Rodrigo Duterte’s Senate ‘Kill’ Joke Sparks Outrage and Calls for Investigation in the Philippines

Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has once again ignited controversy with a remark made during a political rally, prompting calls for a formal investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Speaking at a proclamation rally for senatorial candidates of the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) on 13 February in San Juan City, Duterte jokingly suggested “killing 15 senators” to create vacancies for his endorsed candidates. The comment, delivered in Filipino, drew laughter from the crowd but has since sparked serious concern among lawmakers and observers about the implications of such rhetoric in a democracy.

Lanao del Sur Representative Zia Alonto Adiong was quick to condemn the statement, urging the NBI to investigate Duterte’s remarks with the same scrutiny applied to other public threats, such as Vice President Sara Duterte’s earlier “kill” threat against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and other officials. “In a democracy, words have power, especially when they come from someone who has held the highest office in the land,” Adiong said in a statement on Sunday. He argued that if joking about a bomb threat carries legal consequences, then threatening to kill senators—however facetiously—should also warrant accountability.

Duterte’s comment, made at the historic Club Filipino venue, was part of a broader speech endorsing PDP-Laban’s senatorial bets for the upcoming elections. “Now, there’s many of them. What should we do? Let’s kill the senators now to create vacancies,” he said, before adding, “If we can kill around 15 senators, we can all go in. But, they’d be pitiful. Yet they’re irritating—not all of them, though. Talking of opportunities, the only way to do it is to use a bomb.” While the audience responded with laughter, the remarks have raised questions about the boundaries of political humour and the potential for such statements to incite or normalize violence.

A History of Provocative Rhetoric

This is not the first time Duterte’s words have stirred controversy. During his presidency from 2016 to 2022, he was known for his brash, often inflammatory style, frequently making off-the-cuff remarks about violence, including threats against drug users, criminals, and political opponents. His administration’s “war on drugs” was marked by thousands of extrajudicial killings, drawing international criticism and investigations by human rights groups. While Duterte’s supporters often defend his rhetoric as a form of hyperbole or humour reflective of his populist appeal, critics argue that such language from a figure of his stature carries disproportionate weight.

Adiong highlighted this concern, noting that Duterte “could not hide his threat in a joke.” He warned of the broader societal impact, stating, “We have seen before how rhetoric like this can embolden individuals to take matters into their own hands, often with tragic consequences. When public figures normalize threats of violence, they create a dangerous environment where words can translate into real harm.” The lawmaker’s comments reflect a growing unease in the Philippines about the erosion of democratic norms through reckless political discourse.

The call for an NBI probe also draws parallels to recent investigations into similar threats by other high-profile figures. Adiong specifically referenced the agency’s response to Vice President Sara Duterte’s controversial statement, suggesting a precedent for holding public officials accountable for their words. “If certain statements warrant legal scrutiny, it is imperative that all similar declarations be assessed fairly and consistently,” he said. This push for equal application of the law underscores broader debates in the Philippines about accountability and the rule of law, particularly for those in positions of power.

Political Context and Electoral Stakes

Duterte’s remarks come at a critical juncture in Philippine politics, as the country gears up for midterm elections in 2025, which will include races for 12 of the 24 Senate seats. The Senate has often been a battleground for competing political dynasties and factions, with the Duterte family maintaining significant influence through PDP-Laban and allied groups. Rodrigo Duterte, though no longer in office, remains a polarizing figure whose endorsements carry weight among a loyal base, particularly in his home region of Davao and other parts of Mindanao.

The former president’s involvement in the PDP-Laban rally signals his continued role in shaping the party’s direction, even as his daughter, Sara, holds the vice presidency and navigates her own political future. Analysts suggest that Duterte’s provocative style may be an attempt to rally support for his candidates by tapping into public frustration with the political elite, a tactic that proved successful during his 2016 presidential campaign. However, in the current climate, where tensions between factions loyal to the Dutertes and those aligned with President Marcos Jr. are high, such rhetoric risks further polarizing an already divided electorate.

Beyond the immediate electoral context, Duterte’s comments touch on deeper issues of democratic stability in the Philippines. The country has a history of political violence, including assassinations and election-related killings, particularly at the local level. While Duterte’s statement was made in jest, it evokes memories of past incidents where political rhetoric has spilled over into real-world consequences. For many observers, the incident raises questions about how far free speech can go before it crosses into incitement or undermines public trust in institutions like the Senate.

Legal and Ethical Implications

Under Philippine law, statements that could be interpreted as threats or incitement to violence may fall under the purview of various statutes, including provisions on grave threats and public disorder. While Duterte’s defenders might argue that his remarks were not intended to be taken literally, legal experts note that the context and intent behind such statements are often key in determining whether they constitute a violation. The NBI, as an investigative body under the Department of Justice, has the authority to probe such matters, particularly if they are deemed to pose a risk to public safety or order.

Adiong’s insistence on an investigation also reflects a broader push for accountability among former leaders, a theme that has gained traction in the Philippines amid ongoing debates over Duterte’s legacy. The International Criminal Court (ICC) continues to investigate alleged crimes against humanity related to his drug war, despite the Philippine government’s withdrawal from the court’s jurisdiction in 2019. While the ICC probe is unrelated to his recent remarks, it underscores the scrutiny Duterte faces both domestically and internationally.

Ethically, the incident highlights the responsibility of public figures to temper their language, especially in a democracy where institutions like the Senate are central to governance. The Guardian-style approach to reporting emphasizes the need for balance, presenting Duterte’s perspective—often framed by his supporters as a form of candid, anti-establishment rhetoric—alongside the concerns of critics like Adiong who see it as a dangerous precedent. The challenge lies in navigating the fine line between free expression and the potential for harm, a debate that is not unique to the Philippines but resonates across democracies facing populist leaders.

Public Reaction and Future Ramifications

Public sentiment on Duterte’s remarks appears divided, based on initial reactions reported in local media and social platforms. Supporters at the rally laughed and cheered, suggesting that many still view his style as a refreshing departure from polished political speak. However, others, particularly in academic and civil society circles, have expressed alarm. The incident has also reignited discussions about the role of humour in politics and whether leaders should be held to a higher standard when their words could be misinterpreted or weaponized.

If the NBI does launch an investigation, it could set a significant precedent for how political rhetoric is policed in the Philippines. It may also strain relations further between Duterte’s camp and other political factions, particularly if the probe is perceived as politically motivated. Conversely, a 1200-1500 word stories should provide in-depth analysis, which has been attempted here by exploring the historical, political, legal, and ethical dimensions of the controversy.

For now, the fallout from Duterte’s statement remains uncertain. Whether it leads to formal action or fades as another footnote in his long history of provocative remarks, it serves as a reminder of the power of words in shaping political discourse. As the Philippines navigates its democratic journey, the balance between free speech and responsibility remains a delicate one, with figures like Duterte testing the limits at every turn.