“Digong. Rody. Du30.”
These are the nicknames of former president Rodrigo Roa Duterte that echoed through the mouths of Filipinos. It speaks volume: a heavy one that mirrors his foul-mouthed bravado, “strongman” leadership, and a relentless war on drugs that left a trail of blood across the Philippines. Yet for him, as he brands himself, it all reflects his “Tapang at Malasakit” for the motherland.
To some, Duterte's reign is remembered as a fight to free the country of its narcotics plague. To others, it is a dark chapter defined by human rights abuses and widespread violence. Although Digong’s presidency has ended, his controversial anti-drug campaign continues to demand accountability, as seen in the recent extrajudicial killings (EJK) hearings. As one reflects on that era, it is crucial to examine how the rhetoric and language surrounding the war on drugs were manipulated to enable the abuse of power.
Duterte 101
Known as “The Punisher,” Duterte, who vowed to extend his “Kamay na Bakal” leadership from seven-term mayoral reign from Davao to the entire Philippines, secured a landslide victory in the 2016 presidential elections. Even before he got elected, he notably pledged to end the drug scourge "within three to six months.”
This pledge marked the beginning of a violent, nationwide crackdown that would soon ignite conflicts with the media, civil society groups, the Catholic Church, the United States, the European Union, and other sectors. His first six months became ferocious as the nation bore witness to over 6,216 deaths, mostly from EJKs by death squads. Metro Manila’s funeral parlours were overwhelmed, and many bodies were buried in mass graves.
Behind the success and brutality of these operations, Duterte’s combative rhetoric was integral. Among his most infamous remarks was his chilling remark, “shoot to kill,” which he once unapologetically uttered in August 2016: “Iyang may order na gan’yan, shoot to kill ‘yan. Wala akong pakeialam d’yan sa human rights, maniwala ka.”
Furthermore, the former Mindanaoan mayor also boldly declared during a Malacañang event in November of the same year, "Hindi lang ninyo alam. Baka hindi niyo alam ilan tinapon ko diyan sa Manila Bay.” Known for his abrasive language and antics blending profanity, humor, and violence, Duterte later clarified that his remarks were meant to intimidate and reflect his personality—a worn-out excuse he often uses when making heavy statements: "It's not just my penchant to use cuss words. Ugali... Ano ko na ito, part of my being.”
Neutralization Was Not Neutral?
Apart from Duterte’s mouth, one of the most alarming aspects of the war on drugs that stole attention recently from the Senate's drug war probe in October 2024 was the use of the term "neutralization" and “negation” from Oplan Double Barrel, a two-pronged strategy by Philippine National Police (PNP). Its first phase was the infamous Oplan Tokhang, a directive that targeted barangay-level drug users through door-to-door operations, while the second, Oplan HVT, focused on dismantling high-value targets such as drug lords and syndicates.
The terms "neutralization" and "negate," were allegedly euphemisms for killings, according to human rights advocate Atty. Chel Diokno. Speaking before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, Diokno cited police reports and Command Memorandum Circular No. 16-2016, which frequently mentioned these terms in the context of eliminating drug suspects.
Diokno highlighted cases, including those in Sta. Ana and Tondo, where individuals marked for "neutralization" were killed during operations. He also referenced statements from police officials, such as Lt. Col. Jovie Espenido and PDEA Chief Director Gen. Lazo, who explicitly defined "neutralization" as killing.
The lack of legal definition for these terms, Diokno argued, gave police officers unchecked authority to interpret and act on them, leading to numerous extrajudicial killings. These practices, he said, underscore the need for accountability and transparency in law enforcement.
Just An Umbrella Term
In an interview with Karen Davila on ANC Headstart, Senator Bato dela Rosa argued on the other hand that neutralization was a term that encapsulates the operation of arresting, charging, and imprisoning the suspect to prevent further crimes: "Kung ang purpose niyan is to kill, bakit hindi na lang ilagay sa memorandum circular to kill everyone? Kill, kill, kill. Bakit neutralize pa ang ilalagay natin?”
Furthermore, the ex-PNP chief accused Diokno of misinterpreting the term "neutralize" and even read out a definition he looked up online on the Senate hearing. "If I would give you the Google meaning of neutralize, ito po ang sabi: 'Render something ineffective or harmless by applying ang opposite force or effect.' So, anong ibig sabihin n’yan? ‘Yan ang sinasabi mong negation operation," Dela Rosa explained.
However, in terms of other results such as with the Cambridge Dictionary, neutralize was defined as “(especially of a military force or government) to kill someone.” Moreover, it is also worth noting that the term "neutralize" predates the drug war, having been used in previous military and law enforcement operations. In 2014, under the leadership of the former Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Mar Roxas, "neutralization" was still part of the lexicon for police operations, continuing its association with targeted killings.
Additionally, during the administration of former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the term was prominently used in Oplan Bantay Laya (2001-2010), a counterinsurgency program aimed at neutralizing members of communist groups that had 609 political killings. Under Oplan Bantay Laya, the term was used to justify the deaths of various activists, suspected rebels, and political opponents, leading to widespread allegations of extrajudicial killings.
Bato cemented that the term has an undebatable longevity. He presented statistics claiming that 1.6 million drug users surrendered, 300,000 were jailed and alive in overcrowded prisons, and around 6,000 deaths were all part of the “neutralization” efforts. He also invoked and included the “nanlaban” narrative—claiming that suspects fought back—in encounters, as a justifiable way on how deaths occured.
Sworn Pride
As the fight-for-survival argument resurfaced during the Senate hearing, the now 79-year-old former chief executive admitted under oath: “Ang sinabi ko ganito, prangkahan tayo, encourage the criminals to fight, encourage them to draw their guns. ‘Yan ang instruction ko, encourage them–lumaban, [‘pag] lumaban, patayin ninyo para matapos na ang problema ko sa siyudad ko.”
He also confessed to having a death squad that operated outside official police channels. “I can make the confession now if you want. Talagang niyayari ko, pero 'wag naman mga pulis—kawawa naman 'yan. Meron akong death squad. Death squad ito, pero hindi ‘yung mga pulis; sila rin ‘yung mga gangster. ‘Yung isang gangster, utusan ko: 'Patayin mo 'yan, kung hindi mo patayin 'yan, patayin kita ngayon,” he revealed.
Despite these confessions, some things never changed as Duterte’s pride in his controversial actions and directives was evident. In his opening statement during the hearing, he unapologetically declared that everything he did was “for the country.” He further underscored his willingness to take responsibility for his actions, stating, “I and I alone take full legal responsibility sa lahat ng nagawa ng mga pulis pursuant to my order.”
On a later date, at the House Quad Committee inquiry in November 2024, Duterte confirmed the existence of a cash reward system for police, stating candidly, “Reward? Correct. Very correct. Talagang totoo. At minsan bigyan ko pa dagdag.” This admission contradicted his earlier statements in the Senate hearing, where he had denied the widespread use of such a reward system.
When questioned about providing allowances to the police, he justified his actions by flaunting his knowledge of criminal law: “Bigay ko sila singkwenta-mil, gasolina. Pagdating mo doon, patayin mo. So, anong gawin nila? Bigyan mong panahong lumaban. Instructor ako ng criminal law, the only way na hindi kayo makulong, to justify the killing, is bigyan mo talaga ng panahon na lumaban,” he explained.
Bato, in defense of his former boss’ tactics, framed the former president’s remarks as a strategic weapon against criminality in an ANC interview. “Magaling lang siya gumamit ng mga term na 'yan para matakot ang mga kriminal,” Dela Rosa said.
However, Senator President Chiz Escudero highlighted a key distinction after Duterte’s recent statements. “Karamihan naman ng sinabi niya kahapon, sinasabi din naman niya nung siya'y pangulo pa,” Escudero noted. “Ang pinagkaiba kahapon lahat ng binitiwan niyang salita ay under oath... 'Yun 'yung malaking pagkakaiba,” he added, pointing out that Duterte’s claims could no longer be dismissed as mere "jokes."
Now, What’s Next?
Duterte’s admissions during the October 28 hearing make him liable for crimes against humanity, citing Republic Act No. 9581, also known as the Philippine Act on Crimes against International Humanitarian Law, according to House Human Rights Committee Chairperson Bienvenido Abante. Human rights lawyer Chel Diokno supported this view, emphasizing that the ex-president’s statements, made under oath, could serve as “very damning evidence” in court.
In addition, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) investigation into Duterte’s War on Drugs remains ongoing. Yet Duterte stood unfazed, and urged the ICC to expedite its process, saying, “I am asking the ICC to hurry up, and if possible, they can come here and start the investigation tomorrow.” Meanwhile, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. stated that while the Philippine government would not assist the ICC, it also would not block the investigation into Duterte’s administration.
After the last House Quad-Committee hearing, it was followed without the former president present. Rep. Dan Fernandez clarified that he was not invited to this session but will be called to future hearings as some lawmakers still wish to question him. As of the writing, the schedule for the next Senate Blue Ribbon and House Quad-Comm hearings has yet to be announced.
Thus far, as the proceedings unfold and more questions linger, it becomes evident that Duterte’s legacy is not merely shaped by his actions and intentions, but by the rhetoric he employed to justify them. The high volume of his admissions begs the question: In the end, how is a war part of something called “Tapang at Malasakit”?
Article: Jan-Rhada I. Amarila
Graphics: Ericka Castillo
Comentarios