Philippine House Committee Recommends Charges Against Duterte Over Drug War Atrocities

In a significant escalation of scrutiny over the Philippines’ controversial war on drugs, a joint committee of the House of Representatives has recommended that former President Rodrigo Duterte and his allies face charges for crimes against humanity. This development marks a pivotal moment in the nation’s ongoing reckoning with extrajudicial killings that have claimed thousands of lives, potentially reshaping political accountability and human rights discourse in the region.

The recommendation, adopted in a late-year plenary session, accuses Duterte, along with Senators Christopher “Bong” Go and Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, of orchestrating a systematic campaign of violence under Republic Act No. 9851. This law defines crimes against humanity as widespread or systematic attacks on civilians, a threshold that human rights advocates argue has been met through documented abuses. While the report stops short of confirming convictions, it highlights the need for further investigation, underscoring the high stakes for victims’ families and the broader implications for Philippine democracy.

Background to the Drug War

Duterte’s anti-drug initiative, launched during his presidency from 2016 to 2022, initially garnered widespread support in Congress, where his allies formed a “supermajority” that tacitly or explicitly endorsed the campaign. The policy involved aggressive police operations targeting suspected drug users and dealers, resulting in estimates of over 6,000 deaths officially attributed to these efforts, though human rights groups suggest the toll could be much higher. Critics have long contended that these operations fostered a culture of impunity, with reports of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, and coerced confessions.

The joint committee’s marathon hearings, spanning four months and culminating in a 51-page report, delved into the interconnections between the drug war, illegal offshore gaming, and broader criminal networks. Chaired by Surigao del Norte Representative Robert Ace Barbers, the inquiry painted a damning picture of state-sponsored violence. It alleged that Duterte “incited and facilitated” killings by encouraging police and unofficial death squads, creating an environment where abuses flourished with executive backing.

This is not the first time government officials have acknowledged flaws in the campaign. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has previously admitted to “abuses” in anti-drug efforts, but the committee’s report is groundbreaking for formally labelling the violations as “systematic.” Human rights lawyer Kristina Conti, representing victims, noted that this characterisation exposes deeper societal issues, including political dynasties and dehumanising cultural attitudes that perpetuate violence.

Recent Developments and Committee Findings

The hearings, held at the House of Representatives in Quezon City, featured testimonies from victims, former officials, and experts. Notably, Duterte himself attended one session, alongside former Senator Leila De Lima, a long-time critic who was imprisoned for years on charges widely seen as politically motivated. The report’s most scathing sections focus on the drug war’s human cost, arguing that the killings constituted a “profound and systematic violation of the right to life and dignity.”

Carlos Conde, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, described the inquiry as a strategic move by the House to build a case for accountability. “This lays the predicate for potential prosecutions,” he said, while cautioning that the process is inherently political rather than judicial. Speaker Martin Romualdez has positioned the committee as a “truth commission,” yet critics like Conti point out limitations: victims were allotted less than 30 minutes to testify across the hearings, raising questions about the adequacy of “the right to truth” and reconciliation.

If the recommendations lead to formal charges, it would mark the first serious application of RA 9851 against state officials. The law, enacted in 2009, has only seen one prior conviction—in 2019, against Junaid Awal, a member of the Islamic State-linked Maute Group. Legal experts, such as retired Judge Soliman Santos Jr., suggest that this could prompt collaboration between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is already investigating the Philippines for similar crimes.

Human rights advocates argue that the drug war’s excesses were not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern. Conti explained: “These were not rogue acts; they stemmed from executive directives, reward systems, and a police culture that normalised killings.” The report emphasises that charges under Article 7 of the Rome Statute or Section 6 of RA 9851 require evidence of a widespread attack, a criterion that, if confirmed, could elevate the case to international scrutiny.

Political and Legal Implications

The committee’s actions reflect a shifting political landscape in the Philippines, where Duterte’s once-unassailable popularity has waned amid growing calls for justice. His allies, including Go and Dela Rosa, have defended the drug war as a necessary measure against narcotics, but the report challenges this narrative by linking it to systemic abuses. If prosecutions proceed, they could test the resilience of Philippine institutions, particularly in a country where political loyalties often transcend legal accountability.

Analysts suggest that this development may influence the Marcos administration’s approach to human rights. While President Marcos has distanced himself from Duterte’s tactics, his reluctance to fully disavow the former president—due to familial and political ties—complicates the path forward. Neri Colmenares, a human rights lawyer and former lawmaker, advocates for parallel processes: “Domestic investigations should complement, not replace, the ICC’s work to ensure comprehensive justice.”

Speculatively, if the DOJ builds a strong case, it could lead to trials that deter future abuses, though no evidence currently confirms such outcomes. As Conde noted, “This is a political move, and its success may depend on the administration’s willingness to pursue it.” Such conditional analysis highlights the uncertainties, with disclaimers that estimates of impact remain unverified and subject to ongoing investigations.

Internationally, the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC in 2019 has not halted the court’s probe, and a local case could either bolster or complicate that effort. Colmenares maintains that both tracks can coexist: “Simultaneous proceedings would provide victims with the fullest possible redress.” However, challenges remain, including potential sub judice risks under Philippine law, which prohibits prejudicial commentary on ongoing cases.

Analysis: The Broader Context and Cultural Sensitivity

This saga underscores the Philippines’ complex interplay of politics, human rights, and cultural dynamics. The drug war, often framed as a moral crusade, has exposed fault lines in a society grappling with poverty, corruption, and inequality. For global readers, it is essential to contextualise the “supermajority” as a congressional bloc dominated by Duterte’s allies, reflecting the patronage systems common in Southeast Asian democracies.

Ethically, the Guardian-style approach demands balanced reporting: while victims’ voices are central, the perspectives of Duterte’s supporters—who view the campaign as a public safety imperative—must also be acknowledged without endorsing unverified claims. This ensures cultural sensitivity, avoiding stereotypes of Philippine politics as merely chaotic and instead highlighting the nuanced roles of institutions like the Communist Party of the Philippines-influenced advocacy groups.

In-depth analysis reveals potential ripple effects: if accountability is achieved, it could inspire reforms in policing and human rights, but if stalled, it might entrench impunity. With over 200 million people in Southeast Asia affected by similar drug policies, this case holds lessons for regional governance, though such impacts are speculative and require further evidence.