Philippine House Committee Scrutinises Duterte’s Drug War Amid Calls for Accountability

The Philippine House of Representatives has taken a significant step towards confronting the legacy of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s controversial drug war, recommending accountability for alleged crimes against humanity. This move marks a pivotal shift in the nation’s political landscape, potentially challenging entrenched power dynamics and raising questions about justice for thousands of victims.

In a landmark report adopted before the Christmas break, a joint committee has accused Duterte and key allies of orchestrating a campaign that resulted in widespread extrajudicial killings. Human rights advocates hail this as a rare official acknowledgment of systematic abuses, though critics warn it may serve more as a political manoeuvre than a path to genuine justice. The development underscores ongoing tensions in Philippine politics, where calls for accountability clash with historical impunity.

The House Report: A Turning Point in Philippine Politics

The quad committee’s exhaustive investigation, spanning four months of hearings, has brought renewed focus on Duterte’s drug war, which dominated his presidency from 2016 to 2022. The report, adopted by the House on 18 December 2024, accuses Duterte, along with Senators Christopher “Bong” Go and Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, of fostering an environment that led to thousands of deaths. It characterises these actions as “a profound and systematic violation of inherent rights to life and dignity,” invoking Republic Act (RA) No. 9851, the Philippines’ law against crimes against humanity.

This is not the first time the drug war has faced scrutiny. During Duterte’s tenure, the campaign enjoyed broad support from a congressional supermajority, with allies praising its purported success in curbing drug-related crime. However, as public opinion has shifted, so too has the political narrative. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who has distanced himself from his predecessor’s more extreme policies, has acknowledged past abuses, but the House report represents the first formal governmental endorsement of their systematic nature.

Human rights experts, such as Carlos Conde from Human Rights Watch, suggest this could be a strategic effort by the current administration to differentiate itself from Duterte’s era. “This lays the groundwork for further action,” Conde noted in an interview with international media, “but it remains a political exercise rather than a judicial one.” Indeed, the hearings have been criticised for their format, with victims’ representatives, like lawyer Kristina Conti, pointing out that survivors were given limited time to testify. Conti argues that this has hindered the full realisation of victims’ “right to truth,” potentially perpetuating cycles of injustice tied to political dynasties and private armed groups in the Philippines.

The report delves into the interconnections between extrajudicial killings, illegal offshore gaming, and the drug trade, painting a picture of institutionalised violence. It alleges that Duterte “incited and facilitated” these killings through official and unofficial channels, including rewards for law enforcement and encouragement of vigilante actions. If these recommendations lead to prosecutions, it would test the enforceability of RA 9851, a law that has seen minimal application since its enactment. To date, only one conviction under this statute has occurred, involving a member of an Islamic State-linked group in 2019.

Political Implications: A Test for Marcos and Philippine Democracy

The fallout from the report could reshape Philippine politics, particularly for the Marcos administration. Speaker Martin Romualdez has framed the quad committee as a “truth commission,” echoing calls for transparency. Yet, as Conde cautions, this is inherently a political process, not a legal one, raising questions about its ability to deliver real accountability. For President Marcos, who inherited a nation weary of Duterte’s hardline approach, this presents both an opportunity and a risk. By endorsing the investigation, Marcos signals a break from the past, but failure to follow through could erode public trust and invite international scrutiny.

Analysts speculate that the timing of the report, released amid economic recovery efforts post-pandemic, might be calculated to deflect attention from domestic challenges. If confirmed, the allegations could strain relations within the political elite, given Duterte’s enduring influence through family networks and allies. Human rights lawyer Neri Colmenares emphasises the need for parallel processes: “Domestic investigations should complement, not replace, international efforts like those at the International Criminal Court (ICC).”

The ICC investigation into the drug war, resumed in 2023 due to perceived unwillingness by Philippine authorities, adds another layer of complexity. Should local cases proceed, they might demonstrate national commitment to justice, potentially influencing the ICC’s course. Retired judge Soliman Santos Jr. suggests collaboration between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and human rights advocates could build cases that align with international standards. However, if the process stalls, it may reinforce perceptions of impunity in a country where political elites often evade accountability.

In this context, the drug war’s legacy highlights broader issues in Philippine governance, including the role of political dynasties and the militarisation of law enforcement. Critics argue that the campaign exacerbated social inequalities, disproportionately affecting poor communities and entrenching a culture of fear. While some defend it as a necessary response to drug-related violence, evidence suggests it may have inflamed rather than resolved underlying problems, such as corruption in policing and the influence of organised crime.

Human Rights and International Perspectives

From a human rights standpoint, the report aligns with longstanding criticisms from organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. These groups have documented patterns of extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture during the drug war, often linked to state actors. The report’s emphasis on the “widespread or systematic attack” criterion mirrors definitions in the Rome Statute, potentially strengthening cases for international intervention.

Globally, reactions have been mixed. Western governments, including the United States and European Union, have condemned the excesses of the drug war, with some imposing sanctions on implicated officials. In contrast, regional neighbours like China and Russia have been more muted, viewing it as an internal matter. If prosecutions materialise, they could set a precedent for accountability in Southeast Asia, where authoritarian legacies persist.

Yet, amid these developments, speculative claims about the political motives behind the hearings warrant careful consideration. For instance, if the investigation is proven to be a tool for political rivalry—as some Duterte loyalists allege—it may undermine its credibility. No evidence currently confirms such motives, and analysts should note that such assertions remain unverified. Should future revelations indicate internal machinations, they could “if established, erode public confidence in the process,” but this is purely hypothetical at this stage.

Challenges and the Path Forward

Looking ahead, the path to justice faces significant hurdles. The Philippines’ judicial system is often bogged down by delays, and prosecuting high-profile figures could encounter resistance from Duterte’s supporters. Moreover, legal experts point to potential conflicts with existing laws, such as the sub judice rule, which prohibits prejudicial commentary on ongoing cases. Ensuring compliance with international human rights standards will be crucial, as emphasised in the report’s recommendations.

For victims and their families, the hearings offer a glimmer of hope but fall short of full redress. As Conti notes, the process has exposed “dehumanisation and blame-seeking” in Philippine society, underscoring the need for comprehensive reforms. These might include strengthening independent oversight of law enforcement and addressing root causes of drug-related issues through public health approaches rather than punitive measures.

In summary, the House committee’s report represents a critical juncture in the Philippines’ reckoning with its recent past. While it advances the discourse on human rights and accountability, its success hinges on translating recommendations into action. As the nation navigates this turbulent period, the balance between political pragmatism and justice remains precarious.