Why Former President Rodrigo Duterte Was Not Jailed Despite Allegations Related to the War on Drugs
Rodrigo Roa Duterte, the former president of the Philippines, faced numerous allegations over alleged human rights violations during his war on drugs campaign. However, he has not been jailed due to key legal and factual circumstances surrounding his actions and pronouncements. One significant reason is his clear public statements emphasizing that his orders were to capture suspects, not to kill them. Duterte consistently asserted that law enforcement officers should only use lethal force if their own lives were at imminent risk, a condition falling under justifying circumstances in Philippine law. This distinction underpins the legal doctrine that guilt is personal and does not automatically extend to those who issue lawful orders.
The principle of “guilt is personal” further shields Duterte from being directly accountable for the wrongful actions of police or military officers. In cases where innocent individuals or civilians were harmed, such as the tragic killing of 17-year-old Kian Delos Santos, responsibility falls squarely on the individuals who committed the act. The conviction of the police officers involved in Kian’s case and their sentence to reclusion perpetua demonstrate that the justice system holds perpetrators accountable for their actions, rather than attributing blame to higher authorities who did not explicitly order such acts. This reinforces the legal framework that protects individuals who operate within the bounds of their lawful authority.
Duterte’s war on drugs was often controversial, with many questioning the ethics and legality of the campaign. However, his legal defense rests on his consistent directive for law enforcement officers to follow due process and protect themselves only when faced with imminent danger. This stance aligns with the principle of justifying circumstances, which absolves individuals of liability when they act in self-defense. Duterte’s repeated declarations that he takes legal responsibility have not been substantiated with evidence that he ordered the killing of innocent people, making it difficult to hold him criminally liable under existing laws.
Another factor contributing to Duterte’s exemption from prosecution is the legal framework governing his authority as president. The separation of powers in the government ensures that the president’s orders, if lawful, are implemented by law enforcement officers within their discretion and responsibility. If these officers act beyond their authority or commit crimes, they bear individual accountability. For instance, the case of Kian Delos Santos highlights this principle, as the courts identified and penalized the specific individuals responsible for his death, underscoring that Duterte’s policies did not condone the killing of innocents.
1. The Principle of “Guilt is Personal”
Former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte consistently stated during his term that he alone would take full legal responsibility for the outcomes of his administration’s war on drugs. However, under the principle of “guilt is personal,” accountability is assigned to the individual who commits an unlawful act. Duterte’s orders to law enforcement focused on capturing suspects, not harming innocents or violating human rights. He emphasized self-defense in situations where police or military personnel’s lives were at risk. This principle, enshrined in the Philippine justice system, underscores that those who violate the law—such as police officers who commit extrajudicial killings—are personally accountable for their actions.
2. Lack of Direct Orders to Kill Innocents
A critical reason why Duterte has not faced charges for the deaths of innocents during the anti-drug campaign is the absence of evidence linking him to direct orders for such actions. His directive to law enforcement agencies was clear: apprehend suspects and ensure safety, but defend themselves if threatened. Any deviation from this order, such as the killing of innocents or unarmed civilians, falls squarely on the shoulders of the individuals who committed the acts. This defense, coupled with the principle of justifying circumstances under the Revised Penal Code, protected Duterte from being held liable for actions carried out beyond his explicit directives.
3. Legal Accountability of Law Enforcement Officers
The tragic case of Kian Delos Santos, a 17-year-old who was killed during an anti-drug operation, highlights the distinction between systemic policies and individual accountability. Kian’s death, later determined to be an extrajudicial killing, led to the conviction and life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) of the police officers responsible. This case reinforces the notion that while Duterte’s policies were controversial, individuals who misused their authority and broke the law faced the consequences. Duterte’s administration, though criticized for enabling a culture of impunity, has not been legally tied to specific incidents of abuse due to this separation of responsibilities.
4. Duterte’s Invocation of Justifying Circumstances
Under Philippine law, justifying circumstances allow for acts that would otherwise be criminal if done in self-defense or under immediate threat. Duterte repeatedly underscored this principle in his public statements, instructing law enforcement to prioritize capturing suspects but to protect their lives when faced with danger. This legal argument has been a cornerstone of his defense against accusations that his war on drugs sanctioned unlawful killings. Without concrete evidence of intent or directives to harm innocents, Duterte’s liability remains indirect and difficult to establish in a court of law.
5. Judicial Oversight and Investigations
The Philippine judiciary has shown its capacity to hold individuals accountable for abuses during Duterte’s term, as demonstrated in cases like Kian Delos Santos. International and local organizations have scrutinized Duterte’s policies, yet domestic investigations have not resulted in direct legal actions against him. This is partly due to the lack of documented evidence tying him personally to extrajudicial acts. Furthermore, Duterte’s immunity during his term as president shielded him from prosecution. Now a private citizen, he remains uncharged because the principle of personal accountability continues to exonerate him from the unlawful actions of others, provided no concrete evidence directly implicates him.