It was unmistakably a double-whammy Wednesday for the Dutertes.

Just as the House justice committee found itself circling what we had long suspected — that the blood-soaked “war on drugs” waged by Rodrigo Duterte against the small man bore all the hallmarks of a grand diversion, a brutal smokescreen behind which the monopolization and centralization of narco-politics could proceed from 2016 to mid-2022 — the family was suffering an equally, if not more consequential, reverse on a sterner stage.

In The Hague, where rhetoric is not mistaken for reason and volume does not substitute for proof, the appellate chamber of the International Criminal Court delivered the coup de grâce to the Duterte camp’s lingering fantasy that jurisdiction might somehow be undone by wishful thinking or sheer obstinacy. The matter is now settled: the international court has jurisdiction.

No amount of tantrums, no choreographed indignation from the faithful, no digital chorus of the perpetually aggrieved will alter that fact. One may rage, one may posture, one may even resort to the familiar child-like defiance — bahala pa’g mag-umpak-umpak mo — but none of it rises to the dignity of an argument, much less a legal one.

And so the spectacle gives way, at last, to the far less forgiving discipline of law. The old man is left with a single, unpalatable task: to persuade the judges before the month is over that the evidence against him is insufficient to warrant a full trial. It is, in essence, an invitation to abandon the habits of a political strongman and adopt, however belatedly, the posture of a defendant.

But herein lies the difficulty. The courtroom in The Hague is not a rally stage in Davao. It does not reward bluster, nor does it indulge theatrics. Cavalier bravado, coarse wit, cultivated menace — these are currencies with no exchange rate there. What is required instead is rigor, coherence, and respect for a process that cannot be bullied into submission.

In short, this is a stage for evidence, not nonsensical showmanship. That is a far tougher test than anything the Dutertes have faced before.

This is what accountability looks like, something Rodrigo Duterte and his family have been fighting tooth and nail to avoid for years.

There are questions about how they behave and respond — or none at all — to calls for accountability. For one, thuggery appears to be a trait they share. Another is their apparent penchant for evading direct answers to tough questions — beating around the bush, resorting to absurdities, and ultimately saying little of substance.

Take the case of his daughter, Sara, who — faced with serious corruption allegations raised by her alleged former bagman Ramil Madriaga — chose not to respond with a direct rebuttal of the substance of the claims, but instead issued a full statement addressing Madriaga’s account of a supposed conversation with a lawyer who allegedly said she struggled in law school and required intervention to finish her studies.

In essence, Madriaga was saying: “Corrupt ka!”

Vice President Sara’s response, in effect was, “Hindi ako bobo!”

How far removed was that from the point at issue?

If the “bobo” narrative was truly baseless, the most straightforward way to dismantle it would have been to appear before House committee hearings and demonstrate competence under scrutiny. Instead, she chose to stay away — missing an opportunity to address the allegations head-on. That absence was compounded by what many viewed as a poor showing in her previous appearances before legislators during scrutiny of her proposed budget.

Now, with her impeachment looming, Sara has chosen not to appear before the House. Had she done so, she could have addressed allegations that at least P6.7 billion flowed through accounts linked to her and her husband over the years — funds not reflected in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs). Her declared net worth peaked at P88 million in 2024, roughly 1% of P6.7 billion.

The Anti-Money Laundering Council reports that from 2019 to 2024 alone, P230.87 million moved through accounts linked to Ms. Duterte — money that likewise does not appear in her declared statements of assets.

Before the House justice committee, the AMLC said banks submitted 630 covered transaction reports and 33 suspicious transaction reports involving accounts tied to her and her husband between 2006 and 2025.

Strip away the jargon, and the picture is simple: a long paper trail of substantial financial movements on one side, and an official disclosure record that does not fully account for them on the other.

On its face, that alone is enough to bring her before the impeachment court.

But the story grows more complex still with former senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who before the House committee cited documents backing his allegations that Sara — and other members of the Duterte family — received separately on several occasions at least P181.6 million via cashier’s and personal checks from 2011 to 2013 alone. The funds, he claimed, came from an alleged drug lord, Samuel “Sammy” Uy.

The name is common, and there are many individuals named Samuel Uy. Trillanes, however, was referring to a Davao-based figure he linked to former presidential economic adviser Michael Yang (Hong Ming Yang), associated with controversies involving Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corporation and Philippine offshore gaming operators (POGOs), and among the reported campaign donors of Duterte’s 2016 presidential run.

During the Duterte administration, Uy sought to expand his political clout from Davao to Cagayan de Oro, where he supported the unsuccessful bid of his brother-in-law Yam Lam “Alam” Lim to unseat the city’s 2nd District representative, Rufus Rodriguez. It was also the same period when Yang’s brother, Yang Jian Xin a.k.a. Tony Yang/Antonio Maestrado Lim, was expanding their shady network in Cagayan de Oro and western Misamis Oriental through a state-owned industrial estate.

Uy’s brother-in-law is now a Cagayan de Oro city councilor, alongside the Davao group-backed Girlie Balaba, who has no qualms about declaring her unconditional love and devotion to the Duterte patriarch.

At the hearing, Trillanes repeatedly referred to Uy as a “drug lord.” The ex-senator isn’t alone in making that allegation. Former Davao Death Squad insider Arturo Lascañas, now a witness in the Duterte ICC case, also alleged that years ago — that Sammy Uy and Michael Yang and the elder Duterte were partners in the illicit drug trade.

What lends weight to Trillanes’ documents is that the AMLC itself corroborated some of the financial transactions listed, which were among those randomly selected during the House committee hearing.

Seen at face value, it suggests that when the elder Duterte was mouthing phrases like “I hate drugs” and warning against what he called the creeping narco-politics in the country, he may well have been referring, however inadvertently, to himself and his own family.

Pandora’s box has now been opened, and Sara and her political family’s downward spiral continues, consistent with what I noted in a previous column. There is little to suggest she will rebound from this or that her ratings trajectory will turn upward. That would be unthinkable. Pastilan. – Rappler.com