Duterte’s public image

Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte is shaping up to be the wild card in the 2016 presidential election.

In a survey conducted last March by Social Weather Stations, 15 percent of the respondents expressed their preference for Duterte to be the country’s next president.

His rating represents a 10-point rise from the December 2014 survey. The Liberal Party’s presumptive presidential candidate, Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, has the same rating.

Sen. Grace Poe also enjoyed a 10-point increase—from 21 percent to 31 percent—while Vice President Jejomar Binay’s rating remained stagnant within the 36-37 percent range.

Although Duterte has disavowed presidential ambition, his public pronouncements and body language say otherwise. Advertisements touting his accomplishments in Davao City are being shown on television. He has also been moving around the country, pitching the adoption of a federal system of government.

And despite claiming disinterest in the presidency, he has drawn up a list of the possible members of his cabinet if he is elected in 2016.

Duterte’s favorable standing in the surveys came about despite his being linked to the Davao “death squad” responsible for the death or disappearance of drug pushers and other notorious criminal elements in his political turf.

He appeared, in a televised interview, to admit involvement, eliciting criticism from Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and the former chair of the Commission on Human Rights, Etta Rosales. He has since denied links with this group, but stands firm on his position that criminals should be sternly dealt with.

This hardline approach to the problem of criminality appears to sit well with 15 percent of the survey respondents who want him to succeed President Aquino. That percentage, when extrapolated with the approximately 52 million registered voters in the 2013 elections, represents roughly 7.8 million voters.

These respondents see nothing wrong with Duterte’s approach in maintaining peace and order in Davao City, which has been rated as the ninth safest city in the world by an international organization that compiles and analyzes data about the world’s living conditions.

The subtle endorsement of Duterte’s draconian methods in dealing with criminals may be interpreted as indicative of the respondents’ frustration with our criminal justice system. They are sending the message that the government has been ineffective in preventing or minimizing the incidence of crimes in the country and rendering justice to crime victims.

They approve of Duterte’s juez de cuchilo strategy of physically eliminating people caught committing heinous crimes or who refuse to surrender to lawful authority when ordered to do so.

This may be their concept of swift justice. Punishment is meted upon the commission of the crime without need for legal niceties that may allow the criminal to escape justice with the assistance of crafty lawyers.

It is the same approach that the communist New People’s Army has used and still uses to draw to its fold people in the rural areas who are victims of crimes or injustice and have no faith in the ability of the duly constituted authorities to render them justice.

For civil libertarians, Duterte’s crime-busting tactics are illegal and should not be countenanced even if these appear to be effective in maintaining peace and order in the community. They believe no one has the right to be prosecutor, judge and executioner at the same time for crime suspects. Accordingly, the guilt of the accused should be proven in accordance with the prescribed judicial rules, and the penalty to be imposed should be commensurate to the gravity of the crime committed.

Indeed, that is the way any society that considers itself civilized should treat its citizens who have strayed from the law. But try telling that idea to crime victims who do not have the means or influence to make the police go after their tormentors, or pay for the services of lawyers who can competently prosecute their cases.

For the 15-percent respondents who want Duterte to be president, the short cuts in the criminal justice system of which he is accused are worth using because, in their mind and probably imagining life in Davao City, that would mean less criminals roaming the streets.

His image as an effective and credible crime-buster is enhanced by reports that he does not play favorites in the enforcement of the city’s ordinances.

In January 2014, his daughter, former city mayor Sara Duterte, was flagged down by a traffic officer for overspeeding and ordered to pay a fine. Her driver’s license was confiscated. Earlier, in 2009, Duterte himself was apprehended for not wearing a helmet while driving his motorcycle. He willingly paid the fine for the traffic violation and attended a seminar on safe driving as part of the penalty.

Media reports about Duterte’s equal enforcement of the law in his turf stand out as extraordinary in a country where government officials and politically influential people consider themselves above the law and expect to be treated as such.

If he decides to throw his hat into the presidential ring and uses the promise of peace and order for the country a la Davao City as the anchor of his platform, the 15-percent support he enjoys from survey respondents may snowball and carry him to Malacañang.

Raul J. Palabrica (rpalabrica@inquirer.com.ph) writes a weekly column in the Business section of the Inquirer.