Dating Pangulong Duterte, inambahan si De Lima | GMA Integrated News

Summary

This transcript features a heated political inquiry focused on the accountability of a former president and mayor regarding a death squad linked to the war on drugs. Key themes include the distinction between legal and illegal actions, personal responsibility, and the notion of conspiracy. The former official repeatedly claims full responsibility, but questions arise about whether this absolves others involved in illegal killings. The discussion also addresses the denial of knowledge about key figures like Laila de Lima, with accusations of dishonesty and political tension running throughout the debate.

Takeaways

• 😀 The questioning focuses on identifying individuals involved in the drug war and distinguishing between those operating within legal bounds and those outside it.
• 😀 The former president and mayor repeatedly claim full responsibility for actions during the drug war, but the question arises whether this absolves others involved in illegal activities.
• 😀 There is an ongoing debate about whether the orders given by the former president and mayor could absolve those who followed them from responsibility for criminal acts.
• 😀 Congressman Gutierrez questions the former president about the identities of individuals linked to a death squad, including Edgar Matobato, who named seven others involved.
• 😀 The concept of 'personal guilt' is discussed, with the focus on those directly committing killings, while the principle of conspiracy is raised, suggesting that those who ordered killings should also bear responsibility.
• 😀 The principle of conspiracy is emphasized, with the argument that all participants in illegal acts share equal responsibility for the crime.
• 😀 The former president's repeated insistence that he is solely responsible for the killings leads to concerns that this may be an attempt to avoid accountability for others involved.
• 😀 Former Senator de Lima makes the case that the former president’s claim of not knowing her is false, citing numerous public interactions and events where the former president was aware of her.
• 😀 De Lima also highlights the former president's public attacks and threats against her, underscoring the personal conflict between them and challenging the claim of unfamiliarity.
• 😀 The debate ends with the former president denying knowing de Lima, despite the ample evidence of past interactions, prompting further skepticism about his honesty.

Q & A

What is the main issue discussed in the hearing?

The main issue discussed is the responsibility and accountability of individuals involved in extrajudicial killings during the war on drugs, and whether the former president's claims of taking full responsibility for these actions absolve others involved in the killings.

What is the former president's stance regarding his responsibility for the killings?

The former president asserts that he takes full responsibility for the actions during his administration, specifically in relation to the war on drugs. He claims that anyone who believes his actions were illegal can file a case against him.

Why is there skepticism about the former president's claim of taking full responsibility?

Skepticism arises because the claim of full responsibility is seen as an attempt to absolve others who might have directly participated in the killings. Critics argue that taking responsibility does not clear the individuals who followed the orders and carried out the killings.

What role does conspiracy play in the questioning?

Conspiracy is a central theme in the questioning. The argument is made that the former president may be considered a principal by inducement because he ordered and solicited the killings. This makes him a key figure in the conspiracy, even if he did not personally commit the murders.

What is the significance of the 'Lambada Boys' mentioned in the transcript?

The 'Lambada Boys' are mentioned as a civilian component of a death squad linked to extrajudicial killings. The mention of their names raises the possibility that some of these individuals may have been part of the group the former president is being asked to acknowledge in relation to the death squads.

How does the issue of personal guilt relate to the former president's defense?

The former president emphasizes that personal guilt lies with those who physically carried out the killings, such as the hitmen or assassins. However, critics argue that the concept of conspiracy means that those who ordered the killings are also culpable, even if they did not personally commit the acts.

What is the disagreement regarding the recognition of former CHR chairperson Leila de Lima?

The disagreement centers on the former president’s claim that he does not recognize or know Leila de Lima, despite evidence suggesting they have had prior interactions, including public statements and encounters. Critics argue that his denial is a lie aimed at avoiding accountability.

What is the argument regarding the principle of conspiracy in relation to the former president?

The argument suggests that the former president is a principal by inducement in the conspiracy, as he ordered the killings. Under the principle of conspiracy, the actions of one individual in a conspiracy are attributed to all involved, meaning the president's orders implicate him in the overall illegal actions.

What is the significance of the term 'kill orders' in this context?

The term 'kill orders' refers to the alleged orders given by the former president to carry out extrajudicial killings. These orders are central to the inquiry, as they are being questioned in terms of legality and the level of responsibility of the former president for the deaths that resulted from them.

How does the questioning impact the former president's credibility?

The questioning challenges the former president’s credibility, particularly regarding his denial of knowing Leila de Lima and his repeated assertions of taking responsibility. The consistent criticism suggests that his statements are viewed as attempts to evade accountability and discredit those who oppose him.