit, humor, and charisma, leaving some committee members fumbling in their attempts to corner him.

As Duterte took his seat, the hearing’s tone was quickly set. Some congressmen seemed prepared for a showdown, anticipating tough exchanges that might expose cracks in Duterte’s iron-fisted approach.

Instead, Duterte used his hallmark humor and bluntness to deflect and downplay contentious topics, artfully redirecting the discussion whenever questions verged on areas where he could potentially incriminate himself. This approach led to several tense moments, especially for committee members who appeared unprepared for his fast-paced responses and often sarcastic retorts.

At the core of the hearing were questions around the legality and ethical basis for Duterte’s war on drugs, particularly the extrajudicial killings that critics allege were rampant. Some lawmakers pressed him on the thousands of deaths tied to his anti-drug policies, questioning whether he knowingly circumvented due process to achieve his aims.

Yet, Duterte, seasoned in navigating these criticisms, managed to frame the issue in broader terms, emphasizing that his intention had always been to secure peace and order for the nation.

He dismissed accusations of ordering extrajudicial killings, stating that his directive had always been to arrest criminals within the bounds of the law, though he acknowledged that situations could sometimes get out of hand in field operations.

Interestingly, the former president’s responses often turned into veiled criticisms of the committee members themselves, especially those he perceived as politically motivated or lacking a thorough understanding of law enforcement. In one exchange, a young solon questioned Duterte on specific operational directives, implying these led to abuses by the police.

Duterte fired back, accusing the senator of lacking in practical knowledge about police operations, which he asserted were often far more dangerous and complex than they appeared to be from the safety of a legislative office. By ridiculing the question’s premise, Duterte deftly shifted focus from himself to the lawmaker’s apparent inexperience, subtly undermining the question’s legitimacy in the process.

Another notable moment occurred when a congressman attempted to corner Duterte on his past rhetoric, where he had openly taunted criminals and promised to “kill” drug dealers. The line of questioning was aimed at framing Duterte’s statements as incitements to violence.

However, Duterte turned this into an opportunity to inject humor, dryly remarking that his statements were more of a deterrent than a direct order. “People were scared — that’s the point,” he said, drawing laughter from some members of the audience while leaving the lawmaker visibly frustrated.

These exchanges highlighted Duterte’s media savvy and his ability to turn even potentially damaging questions into moments of levity. His responses seemed to resonate with a segment of the public who had tuned in, largely due to his unapologetic style and the perceived authenticity of his unfiltered persona.

For Duterte, whose approach to public speaking often revolves around blunt honesty mixed with humor, the hearing became more of a platform to showcase his resilience and defiance than a true examination of his administration’s policies.

By the end of the hearing, it was apparent that the committee members had made little progress in pinning Duterte down or extracting any explicit admission of wrongdoing. Instead, the hearing concluded on a note that underscored the enduring divide in Philippine politics: the former president’s supporters lauded his performance as a defiance of baseless criticism, while his detractors viewed his evasive tactics as yet another demonstration of accountability sidestepped.

Ultimately, the Quadcomm hearing served as a reminder of Duterte’s unique ability to manipulate the narrative, making him a formidable figure to question. His performance reinforced both his supporters’ loyalty and his critics’ frustration, ensuring that the debates surrounding his legacy and his war on drugs will continue to dominate the political landscape of the Philippines.