Rodrigo Duterte’s reckless public pronouncements when he was president may hurt him. While they do not necessarily amount to state policies, which require certain formalities like proclamations and executive orders, they nonetheless carry weight on account of his being the chief executive. In fact, it may be argued that they could be mistaken for official instructions.

This is why I would not be surprised if the ICC judges view them as admissions of guilt. They are not from here and are not expected to understand the dynamics of Duterte’s relationship with his supporters or how the public, in general, views his war on drugs campaign.

To be honest, the snippets presented by the prosecution are incomplete and may be taken out of context. That they are not direct orders or official policies is borne by the fact that no one would simply incriminate himself. Unless he is stupid (which his detractors might say he is just to drive home a point), he would not admit to anything that would implicate him one way or another. That is just outside human experience.

In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court usually considers a shared understanding of how a person in a given situation would typically act in making its own assessment of factual issues. So there is more to his pronouncements than meets the proverbial eye. The fact that the videos presented are “cherry-picked” and incomplete further buttresses this.

Duterte is a populist leader. In fact, it is his fiery populism that catapulted him to public office. He resorts to rhetoric, even transgressive language, to build a personal bond with followers. It may not make sense to most of us, the supposedly educated ones, because we are not his target audience. He is pretty much like political bloggers such as Falcis or Guanzon. They say outrageous things in the name of engagement or in the pursuit of their political agenda. It is their way of pandering to their crowd.

The seemingly intellectual elite easily dismisses his supporters as dumb and stupid. What they fail to understand is that Duterte, rightly or wrongly, relatably addressed their societal grievances, which they felt, also rightly or wrongly, had been ignored. To say that he just transformed his peace-loving supporters into clones of their “idol” is just plain snobbery, if you ask me.

Anyway, I have always been against his war on drugs. My previous comments, both on social media and traditional media, would attest to this. But I do understand why some people are sold on the idea.

Unfortunately for Duterte, history is against him. The ICC in the past has not granted withdrawal of charges and has always elected to proceed to trial. If that happens, he may die even before it is done.