The arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on charges related to the anti-illegal substance campaign continues to reverberate through the nation’s political landscape, escalating tensions between his loyalists and those advocating for accountability. In the latest and most dramatic exchange, former Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief General Nicolas Tor, who played a key operational role during the apprehension, has finally responded to the inflammatory accusation leveled by the former President’s son, Congressman Paolo “Pulong” Duterte. The younger Duterte had vehemently and publicly denounced the action as a “kidnapping,” issuing a stark warning that those responsible would ultimately “pay.”

General Tor’s response, however, was not the angry, defensive retort many expected. Instead, the “People’s General” displayed a remarkable degree of measured restraint, delivering a calm, surgical legal correction that dismantled the core of the critics’ argument while subtly highlighting the hypocrisy of the political class. His composure under fire serves as a masterclass in separating operational reality from political theater, insisting that the rule of law, not emotional rhetoric, must be the final arbiter of justice.

The Calculated Defense: Respecting Opinion, Upholding the Court

When first addressing Congressman Duterte’s (sarcastically referred to by some as the “51 Billion Boy”) highly charged “kidnapping” label, General Tor adopted a surprisingly conciliatory tone. He stated plainly that he respects the opinions of the former President’s family and allies, noting, “they can say what they want. We respect them, we respect their opinions.” This initial, restrained acknowledgment diffused the immediate tension, but it was merely the calm before the legal storm.

Tor quickly pivoted to the unassailable truth of the matter: “But it is already in the court, and we must allow the court to decide and truly pronounce what really happened there.”

This single statement is crucial. By framing the entire controversy as a matter for the judiciary, General Tor effectively shifts the narrative away from a personal or political vendetta and places it squarely within the framework of judicial process. He denies the critics the confrontation they seek, forcing them instead to address the legal merits of the case, which are far less susceptible to political maneuvering.

The Legislative Irony: General Tor Drops the Law

General Tor reserved his most devastating legal blow for the critics who have joined the chorus of “kidnapping” claims, notably former government official and influential commentator Teddy Boy Locsin. Tor pointedly reminded the public that Locsin was a member of the House of Representatives when the critical piece of legislation, Republic Act (RA) 9851, was enacted.

RA 9851 is the law that authorized the Philippine government to cooperate with and surrender any Filipino charged with “crimes against humanity” to the appropriate international tribunal—the exact legal mechanism used to facilitate the ICC warrant.

Tor’s mic-drop moment was his observation that “no member of the house [including Locsin] voted against RA 9851 or abstained from voting on that.” He then delivered the crushing conclusion: “So I don’t think that Teddy Boy Locsin can now complain if RA 9851 was used by the government to surrender Duterte to the ICC… We are just implementing the law that he himself made.”

This defense is unassailable. It reframes the “kidnapping” as a “lawful implementation of domestic legislation.” The critics, in their eagerness to condemn the arrest, are thus painted as hypocrites, attacking the consequences of a law they themselves supported or failed to oppose. General Tor skillfully turned their outrage into a political and legal trap, demonstrating that the PNP and the government were simply fulfilling a mandate established by the Philippine Congress.

Beyond the Rhetoric: The Reality of International Cooperation

The former PNP Chief also took the opportunity to clearly delineate the operational reality of the arrest, counteracting the highly dramatic narrative of an illegal “kidnapping.” He clarified that the operation was not a rogue police action but a disciplined response to an ICC warrant transmitted via Interpol. The PNP’s role was one of professional assistance to the international police organization.

Crucially, General Tor reiterated the powerful political justification previously articulated by President Bongbong Marcos Jr.: cooperation with Interpol is essential to the Philippines’ national interest. Non-cooperation would compromise the country’s ability to seek Interpol’s help in the future, particularly in tracking down and apprehending Filipino fugitives hiding abroad. In short, the choice was between one high-profile arrest and the long-term effectiveness of the nation’s entire international law enforcement network. The decision to assist Interpol, Tor implies, was a patriotic, functional necessity, not a political betrayal.

The Unspoken Fear: Why Duterte Cut Ties

General Tor subtly touched upon the contentious issue of why former President Duterte chose to unilaterally terminate the Philippines’ relationship with the ICC in 2019, shortly after the initial case was filed in 2017 by his political rival, former Senator Antonio Trillanes.

Tor’s commentary heavily suggests that the move to sever ties was an act of self-preservation, not a principled defense of sovereignty. He argued that if the former President had truly been confident in his innocence and welcomed an investigation, he would not have abruptly withdrawn from the ICC, an international agreement which had been in effect since 2011. The abrupt departure, which was not negotiated or broadly discussed in the Senate or Congress, is framed by the General as an act of fear, undermining Duterte’s public image as a man who dared critics to arrest him.

In the face of relentless threats and accusations from powerful political adversaries, General Nicolas Tor’s calculated and legally precise response stands as a powerful defense of his actions and a sharp rebuke to the culture of political scapegoating. By leveraging the very laws passed by his critics, he has successfully shifted the focus back to the judicial process, reaffirming that in the Philippines, despite the chaos of political feuds, the constitution and the rule of law ultimately prevail over emotional political theater.