Among other merits, the prosecution’s case theory against former president Rodrigo Duterte lies on the word “neutralization” which means “kill” or “killing” under Duterte’s war on drugs.

This is because the police memorandum that launched the drug war — Command Memorandum Circular (CMC) No. 16-2016 signed by then-Philippine National Polioce chief Ronald dela Rosa — contained the said term.

While the prosecution dedicated a considerable time during the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) pre-trial hearings to explain why the word “neutralization” in the CMC led to thousands of killings, Duterte’s lawyer Nicholas Kaufman tried to downplay the word by using it as an insult against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

“So it is indeed the defense’s case that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. set out to neutralize Rodrigo Duterte and his legacy,” Kaufman told the prosecution on Monday, February 23. “Yes, Mr. Deputy Prosecutor, I used that legendary word, neutralize, so central and so essential to your case theory, because you know just as well as me that I’m using the term metaphorically.”

But it did not stop there — Kaufman, as expected, brought up the term again during his presentation on the merits on Thursday, February 25. This time, Duterte’s defense lawyer used the Supreme Court’s (SC) inaction on the petition challenging the constitutionality of the memoranda that launched the drug war.

“The Supreme Court of the Philippines, however, to date has declined to issue any ruling declaring he campaign unconstitutional, has declined to invalidate circulars, and has declined to rule to date that neutralize or neutralization means to kill,” the lawyer said on Thursday.

Kaufman’s claim is not however entirely accurate: the SC did not decline to issue a ruling but has yet to issue its decision. Nevertheless, even without the SC definition, a number of local sources can already be put together to understand the common meaning of “neutralization.”

From the Supreme Court petition

In the drug war’s early years, human rights lawyers from the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) filed a petition with the SC to challenge the drug war-related circulars issued by the Duterte administration. The human rights lawyers challenged the legality of these orders:

• Command Memorandum Circular No. 16-2016 – launched the war on drugs
• Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 2017-112 by the Department of the Interior and Local Government – later on called Masa Masid, which became an avenue for residents to report suspected drug personalities

Dela Rosa’s CMC includes “general guidelines, procedures, and tasks of police offices/units/stations” in the drug war, adding that the campaign is “in support to the Barangay Drug Clearing Strategy of the government and the neutralization of illegal drug personalities nationwide.” 

The petition has been pending since 2017, or nearly nine years since it was filed. However, the arguments raised — as well as tidbits of information — raised by legal experts in the proceedings of the said case already provide a picture of what neutralization means.

For example, former FLAG chairperson and now Akbayan Representative Chel Diokno said in 2017 that Dela Rosa’s CMC No. 16 should be declared unconstitutional because “neutralizing” is a non-legal term. Diokno added that the circular empowered the police to “neutralize” suspected drug personalities, instead of their actual functions like to gather evidence and build a case.

“It is not defined in the PNP Manual of Operations or in any official PNP document. But in official PNP reports and police parlance — as admitted by Dela Rosa — ‘neutralize’ means to kill,” FLAG’s petition said.

FLAG also highlighted the circular’s page 5 which says, “Any person suspected to be involved in illegal drug trafficking who dies or refuses the house to house visitation shall be referred to the anti-illegal drug units for immediate case build-up and negation.”

According to the lawyers’ group, this wording showed that it is “clear and unmistakable” that the war on drugs was never meant to reform drug suspects.

During the oral arguments for the SC case, then-senior associate justice Antonio Carpio said what “neutralize” could mean based on available information. (READ: Kill or arrest? SC’s Carpio pins down what PNP means by ‘neutralize’)

“The PNP Director General Dela Rosa was quoted in a Davao paper, Davao Today, and he said, their target was for all drug personalities in the area to be, and I quote, ‘neutralized, meaning they should surrender, be arrested, or be killed during drug operations’,” the magistrate said then.

What other sources say

ICC witness and self-confessed former Davao Death Squad member Arturo Lascañas said in his affidavit that neutralize — often used by Duterte in orders — means to kill in any manner.

Lascañas mentioned the word “neutralize” or “neutralization” at least 37 times in his affidavit seen by Rappler.

The House of Representatives launched its quad committee in 2024 with the goal of probing Duterte’s war on drugs, extrajudicial killings, and Philippine offshore gaming operators. Apart from testimonies that clearly established the drug war’s system and affidavits that directly linked Duterte to these alleged killings, the hearings also clarified what neutralization means. 

In his bombshell testimony, former drug war poster boy and retired police lieutenant colonel Jovie Espenido said he was assigned to head the Ozamiz police to “dismantle the Parojinog drug operations by all means necessary” which “in police language…included neutralization or elimination of the target.”

In 2017, then-Ozamiz mayor Reynaldo Parojinog, his wife Susan, his brother Octavio Parojinog Jr., and their sister Mona were killed with 11 others in a police raid.

“What I said, your honor, it is very common for the officers and it only has one meaning. By all means, it’s up to the discretion of operatives or front liners or the ones who implement search or arrest warrants,” Espenido said. 

When then asked if these meanings include killing, Espenido replied, “It’s included there, your honor.”

“There was a discussion [in the quad committee hearings] when some police officers thought that the neutralization order, as indicated in a memorandum issued by the chief PNP then, means neutralization as in killing,” House quad committee chairperson Ace Barbers told Rappler.

In a 2024 Senate hearing, Diokno mentioned a statement from former PNP chief and spokesperson Dionardo Carlos in 2016 which stated that the meaning of the word “neutralized” is “killed.” Diokno also shared a report from Santa Ana, Manila Police that used “neutralization” to define the killings as results of alleged suspects’ resistance. 

“Elements of Sta. Ana Police Station (PS-6)… [are] incessantly conducting case buildup against the said personality, and if evidence warrants, a possible police operation and intervention would step up for his immediate apprehension and neutralization,” the document said, as quoted by DZRH News.

Former Commission on Human Rights commissioner Karen Gomez-Dumpit told Rappler that the 2013 edition of the Philippine National Police manual of operations — which covers the period of Duterte’s alleged crimes (2013 to 2016 as mayor; 2016 to 2017 as president) — mentions the word at least five times. 

For example, in the part detailing the process to deal with snipers, the manual states: “To avoid escape and provide fire power support to neutralize armed and hostile suspects during firefight.”

“‘Neutralize’ appears on the text in tandem with apprehension, prevent escape, capture,” Gomez-Dumpit explained. “To apprehend, capture, prevent the escape of a suspect may be considered as forms of neutralization but its meaning also includes to kill.”

Play Video

Neutralization really means ‘to kill’

The team of trial lawyers prosecuting Duterte at the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I is convinced that they have enough merits to meet the required level of evidence to confirm the charges and proceed to trial.

The prosecution’s Edward Jeremy said on Tuesday, February 24, that neutralization simply means to kill, then went on to list instances where alleged drug suspects were “neutralized” like the one-time, big-time drug operation in Bulacan in 2017, where 32 people were killed.

The prosecution also reiterated through another trial lawyer, Robynn Croft, that the attacks against suspected drug suspects were carried out pursuant to Duterte’s state policy to “neutralize” the individuals.

Despite Kaufman’s effort to question the definition of neutralization, National Union of Peoples Lawyers (NUPL) president Ephraim Cortez said that the prosecution was successful in showing what the word means, based on their submissions.

Play Video

Cortez explained that when looking at the evidence, people should not look at at these facts in isolation of other evidence. In Duterte’s case, the NUPL president said that the meaning of the word neutralization is very much clear when you look at Duterte’s speeches, the PNP memorandum, and the matrix of people killed.

International law expert and ICC assistant to counsel Ross Tugade explained to Rappler that “neutralization” can be explained by looking at the drug war’s common plan and intent.

On the common plan, the word can be defined by looking at the death certificates, for example, because these documents will match the dates of the “neutralization,” according to Tugade.

“That could already tell you that within the common plan, how did the co-perpetrators interpret the word neutralized?” Tugade added.

On the intent, Tugade said people can look at the intent when the word neutralized was said, then look at the chain of events that happened since the word neutralization was mentioned. As highlighted by the prosecution, people were killed after Duterte and Dela Rosa launched the PNP memorandum that contained this word in contention.

“So neutralization here, when you tie all the pieces together, pull all the strands together, can figure into the common plan and figure into the actual intent when they were using the word in the context of the police operations and what it resulted in,” the international law expert said. – Rappler.com