Former President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s win in the mayoral race last May 12, 2025 prompted his lead counsel Nicolas Kaufman to say: “The people of Davao have spoken. They want their mayor back. They want their leader back.”
But Kristina Conti, assistant counsel at the International Criminal Court, said: “Elections do not erase or forgive the commission of crimes against humanity in the Philippines by Duterte and his co-conspirators. The people of Davao City cannot speak on behalf of all the victims of the ‘war on drugs’ and other atrocities committed nationwide.”
The distinction between Kaufman and Conti’s comments may be obvious to some but may be not to everybody. This may require some evaluation of the contents of each argument.
In Kaufman, it appears that the people, who have spoken in and through the election, serve as basis for Duterte to be returned to the Philippines. It presupposes that the people’s suffragic could cancel out the charges filed against Duterte.
Kaufman’s argument rather appears to give the impression of despondency. In spite of his being known as a high caliber international lawyer, he has resorted to such kind of argument.
Anybody still enjoying sound judgment would be able to see the legal irrelevance of Kaufman’s argument. It has nothing to do with the charges filed against Duterte. Yet, he appears to convey the idea that the people’s voice would morph the essence of the alleged charges from crime to non-crime.
Is such a high caliber international lawyer so desperate that he even entertains and poses such a legally irrelevant argument? It gives a hint as to how he has perceived the bulk of the prosecution’s argument.
In Conti, it also appears that winning in an election has nothing to do with the alleged crimes charged against Duterte. There is no essential connection between the election and the alleged crime committed.
The first part of Conti’s argument shows logical strength. Though Conti seems to be less known internationally than Kaufman in terms of international cases being handled, she has gotten the inherently sound argument concerning this matter.
Anybody still enjoying sound reason would be able to determine the soundness of the first part of her argument. The voice of the people expressed in an election cannot indeed wipe out the alleged crime (whatever it may be) and thus cannot be used as defense or plea.
However, when she says that the “people … cannot speak on behalf of the victims of the ‘war and drugs,’” she seems to convey the idea that the people could possibly take the side of the victims.
Although not metaphysically impossible, it is highly improbable for the people to take the side of the victims. It is because of the principle of contradiction in metaphysics that states: “A thing cannot be and not-be at the same time under the same respect.”
It means that the same people cannot take the side of Duterte and the side of the victims at the same time under the same respect. It is either Duterte or the victims, but not both at the same time under the same respect.
At any rate, however, Conti’s argument is logically superior, while Kaufman’s argument is irrelevant due to being a non sequitur.
