Duterte's Lawyer Denies Causal Link Between Rhetoric and Killings
In a recent confirmation of charges hearing, Nicholas Kaufman, the legal representative for former President Rodrigo Duterte, presented a stark argument: there is no causal connection between Duterte's rhetorical bombast and the actual killings that occurred during his administration. This defense has ignited a fierce debate about accountability and the power of presidential words.
The Nuezca Case: A Shocking Example of Violence
The discussion naturally turns to the infamous case of Sgt. Jonel Nuezca, who in December 2020 shot and killed 52-year-old Sonya Gregoria and her 25-year-old son Frank Anthony at close range. The altercation began over the lighting of prohibited firecrackers, a seemingly minor neighborhood dispute. Captured on cell phone videos that went viral, the brutal killings shocked the entire nation. Even President Duterte was compelled to issue a statement, labeling the incident as isolated and involving a mentally deranged policeman.
However, prize-winning journalist Patricia Evangelista raises a critical question in her book, Some People Need Killing: was this truly an isolated event? The tragedy gained national attention primarily because it was recorded and disseminated widely. Evangelista contrasts this with the numerous deaths of alleged drug users, many of which occurred in similarly brutal fashion but without video evidence, leaving only police reports claiming the victims resisted arrest or nanlaban.
Beyond Direct Orders: The Creation of a Culture
It is important to note that Duterte did not directly order the killing of Gregoria and her son, nor was this case related to alleged drug use. So why does Evangelista include it in her book? The answer lies in the broader context of a culture of violence and impunity that emerged during Duterte's tenure. This culture means that Duterte did not need to issue explicit commands for each of the thousands of victims; the environment itself encouraged such actions.
While there are allegations of killings upon direct orders from Duterte, notably from Edgar Matobato and Arturo Lascanas—former members of the so-called Davao Death Squad—Kaufman attempts to discredit these witnesses due to their pasts. This legal strategy effectively denies any cause-and-effect relationship while undermining those who might establish such links. However, the core issue extends beyond strict causality to the creation of a pervasive culture of violence.
The Power of Presidential Words
As a lawyer, Duterte often qualified his braggadocio with phrases like "as long as the law is followed." Yet, his previous statements tell a different story. He once remarked, "Hitler massacred three million Jews. There are three million drug addicts. I will be happy to kill them all." In another instance, he suggested, "If you know of any addict, go ahead and kill them yourself as getting parents to do it would be too painful." He also infamously proposed dumping drug users into Manila Bay to fatten the fish.
Later qualifications may have been issued to frame these comments within legal boundaries, but by then, a culture of violence and impunity had already taken root. Words possess immense power to shape cultural norms. A university president who consistently demands research output fosters a culture of academic inquiry. A CEO emphasizing social responsibility ingrains that value as a standard. Similarly, a president who regularly mouths invectives and violent rhetoric cultivates a culture of disrespect and aggression.
Duterte was acutely aware of the weight his words carried. As an old Latin saying goes, "Ex abundantia cordis, os loquitor"—out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. His rhetoric revealed his inner convictions and, in turn, influenced the actions of those within the police force and beyond. The debate now centers on whether he can escape responsibility for birthing this cultural milieu, one where violence became normalized and impunity reigned.
