Law experts weigh in on Duterte camp's 'neutralize' doesn't mean kill argument

International law experts weighed in Friday on the statement of lawyer Nicholas Kaufman that “neutralization” during police operations means to arrest, not to kill.

Kaufman presented the argument during the confirmation of charges hearing of former President Rodrigo Duterte before the International Criminal Court.

“There is no need for anyone to testify that he was directly ordered by Duterte to kill anyone. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. If neutralize did not mean 'kill,' did law enforcers who killed under the 'nanlaban' (resisting arrest) or other gambit do so under a common misunderstanding of a presidential directive?” Rev. Fr. Ranhilio Aquino, dean of the San Beda Graduate School of Law, said in a social media post.

“And if misunderstanding it was, why did Duterte not clarify that he did not mean 'kill' when he saw the body count climb? He was, to the contrary, perversely gleeful. But he did not only use 'neutralize.' He directly used 'kill.' 'I will kill you.' 'I have killed many.' Was he using metaphorical language or hyperbole? But the bodies and body bags are not hyperbole. They are an actual macabre count,” he added.

Aquino then said that such utterances by the former leader clearly falls under widespread or systematic attack on civilian population which constitute crimes against humanity.

“Amounts are not paid, rewards are not given unless 'kill' has the meaning that the dictionary gives it. Unlike prosecution for murder, all that prosecution for a crime against humanity requires is that a state or organizational's leader by his utterances, conduct or refusal to act established a policy of extermination and murder,” he said.

“The prosecution and the victims' counsel have made a clear point and Kaufman cannot undo that,” Aquino added.

Michael Tiu Jr., head of the UP Law Center International Criminal Law Program, on the other hand, said it is highly unlikely that the police who killed drug suspects had doubts on what Duterte wants them to do.

“I think it's really difficult to find a smoking gun in this case. On the point of the circular, I think it could be a smoking gun for those who issued the memorandum, the circular…ang naglabas nito. Ang question diyan eh paano mo siya mali-link doon sa dating Pangulong Duterte? I think it is possible to link it kasi may chain sila, may hierarchy sila,” Tiu said in an interview with Unang Hirit's On Record.

(The smoking gun is on the shoulders of those who issued the circular. The question is, how can you link that to President Duterte, and I think it is possible to link him to the circular because they have a hierarchy.)

“So [the] things that the PNP leadership, for example, will not be against the wishes or the orders of the President because he is their leader. So I doubt na merong, even within that leadership, parang rogue elements,” he added.

(I doubt there are rogue elements who would have defied the President.)

Tiu, however, said it was an expected move for Kaufman to subject the word neutralization to many interpretations to break the connection between Duterte and the killings of drug suspects done in police operations.

“If the word neutralize is open to interpretation…that was the texture of his argument, that the then President did not mean kill when he says the word neutralize. Kung paano 'yan naiintindihan or nape-perceive ng mga people on the ground, sila na ‘yun. Bahala na sila. Hindi nakargo ng dating Pangulo yun,” Tiu added.

(He was saying that how the police perceived or understood the word on the ground is on the police, it is their call, not of the President’s.)

Tiu, however, said Kaufman using vigilante killings that happened beyond Duterte’s term to dispute that killing was a policy of the Duterte administration was a flawed reasoning.

“Kung meron pa ring nangyayari na pagpatay after [his term], then that's another case. That's another accountability issue. But that doesn't absolve the former president of the things that happened during the time of his administration and whether there was a plan there,” he said.

(Vigilante killings post-Duterte, then that’s another case.)

“Kaya nagiging important 'yung insider witnesses because sila yung nakakapagpaliwanag noong word na neutralize and how it is used in the hierarchy. Kasi totoo naman nga na wala nga naman talagang…if you're smart, hindi mo talaga sasabihin yung order ng pagpatay. But ang pinresenta na counts [of murder constituting crimes against humanity ng prosecution] is a model already during the mayoral period of Duterte. And this is what it meant when he brought it to the national landscape,” Tiu added.

(That is why it is important to have insider witnesses because they are the ones who can explain how the word neutralize was used in the hierarchy. Because of course, if you are smart, you won’t utter the order to kill.) —AOL, GMA Integrated News