The long-awaited appearance of former president Rodrigo Duterte before a congressional probe frustrated not only his critics, but also the families of victims of his brutal drug war, which resulted in thousands of deaths. Senate Minority Leader Koko Pimentel, who led the blue ribbon sub-committee probe, disappointed many for allowing Duterte to use the chamber as a free platform for his rambling thoughts.

Pimentel was tapped by Senate President Chiz Escudero to lead the probe on October 28 due to the absence of Senate blue ribbon chair Pia Cayetano, who, according to Escudero, was “busy during the recess being a reelectionist.” (READ: Pia Cayetano is first woman to lead Senate blue ribbon committee in Senate’s 106-year history)

Cayetano is seeking a fresh term under the Marcos administration’s coalition slate, Alyansa para sa Bagong Pilipinas. In 2019, she was part of Duterte’s senatorial slate. Political analyst Joel Salgado said that had Cayetano attended the probe and acted the same way as Pimentel, “it would [have] cost her the Marcos votes.”

The October 28 hearing lasted nearly nine hours and featured lengthy statements from Duterte, who used inappropriate language and displayed a lack of respect for the Senate as an institution. He was supported by close allies, including Senators Bong Go, Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, and Robinhood Padilla, who seemed unconcerned about the seriousness of the investigation.

Critics noted that Go and Dela Rosa should have inhibited themselves from the hearing. (READ: Would you believe, drug war ‘architect’ Dela Rosa to launch own probe inviting Duterte?)

Under Senate rules, only the blue ribbon committee can hold hearings during recess without referrals from the plenary. The Senate was on recess from September 28 to November 3. A subcommittee was formed to investigate the drug war initiated by Duterte, following shocking revelations from the House’s quad committee.

Foul language

Speaking to ANC’s Headstart on Monday, November 4, Pimentel admitted that he allowed Duterte to ramble during the probe because he wanted to gather as much information as possible.

“So [I] let him testify freely according to his style and not unnecessarily interrupt him. So ‘yun siguro. Pero tapos, pansin natin, that’s not only the rambling but also the repetition. So pinayagan ko na rin ‘yun because nag-extend din naman kasi ako ng mga around two hours. So binigay ko na po sa kanya yung 2 hours na ‘yun,” Pimentel said. (Maybe that’s it. But then, I noticed that it’s not just the rambling, but also the repetition. I allowed that as well because I extended it for about two hours. So I gave him those two hours.)

Pimentel didn’t just allow Duterte to go on and on; he also allowed him to curse over 20 times. He admitted he became desensitized to the cursing, saying, “I only intended to allow one. So, I ended up letting 20 through.” According to him, quoting Escudero, Duterte cursed 21 times.

Why would he allow a resource person to curse that many times when the Senate has been stricter with other resource persons? According to Senate Rules section 94, “No Senator, under any circumstances, shall use offensive or improper language against another Senator or against any public institution.”

If any other resource persons had behaved in the manner that Duterte did, they would have been cited for contempt and detained in the Senate facility. However, Pimentel argued that he could not cite Duterte for contempt over his foul language because he was only chairing a subcommittee.

“I am not an ordinary committee, I’m just a subcommittee. Actually, the subcommittee has been deprived of the power to cite in contempt,” he said.

The Senate Minority Leader was citing Senate Rules section 20, which states: “The Chairman of a Committee may create subcommittees as may be deemed necessary for the purpose of performing any and all acts which the Committee as a whole is authorized to do and perform, except the power to punish for contempt under Section 18 hereof.”

While Pimentel’s committee could not cite the former president for contempt, he had the authority to maintain order during the Senate probe and ensure respect for the chamber. Political analyst and University of the Philippines professor Ela Atienza said that Pimentel failed to uphold order and decorum during the investigation.

This was echoed by Salgado, who said that Pimentel “failed or chose not to remind Duterte, sternly if needed, that the Senate does not tolerate vulgarity and abrasive behavior among resource persons.”

‘Hindi na kami close’

What happened? Did Pimentel treat the former president, who was once his party ally, with kid gloves?

Pimentel was a former supporter of Duterte and had assisted in his presidential campaign, as both were members of the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino (PDP). However, their relationship soured due to an internal party dispute that is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

“I’m no longer his supporter now. We have a pending case before the Supreme Court. So we have our political differences, we do not communicate. Hindi na kami close (We’re no longer close). And he has zero influence over me,” Pimentel said.

In addition to prohibiting the foul language, Atienza pointed out that Pimentel could have pressed Duterte with questions about his infamous campaign. At the beginning of the probe, Duterte made confusing statements about the existence of the so-called “Davao Death Squad,” but later on admitted to it. Dela Rosa, for his part, claimed that Duterte was only joking.

“He could have asked more clarificatory questions, stopped the president from talking beyond what is being asked, and warned him [against] using expletives and foul language,” Atienza said, referring to Pimentel’s failure to grill Duterte about it.

Pimentel argued that the Senate needs to conduct its own investigations rather than rely on Duterte for information. “We shouldn’t call him again. He can’t be the sole source of information. That’s why we really need to do some digging ourselves,” he said.

Reacting to Pimentel’s handling of the probe, political analyst Ronald Llamas described the October 28 hearing as a “disaster.” He noted that Pimentel, as chair of the subcommittee, failed to “follow through and pin down Duterte on his extrajudicial admissions.”

“He could have fact-checked the resource person,” Llamas said.

The former president appeared before the Senate because the senators were perceived as “friendlier” toward Duterte than House lawmakers. Only one senator stood up against Duterte: Senator Risa Hontiveros. Former Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson praised her for this.

“[The] Upper Chamber was ‘invaded’ by the former president of the republic. Only one consistently and steadfastly stood up to preserve the dignity of the Philippine Senate. She happens to be a woman who answers, “present” during a roll call. Her name: Risa Hontiveros,” Lacson said on X (formerly Twitter).

Must Read

[Pastilan] Duterte’s self-incriminating monologue: Did Pimentel set the stage?

Given the outcome of the Senate probe, there is an increasing call for Filipino voters to choose wisely in the 2025 midterm elections. Critics believe that Hontiveros needs allies in the Senate to uphold the dignity and authority of the upper chamber. (READ: Risa Hontiveros: How far will her fierce dissenting voice in the Senate take her?)

“It is up to voters if they will use what transpired during the committee hearings as basis for possible reelection of senators who participated in the hearing,” Atienza said. – Rappler.com