The Dangerous Illusion of Accountability

In a strikingly tone-deaf moment, former President Rodrigo Duterte proclaimed before the Senate that, “For all of its successes and shortcomings, I and I alone take full legal responsibility” regarding his administration’s infamous war on drugs. This statement displays a profound disconnect from reality and reveals an alarming tendency to deflect scrutiny while attempting to frame himself as a martyr in a narrative he ultimately constructed. 

By claiming full legal responsibility, Duterte seeks to shield others involved from accountability, potentially obstructing justice and transparency. This maneuver can undermine the rule of law, as it suggests that a single individual can absolve an entire administration of its actions. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent, implying that proclamations of responsibility can replace genuine accountability and due process.

This rhetoric can lead the public to believe that justice is merely a performative act, rather than a thorough and fair process. It may foster a sense of cynicism and distrust in the legal system, as citizens see powerful figures avoiding genuine consequences. Ultimately, such statements could weaken public confidence in the ability of institutions to hold leaders accountable for their actions.

The House Quad Committee’s investigations have brought evidence contradicting Duterte’s narrative of singular responsibility. Their findings suggest a more complex web of involvement, implicating various officials and agencies in the implementation of the war on drugs. This contrast highlights the disparity between Duterte’s claims and the reality uncovered by the committee, underscoring the need for thorough investigations to ensure genuine accountability. Testimonies from key figures, such as ex-PCSO General Manager Royina Garma and former Napolcom Commissioner Edilberto Leonardo, have exposed the existence of a “cash for killings” reward system designed to incentivize extrajudicial executions in the name of drug enforcement. The details presented during these hearings paint a harrowing picture of an administration that not only condoned violence but actively participated in orchestrating it. 

With sworn statements detailing the shocking assassinations of high-profile figures—such as former police Brigadier General Wesley Barayuga, Tanauan Mayor Antonio Halili, Los Baños Laguna Mayor Caesar Perez, Albuera Leyte Mayor Rolando Espinosa inside the Baybay City jail and the ambush of former Daanbantayan, Cebu Mayor Vicente Loot—it becomes increasingly clear that the so-called war on drugs was a cover for state-sanctioned violence rather than a legitimate campaign against addiction and drug-related crime.

Duterte’s statements before the Senate serve as a chilling reminder that we risk normalizing authoritarian practices when we allow leaders to claim credit for their “successes” while sweeping their transgressions under the rug. Yes, peace and order in the neighborhoods went down dramatically with the “neutralization” of drug pushers, addicts, and ninja cops. Hisclimate of fear forced around 700,000 confessed pushers and 1.3 million confessed drug addicts to surrender in 2016. This was an unprecedented feat then egged on by the majority of citizens because of the elimination of petty crimes in their areas by drug-crazed individuals.  However, in the crossfire, a lot of stories about innocent civilians were killed and nowtheir families are at the forefront of the ICC case versus the former president and his cohorts. To critics, the Tokhang and Double Barrel campaigns initiated then were more about profiling and punishing the marginalized than about addressing the root causes of drug abuse.

Now that the former President declared sole ownership of these “wrongs ” and “successes” in the drug war campaign, itsimpact challenges and renders inutile our present democratic processes and governance. Testimonies in the Lower House revealed a “cash for killings” system, an infrastructure supporting egregious acts of violence against those seen as enemies of the state, in these cases Tanauan Mayor Halili, Los Banos Mayor Perez, and Albuera Mayor Espinosa.  

How can anyone accept a former president claiming to take responsibility when his administration created an environment where the assassination of political opponents was incentivized? Does he genuinely believe that merely asserting legal responsibility absolves him of the moral implications of these actions? While there is admission, there must be tangibleand actionable accountability. Not just acknowledgment of the wrongs but a commitment to justice, where investigations should be made into those systemic abuses that happened. We demand that all individuals responsible for these atrocities—including the former president—are held fully accountable to both the law and the people.

Our society is still reeling from the fallout of Duterte’s war on drugs: shattered families, deepening social divides, and an erosion of trust between citizens and law enforcement agencies. Many Filipinos still live in fear—not just of the drug trade but of the very forces sworn to protect them. Under Duterte’s regime, police officers became notorious for operating outside the bounds of law and ethics, with extrajudicial killings treated as mere statistics instead of human tragedies. 

We must not be complacent or dismiss outright the terror that plagued ordinary citizens under the Duterte government, rejoicing in a climate of fear and intimidation. We must all work together to ensure that the “culture of impunity” never happens again. The fight for justice and accountability is never-ending and goes beyond one man’s statements; it is about changing a culture that has allowed violence and abuse to flourish under the false flag of reform. The tumultuous waters stirred up by Duterte’s administration can no longer be allowed to cloud our judgment or sway public opinion toward complacency. As a society, we must uphold a clear vision rooted in respect for human dignity, democracy, and good governance.