A resurfaced report has once again placed former police officer Arturo Lascañas at the center of discussions surrounding alleged Davao Death Squad (DDS) operations.

Under its #FromOurArchives feature, Rappler revisited Lascañas’ earlier claims that he was allegedly ordered by former President Rodrigo Duterte to carry out killings in Davao City during the height of the anti-criminality campaign.

According to the revived report, the details Lascañas presented to the International Criminal Court reportedly align with information previously gathered and published by the outlet.

Lascañas has long claimed that he participated in operations linked to the alleged DDS and that directives came from higher authority. These allegations have circulated for years, forming part of the broader ICC examination of the Philippine drug war.

⚖️ The Allegations and the Denials

It is important to emphasize that these are allegations.

Former President Duterte has consistently denied ordering any extrajudicial killings. He has repeatedly stated that his anti-drug campaign was aimed at restoring peace and order, not sanctioning unlawful acts.

Supporters argue that:

• The war on drugs was implemented to protect communities.

• Criminal networks had deeply penetrated local systems.

• Strong measures were necessary at the time.

Critics counter that:

• Due process must never be bypassed.

• Human rights standards must remain absolute.

• Accountability must apply regardless of position.

The ICC proceedings aim to examine whether crimes under international law were committed. As of now, legal determinations remain part of an ongoing process.

Scrutiny vs. Political Framing

Within the Agila community, the resurfacing of Lascañas’ claims is seen by some as a narrative strategy — particularly when discussions around 2028 and political alignments intensify.

Supporters question:

• Why recycle old allegations now?

• Why amplify archive material during active political seasons?

They believe that if evidence exists, it should be weighed properly in legal forums rather than relitigated through media cycles.

At the same time, democratic institutions must function independently. Investigations, if warranted, should proceed through established judicial frameworks.

As Scripture reminds us:

“The first to state his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.” — Proverbs 18:17 (ESV)

Truth withstands examination.
And examination requires fairness.

🏛️ The Broader Historical Question

The Duterte presidency remains one of the most debated eras in modern Philippine governance.

For some, it represents:

• Order restored

• Crime confronted

• A decisive break from bureaucratic hesitation

For others, it symbolizes:

• Contested human rights practices

• Polarizing rhetoric

• Institutional strain

Lascañas’ claims form one thread in a much larger tapestry — one that courts, historians, and citizens will continue to analyze.

🎯 Satirical Jab (Politikanta Style)

In Philippine politics, archives never truly retire.
They just wait for the right season to trend again.

It’s like reruns — but with higher stakes and louder comment sections. 📡

🔥 Empowerment & Unity Ending

Allegations deserve scrutiny.
Denials deserve hearing.
Justice deserves process.

Citizens deserve clarity.

Whether one supports or criticizes Duterte, the strength of the nation depends not on viral headlines — but on institutions that function with integrity.

Stay discerning. Stay balanced. Stay principled.