Falsehood as Lawfare: The Dangerous Weaponization of Rumors Against Duterte’s Sovereign Anti-Drug Crusade

 By Atty. Arnedo S. Valera

I. INTRODUCTION: A TRIAL BY TSISMIS

The recent public remarks by Atty. Kristina Conti—suggesting that former President Rodrigo Duterte and his family amassed untold billions from drug lords—represent a serious breach not only of ethical standards in legal advocacy but also of truth and sovereignty. These are grave, defamatory allegations unsupported by admissible evidence and tantamount to reckless endangerment of public discourse.

In a rule-of-law society, accusations of criminality must be proven in court, not speculated on in media soundbites. When a self-proclaimed “human rights lawyer” peddles unverified tsismis (gossip) as fact, and when such gossip is used to justify international prosecution, it is not justice—it is lawfare: the political weaponization of law to destroy reputations, undermine sovereignty, and manipulate public perception.

---

II. THE LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK OF THE WAR ON DRUGS

A. A Legitimate National Policy

The anti-drug campaign launched under President Duterte was a domestically enacted sovereign policy grounded in Philippine law, primarily:

• Republic Act No. 9165 – Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

• Executive Order No. 15, s. 2017 – Creating the Inter-Agency Committee on Anti-Illegal Drugs (ICAD)

• Mandates under the 1987 Constitution to protect the youth and promote public health and safety

The campaign targeted organized criminal syndicates, not the civilian population. The claim that it amounts to “crimes against humanity” requires evidence that the State deliberately orchestrated attacks against civilians as such. The ICC Rome Statute (Article 7) requires “widespread or systematic attacks against civilian population.” That threshold has not been met, as Philippine law enforcement operations were:

• Backed by law

• Subject to domestic oversight (COA, CHR, Ombudsman, DOJ)

• Accompanied by court-issued warrants and arrests

• Conducted under a functioning judiciary

III. PHILIPPINE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE ICC: SOVEREIGNTY ASSERTED

A. The Philippines Legally Withdrew in 2018

Under Article 127 of the Rome Statute, a State may withdraw from the ICC by submitting written notification. The Philippines did so in March 2018, effective March 2019, and the Supreme Court in Pimentel v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 240954, March 16, 2021) recognized the executive power to withdraw from treaties.

B. ICC Jurisdiction is Now Null and Void

• Complementarity Principle: ICC jurisdiction is only residual and arises only when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute.

• In Duterte v. ICC, the functional and independent Philippine judiciary has been continuously adjudicating human rights and criminal cases.

• No special circumstance exists that warrants bypassing Philippine sovereignty.

Thus, any ongoing ICC investigation is legally questionable and an affront to Philippine statehood and democratic integrity.

IV. SELECTIVE JUSTICE AND INTERNATIONAL HYPOCRISY

It is an open secret that major powers like the United States, China, Russia, India, and Israel have not submitted to ICC jurisdiction, citing politicization, lack of accountability, and violation of sovereignty. Even France and the UK have resisted ICC scrutiny over military actions in Iraq and Libya.

Why then is the Philippines—an Asian developing state with a working legal system—being singled out?

• No ICC case has been filed against the U.S. War on Drugs, which has caused mass incarceration and militarized police violence.

• No ICC indictment has been brought against Mexico, Colombia, or Honduras, despite vastly more lethal and corrupt drug wars.

This reflects a racialized and geopolitically motivated application of international justice, which violates UN Charter principles of non-interference (Art. 2, para. 7) and customary international law respecting domestic jurisdiction.

V. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FALSEHOOD AND LAWFARE

A. Criminal and Civil Liability

Publicly accusing a former president of collusion with drug lords without evidence may constitute:

• Libel and Slander under the Revised Penal Code (Articles 353–355)

• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for members of the Bar (Rule 1.01: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.”)

• Possible obstruction of justice if it interferes with ongoing lawful proceedings

Moreover, damages may be pursued under Article 19-21 of the Civil Code for abuse of rights and wrongful acts causing injury to one’s honor.

VI.  RESTORING THE PRIMACY OF TRUTH AND SOVEREIGNTY

The Philippines is not a failed state. It has a Constitution, a Supreme Court, and a functioning legal system. Attempts to depict Duterte’s war on drugs as a genocidal campaign supported by cartels is not only malicious fiction—it is a colonial-style indictment of the Filipino nation’s sovereign right to craft its own internal policies.

Let us reject this baseless “tsismis-as-evidence” trend and reaffirm the rule of law, not the rule of narrative.

The truth cannot be defeated by propaganda. And sovereignty must never be surrendered to prejudice. #

Atty. Arnedo S. Valera is the executive director of the Global Migrant Heritage Foundation and managing attorney at Valera & Associates, a US immigration and anti-discrimination law firm for over 32 years. He holds a master’s degree in International Affairs and International Law and Human Rights from Columbia University and was trained at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. He obtained his Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo de Manila University.  He is an AB-Philosophy Major at the University  of Santo Tomas ( UST). He is a professor at San Beda Graduate School of Law (LLM Program), teaching International Security and Alliances.