Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio said police and military operatives clearly understood that the term “neutralize” in anti-drug operations during the Duterte administration meant to kill suspects.
In an interview as the International Criminal Court (ICC) confirmation of charges hearings against former president Rodrigo Duterte neared conclusion, Retired Senior Associate Justice Carpio said the prosecution’s focus on the term was well-founded.
Context of the Word ‘Neutralize’
Retired Senior Associate Justice Carpio explained that “neutralize” is a long-standing operational term in military and police usage.
“Neutralize… the understanding is kill,” he said.
He stressed that the meaning must be read together with then-President Duterte’s repeated public statements urging police to “kill, kill, kill.”
According to him, while official documents used the word “neutralize,” the reality on the ground showed suspects were being killed during operations.
Defense Argument Disputed
The defense has argued that “neutralization” should be interpreted as lawful self-defense during police operations.
Retired Senior Associate Justice Carpio disagreed, noting Duterte’s numerous public assurances to officers that he would pardon them if they were convicted in connection with drug war killings.
He also cited Duterte’s public remarks praising large numbers of deaths in certain operations, which he said indicate intentional repetition rather than isolated acts of self-defense.
Pattern Reflected in Official Data
Retired Senior Associate Justice Carpio pointed to the Philippine National Police’s own annual report, which recorded about 20,000 deaths as early as 2017.
He said the widespread understanding among journalists, observers, and the public at the time was that suspects were routinely being killed during operations.
On Insider Witnesses
Addressing defense claims that insider witnesses are unreliable because of their own criminal involvement, Retired Senior Associate Justice Carpio explained that such testimony is common in prosecuting organized crimes.
He said masterminds rarely leave a “smoking gun,” making insider witnesses necessary.
The usual approach, he explained, is to turn one of the perpetrators into a state witness to expose the chain of command.
He noted that several insiders are expected to testify regarding the alleged state policy.
Statements Under Oath Carry Weight
Retired Senior Associate Justice Carpio also rejected the claim that Duterte’s past remarks were mere jokes or hyperbole.
He emphasized that some admissions were made under oath during Senate and House hearings, making it difficult to dismiss them as casual rhetoric.
“These are under oath… you cannot say that is a joke,” he said.
Not Random Killings
Responding to defense claims that the killings were not systematic, Retired Senior Associate Justice Carpio said the existence of:
- Oplan Tokhang guidelines
- reward systems
- barangay drug watch lists
all point to an organized campaign rather than random incidents.
On Media Coverage
He also pushed back against suggestions that Philippine media distorted the narrative, noting that many statements were directly recorded on camera and publicly documented.
“When he says, ‘I ordered the killing,’ what else can you report?” he said.
Accountability Question Raised
Retired Senior Associate Justice Carpio said the ICC case places the Philippines’ justice system under scrutiny, noting that years after Duterte left office, no preliminary investigation has been completed domestically.
“What does that say about us?” he asked.
He said the ICC process became necessary precisely because of the absence of local prosecutions despite thousands of reported deaths.