The strongman finally meets a stronger institution

The strongman finally meets a stronger institution Featured

Lito Monico C. Lorenzana
LML Polettiques
14 October 2026
Comments:DISQUS_COMMENTS
First of a four-part series

TODAY the Deegong sits in detention at The Hague, confronting an institution he neither appoints, finances nor frightens. The ICC has confirmed the charges arising from killings allegedly committed during his drug wars. It has now ruled him mentally and physically fit to stand trial starting Nov. 30.

For the first time, Duterte faces a court where profanity is not policy, popularity is not evidence and threats settle nothing. At 81, time is scarce. Tatay Deegong may never come home!

The man and the myth

Duterte understood the Filipino mood. People were weary of crime, corruption, drugs, and leaders who spoke magnificently while achieving remarkably little. He promised decisive action. Where others commissioned studies, he promised bodies. Government looked helpless, justice moved slowly and criminals seemed shielded by lawyers and connections. His impatient remedy was simple: Eliminate the problem, debate legality later. He was a leader who burst into the scene possessing no moral scruples.

He styled himself as a probinsyano outsider, unsullied by Manila manners. His curses, threats and killing jokes separated him from polished politicians who had disappointed the country. Even his misogyny somehow sailed past many feminists.

The performance worked, especially among his Davao constituents. Biliba gyud oi!

Filipinos elected more than a president. They chose an avenging Tatay and granted him extraordinary freedom to punish anyone he declared an enemy. The trouble with national fathers is that citizens become obedient children, mistaking submission for loyalty.

The imperial president

Years ago, during an interview he granted me in Malacañang, I described Duterte as an imperial president — not because the Constitution crowned him emperor, but because our institutions behaved as though it had.

Duterte did not invent the imperial presidency. Our unitary-presidential system built it — concentrating power in one man while expecting dependent institutions to restrain him. Thus, our celebrated checks and balances: everyone checks where power lies. Duterte simply mastered the machinery. (I gave him copies of my Harvard professor Graham Allison’s Destined for War and Schlessinger’s The Imperial Presidency.)

Congress surrendered its independence. Parties became employment agencies, Cabinet officials paid obeisance. Presidential threats encouraged violent shortcuts. Human rights were mocked and critics intimidated.

The war that refused to end

He promised to eliminate drugs within months. Subsequently, he admitted the problem exceeded his campaign bravado. By then, thousands were dead.

Official and human-rights estimates differed enormously. But behind every number was a person killed and a family asking whether the victim had been investigated and convicted — or merely identified, pursued and silenced.

Duterte’s defenders insist the campaign protected citizens from criminals and that police confronted armed suspects in self-defense. They accuse the ICC of violating Philippine sovereignty. Those arguments must be heard. Due process belongs equally to victims and Duterte.

Duterte must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The ICC must prove not only that killings occurred, but that he was personally responsible. This high standard protects justice from becoming another drug war — label the accused evil, then ignore due process.

Another trial, another shadow

While Tatay Deegong prepares at The Hague, daughter Sara’s impeachment trial has pulled him into another controversy. Evidence presented to the Senate impeachment court identified joint accounts belonging to Sara and Rodrigo Duterte. Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records described roughly P193 million in transactions in one day; one particular joint account recorded two transactions totaling P18.9 million.

These figures are being tested in Sara’s trial. They do not prove that either Duterte stole or laundered money. A joint account is not a conviction. Money can travel through a bank without acquiring handcuffs.

But the evidence raises questions that indignation cannot answer. Where did the money come from? Why was it moved? Was it declared? Did it correspond with legitimate income and assets?

Sara must be allowed to challenge the records; Rodrigo deserves the same presumption of innocence. But the man who demanded dismissals upon a mere “whiff of corruption” can hardly complain when the public smells a stronger aroma.

The cases are legally separate. Politically, however, they raise the same question: how Duterte gained power, used it and avoided scrutiny while in office.

We will return to the financial evidence later in our series. For now, the Hague is no longer the only courtroom casting a shadow over the Deegong.

The newer evidence matters because Duterte presented himself as the incorruptible scourge of thieves. He publicly humiliated officials, dismissed some upon suspicion and repeatedly promised that even a “whiff of corruption” was enough. Yet Pharmally, the POGOs, Michael Yang and other controversies already weakened that immaculate image. The joint accounts now raise a more personal question. Did the president who claimed to smell corruption everywhere somehow lose his celebrated sense of smell when the financial trail approached his own family? Again, questions are not proof — but neither are they persecution.

Justice or political revenge

Duterte’s supporters see persecution and revenge by enemies unable to defeat his popularity. They are not entirely irrational. The Marcos-Duterte alliance collapsed into dynastic warfare. Former friends became prosecutors. The government that once resisted ICC cooperation delivered Duterte to The Hague.

Politics is present. It is practically dancing on the courtroom steps. But political motive does not automatically erase legal responsibility. A thief exposed by another thief does not become innocent because his accuser also requires investigation.

Marcos obviously benefited from the Deegong’s removal. The question is whether admissible evidence proves the charges. Every president must face the same standard. Otherwise, accountability becomes the weapon of whichever dynasty controls Malacañang.

The limits of popularity

Tatay remains loved by millions. Supporters remember infrastructure, decisive leadership and contempt for Manila elites. To many Mindanaoans, his prosecution feels like another distant judgment against a leader who gave the South national importance. That sentiment cannot simply be mocked.

But popularity is not acquittal. Elections choose who governs; they legalize nothing afterward. If 60 percent approve a killing, the victim does not become 40 percent less dead. Democracy without the rule of law is merely majority appetite armed with the power of the State.

The real defendant

Duterte is accused, but our political system is also on trial. It produced a president powerful enough to terrify domestic institutions, leaving accountability to a foreign court. His daughter’s impeachment is revealing financial questions during his presidency. We should neither defend Duterte completely nor condemn him before the evidence is heard.

Let prosecutors prove their case, Duterte contest it, and judges decide without orders from Manila, Washington, Beijing, or Davao.

The verdict will determine Duterte’s legal responsibility. It will not repair the institutions that failed before The Hague intervened. That work remains ours.

The strongman has finally met an institution he cannot command. The question is whether the Philippines will learn to build institutions just as strong before we elect another one.

Next week, we return to our geopolitical series, “When the referee retreats — the vacuum never remains empty,” examining the repercussions for smaller nations like ours. Then, back to the Dutertes: the father confronting international justice; the daughter facing impeachment and preparing for the presidency.

To be continued



000
Read 14 times Last modified on Thursday, 15 October 2026 02:30
Rate this item
(0 votes)
More in this category: « Who guards the sea lanes now — the arteries of civilization?
back to top

Main Menu