Last of two parts

THE nation is obsessed with the thrilling and seemingly incriminating (but not really) admissions on the issue of extrajudicial killings, made at the Senate Blue Ribbon Subcommittee hearing by the controversial, unapologetic, reckless former president but cheerful, Rodrigo Duterte, whose stories, laced with expletives, range from unbelievable (to the naive and uninitiated) to repulsive (to his gullible and even thoughtless detractors) to funny (to those with a sense of ‘humor), but brilliant (for those whose intellect parallels his). The much longer hearings of the House quadruple committees, especially those on November 13, 2024, vied for attention for drama and bravado in the riveting performance of an aging but strong man – who effectively warded off blows and insults from a pack of carefully dressed wolves. their outfits for the State of the Nation Address, with wit and unyielding spirit – not without a sprinkling of angry words and rebukes liberally unleashed on those he considered to have crossed the line and were unstoppable to denounce their ignorance and stupidity.

No reward system for police officers

During the Senate Blue Ribbon Subcommittee hearing, Duterte was categorical in stating – when confronted with the affidavit of former PCSO Chairman and retired PNP Colonel Royina Garma, claiming that there was a reward system for police officers who killed drug suspects – that there was no such absurdity as such killings being committed in accordance with their duty to arrest criminal offenders in the manner described by the law is not justified.

At the Quad Comm hearing, some incorrigible representatives were determined to demand Duterte admit that he established the reward as part of his war on drugs. Apparently, they misinterpreted or deliberately changed his story about how police operations are particularly funded and how unspent funds after the end of the policing project are freely given to law enforcement. order involved in the operation, as a sort of “for the boys”. “thing,” meaning they could spend that surplus on their celebration of a job well done.

Allowing police officers to spend the tiny surplus of operational funds on food and fun for themselves is different from the reward system alleged by Garma, with a graduated cash reward for specific killings. The first is a gesture of recognition, while the second is an incitement to commit murder, which is a crime.

As usual and expected, Duterte’s critics took Duterte’s statement out of context and peddled the false information that the former president had admitted to participating in the murder reward scheme to the mainstream media. biased public communicating the same falsehood to the public.

Admitting to killing could be a boast or a trap

Duterte’s political enemies, including biased practitioners of mass communication, are still waiting in ambush for him to utter remarks that they could use against him without using common sense to check whether Digong is intentionally giving the impression that he incriminates himself recklessly or accidentally. or in his playful state of dramatic swagger on stage.

Take, for example, the time he confessed to killing six suspected criminals while serving as mayor of Davao City. His political opponents gleefully went to town, proclaiming that we had a confessed killer. The Quad investigators and the one-sided mainstream media did not even have the intellectual means to ask him under what circumstances he had killed these six individuals.

They should have already been warned about the nature of this “murder” story by his response that he was not interested in asking the names of those he had killed – when asked their identities.

This could simply be bragging – to cultivate and reinforce the myth or legend that he would kill criminals. This helped him rid Davao City of criminals, communist rebels and terrorists. This made them afraid to flee for their lives. It gave him an aura of fierce courage and invincibility. It made him a legend. This propelled him to the presidency.

Or it could simply be a matter of setting a trap for his naive and clueless opponents – to make them look even stupider – if they pursue criminal charges for the murder of anonymous “murder victims.”

The alleged confessions are an abuse of language and are inadmissible

Duterte’s so-called extrajudicial confessions are a misnomer.

An extrajudicial confession is a confession made outside of a legal proceeding by an accused. To be admissible in court, it must comply with legal requirements.

Regardless of the confession, which must be made in writing and with the assistance of a lawyer, there must be a corpus delicti, that is, there must be evidence demonstrating the commission of the crime other than the confession itself. For example, which victims the confessor allegedly killed, when did the murder take place, under what circumstances did the murder take place, etc.

Given these legal requirements, which are absent in Duterte’s alleged “murder” of six people, it is an assertion to say that former President Rodrigo Duterte made extrajudicial confessions about these “killings” during a congressional hearing. stupid.