Duterte’s defense: Not even SC has ruled that ‘neutralization’ means to kill

MANILA, Philippines – Lead defense counsel Nicholas Kaufman used the Supreme Court’s (SC) nine-year inaction on petitions challenging Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs to support the defense’s claim that the term “neutralization” does not legally mean to kill.

During the third day of the pre-trial hearings at the International Criminal Court, Kaufman pointed out that the SC “has declined to issue any ruling declaring the campaign unconstitutional, has declined to invalidate circulars, and has declined to rule to date that ‘neutralize’ or ‘neutralization‘ means to kill.”

Legal groups Center for International Law and the Free Legal Assistance Group filed their petitions with the SC in January and October 2017, respectively. The High Court held oral arguments during the latter part of the same year. 

Kaufman also said that the SC had already pointed out that the term had been previously used in the Philippines even before Duterte’s term, which saw at least 6,200 deaths in police operations alone by May 2022. 

“The court further clarified that the mere inclusion of the term in a circular does not render that instrument unconstitutional, especially where the circular expressly mandates compliance with internationally accepted legal principles, public policy, and the full observance of human rights, as we showed you earlier,” he said.

Duterte’s defense counsel may be referring to then-SC senior associate justice Antonio Carpio’s interpellation during oral arguments on the guidelines that govern the Philippine National Police’s war on drugs. 

Then-FLAG lawyer Jose Manuel “Chel” Diokno, however, said that the terms “could easily be construed to include the authority to kill.”

“If the chief of the PNP simply meant to arrest and prosecute, then he should have just used those terms, and not terms that are subject to easy misinterpretation by the policeman on the ground,” Diokno then responded to Carpio.

A Rappler investigation published in 2021 found that incomplete and unorganized files submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General under then-solicitor general and close Duterte ally Jose Calida stalled the proceedings.

Play Video

– Rappler.com