This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.
The congressmen overseeing the House investigation into Duterte’s drug war dispute Police Colonel Hector Grijaldo’s allegation that he was forced to sign an affidvait in exchange for favors
MANILA, Philippines – A police official invited to the Senate blue ribbon sub-committee investigation into the Duterte administration’s war on illegal drugs claimed House lawmakers pressured him into corroborating the supposed rewards offered by former president Rodrigo Duterte in exchange for killings.
Police Colonel Hector Grijaldo, former Mandaluyong police chief, told the Senate sub-committee on Monday, October 28, that during a closed-door meeting on October 22 with House quad committee co-chairs Dan Fernandez and Bienvenido Abante, the congressmen instructed him to confirm the drug war reward scheme first unveiled by retired police colonel Royina Garma during the panel’s eighth day of inquiry on October 11.
“Congressman Dan Fernandez put the paper he was holding on the table and told me, ‘This is the statement you’ll say,’ while pointing to a paragraph on the paper. ‘This is Colonel Garma’s supplemental affidavit. Just say you know about the reward system. Just confirm it,’” Grijaldo narrated in a mix of English and Filipino.
Grijaldo claimed that he refused to do so, as he supposedly had no knowledge about the reward scheme.
“After some time, Congressman Abante asked how many years I still had with the Philippine National Police (PNP). I answered, ‘I still have four years before my retirement.’ Then he made a remark, ‘You can still become a general.’ I humbly responded to him, ‘I am content with my rank, Sir,’” Grijaldo added.
Grijaldo told the Senate panel he felt “insulted” by the conversation he had with the House lawmakers.
“You feel that you are being coached into making that statement?” Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, the police chief-turned senator who oversaw Duterte’s drug war, asked Grijaldo.
“Yes. I feel I would be corrupted to make that statement,” Grijaldo replied. “It’s like they wanted me to lie.”
Grijaldo was chief of the Mandaluyong police when Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office board secretary and retired police brigadier general Wesley Barayuga was killed by a motorcycle-riding assailant in July 2020. During quad committee hearings, police officer Santie Mendoza accused Garma and former National Police Commission commissioner Edilberto Leonardo of masterminding Barayuga’s murder.
Grijaldo is from PNP Academy Batch 1997, and was a classmate of Garma, who is known for her close ties with former president Duterte.
It was Garma who directly implicated Duterte in the extrajudicial killings carried out by policemen during the drug war. She claimed that the former mayor, after winning the 2016 presidential election, tapped her to replicate the “Davao model,” a system of payment and rewards for successful killings, at the national level.
Duterte has denied that such a scheme exists.
House quad committee leaders’ denials
In separate statements, the co-chairs of the quad committee denied Grijaldo’s allegations.
“There is no truth to the accusations that I forced anyone to sign any affidavit in exchange for favors or the possibility of promotions,” House human rights committee chairperson Bienvenido Abante said.
“Those are lies,” House public order committee chairperson Dan Fernandez added. “Grijaldo was summoned because the lawyer of Colonel Garma told us that he had knowledge of the reward system. We never asked him to sign any affidavit.”
Abante and Fernandez said Grijaldo’s statement is an effort to tarnish the credibility of the House inquiry into Duterte’s drug war.
“This is their way to discredit the quad committee, but the truth will bail us out. Nothing will prevent us from pursuing justice for all the lives lost,” Fernandez said.
“It is clear from the conduct of the Senate hearing that a conflict of interest exists and compromises the Senate’s ability to hold fair and impartial proceedings. Senators can either be subjects of the hearing or be involved in conducting it — they cannot be both,” Abante added. – Rappler.com
