Enumerations, Intentions, and the Rhetoric of Humanity
"Enumerations, Intentions, and the Rhetoric of Humanity"
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™
February 17, 2026
Introduction: The Charge Sheet as a Stage Script
What is a crime against humanity? Is it a ledger of deaths, a catalog of tragedies, or a juridical opera requiring not only bodies but also the choreography of state policy, intent, and systematicity? The International Criminal Court (ICC) insists upon the latter: proof of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians carried out pursuant to a state policy, with knowledge and intent at the leadership level. Yet here we are, confronted with allegations against former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, enumerating 19 murders in Davao City, 14 alleged “high-value target” killings, and 45 victims nationwide, including two attempted murders. Serious accusations, yes. But do numbers alone sing the aria of humanity’s crime? Or do they merely hum the background noise of political contestation?
The premise I advance—satirically, esoterically, humorously, and with rhetorical questions aplenty—is that these charges, as framed, do not constitute crimes against humanity under international law. The ICC’s Document Containing the Charges may read like a grim inventory, but enumeration is not evidence of policy. Rhetoric is not command. Political statements are not operational orders. And without intent, policy, and responsibility proven through concrete evidence, the case risks becoming less a trial of law than a theater of controversy.
---
Section I: The Numbers Game—When Arithmetic Pretends to be Jurisprudence
Nineteen murders in Davao City. Fourteen “high-value targets.” Forty-five victims nationwide. Two attempted murders. Shall we pause and ask: is arithmetic the new jurisprudence? Does the multiplication of tragedies automatically yield the formula for crimes against humanity? If so, then every nation with a crime rate exceeding statistical thresholds would be guilty of humanity’s betrayal. Shall we indict Chicago for its homicide statistics? Or Rio de Janeiro for its favelas? Or Manila itself for its nightly police blotters?
The ICC requires more than numbers. It requires systematicity. It requires policy. It requires intent. Without these, the charges risk collapsing into what philosophers might call “enumerative fallacy”—the belief that listing instances proves universality. But does listing prove policy? Does enumeration prove intent? Or does it merely prove that tragedy exists, as it always has, in human societies?
---
Section II: Rhetoric Versus Command—The Satirical Divide
Let us imagine Duterte’s infamous rhetoric: “Kill them all.” “Slaughter the addicts.” “I don’t care about human rights.” These statements, shocking, grotesque, and undeniably quotable, have been replayed endlessly in media cycles. But here lies the satirical paradox: rhetoric is not command. Political hyperbole is not equivalent to operational orders within a chain of command. Shall we indict Shakespeare for the deaths of Hamlet’s cast? Shall we prosecute Jonathan Swift for suggesting the eating of Irish babies? Shall we charge stand-up comedians for crimes against humanity when they joke about mass suffering?
The ICC must distinguish between rhetorical performance and juridical instruction. To conflate the two is to criminalize speech, satire, and political theater. And if rhetoric alone suffices, then every populist demagogue, every fiery preacher, every satirical poet (myself included) becomes a potential defendant in The Hague. Is that the justice we seek? Or is it the absurdity we fear?
---
Section III: Policy as the Missing Ingredient
Crimes against humanity require proof of a deliberate state policy to attack civilians. Where is this policy? Is it written in executive orders? Is it codified in memoranda? Is it signed by cabinet secretaries? Or is it inferred from press conferences and campaign speeches? If the latter, then policy becomes a ghost, a specter conjured by opposition, a phantom haunting the corridors of international law.
Consider the ICC’s Document Containing the Charges. It enumerates incidents. It narrates tragedies. But does it present a policy document? Does it show a chain of command? Does it reveal intent at the leadership level? Without these, the case risks becoming less about law and more about politics. And politics, as we know, is the art of accusation without the burden of proof.
---
Section IV: Anecdotal Interlude—The Satirical Policeman
Permit me an anecdote. In a small barangay, a policeman once told me: “Sir, if I follow every rhetorical flourish of the mayor, I would be chasing ghosts instead of criminals.” He laughed, lit a cigarette, and added: “We follow orders, not jokes.” Shall we indict him for failing to interpret rhetoric as command? Or shall we recognize that in bureaucratic reality, rhetoric is noise, orders are signal, and policy is paperwork? The anecdote illustrates the gap between speech and action, between satire and command, between politics and law. And in that gap lies the failure of the charges to meet the standard of crimes against humanity.
---
Section V: The Esoteric Question of Intent
Intent. The philosopher’s favorite word. The lawyer’s most elusive quarry. Did Duterte intend to attack civilians? Or did he intend to wage a “war on drugs” that blurred the line between criminal and civilian? Did he intend systematicity? Or did he intend chaos? Did he intend policy? Or did he intend populist theater? The esoteric question remains: how do we prove intent? Through speeches? Through statistics? Through opposition narratives? Or through documents, orders, and chains of command?
Without intent proven, the charges remain anecdotal tragedies, not crimes against humanity. And intent, as every law student knows, is the soul of criminal liability. Without it, the body of evidence collapses into dust.
---
Section VI: Humor as Juridical Defense
Let us laugh, briefly, at the absurdity. If rhetoric equals command, then every politician guilty of hyperbole is a criminal. If numbers equal policy, then every nation with crime statistics is guilty of humanity’s betrayal. If opposition equals evidence, then every contested election becomes a trial at The Hague. Shall we laugh? Or shall we cry? Humor becomes defense, satire becomes shield, irony becomes jurisprudence. And in that laughter lies the recognition that law must be more than theater.
---
Section VII: The Confirmation of Charges Hearing—The Curtain Rises
The Confirmation of Charges hearing looms. It will determine whether the evidentiary standard has been met. It will make litigation public. It will reveal whether the ICC can distinguish between rhetoric and command, between enumeration and policy, between tragedy and crime against humanity. Shall we await it eagerly? Yes. Shall we expect clarity? Perhaps. Shall we expect satire? Inevitably, for every trial is also a theater, every courtroom a stage, every charge a script.
---
Section VIII: Rhetorical Questions as Juridical Method
Is a crime against humanity proven by numbers alone?
Is rhetoric equivalent to command?
Is opposition equivalent to evidence?
Is tragedy equivalent to policy?
Is intent proven by speeches?
Is law theater?
Is theater law?
Is humanity a crime?
Or is crime humanity?
These rhetorical questions, esoteric and humorous, illustrate the absurdity of conflating enumeration with policy, rhetoric with command, tragedy with intent. They remind us that law requires more than performance. It requires proof.
---
Section IX: The Satirical Conclusion—Time as the Final Judge
In the end, time will tell. Time, not rhetoric. Time, not enumeration. Time, not opposition. Time will reveal whether the charges meet the standard of crimes against humanity. Time will reveal whether the ICC distinguishes between theater and law. Time will reveal whether humanity itself is on trial, or whether law remains humanity’s defense.
And so I conclude, satirically, esoterically, humorously, and rhetorically: I do not agree that the charges against former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte constitute crimes against humanity. The number of deaths alone does not meet that standard. Rhetoric is not command. Political statements are not orders. Policy is missing. Intent is unproven. Evidence is insufficient. And without these, the charges remain theater, not law.
---
If you like my any of my concept research, writing explorations, art works and/or simple writings please support me by sending me a coffee treat at my paypal amielgeraldroldan.paypal.me or GXI 09163112211. Much appreciate and thank you in advance.
Just featured at https://www.pressenza.com/2026/01/the-asian-cultural-council-global-alumni-network-amiel-gerald-a-roldan/
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ curatorial writing practice exemplifies this path: transforming grief into infrastructure, evidence into agency, and memory into resistance. As the Philippines enters a new economic decade, such work is not peripheral—it is foundational.
I'm trying to complement my writings with helpful inputs from AI through writing. Bear with me as I am treating this blog as repositories and drafts.
Please comment and tag if you like my compilations visit www.amielroldan.blogspot.com or www.amielroldan.wordpress.com
and comments at
amiel_roldan@outlook.com
amielgeraldroldan@gmail.com
A multidisciplinary Filipino artist, poet, researcher, and cultural worker whose practice spans painting, printmaking, photography, installation, and writing. He is deeply rooted in cultural memory, postcolonial critique, and in bridging creative practice with scholarly infrastructure—building counter-archives, annotating speculative poetry like Southeast Asian manuscripts, and fostering regional solidarity through ethical art collaboration.
Recent show at ILOMOCA
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16qUTDdEMD
https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go?messageThreadUrn=urn%3Ali%3AmessageThreadUrn%3A&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressenza.com%2F2025%2F05%2Fcultural-workers-not-creative-ilomoca-may-16-2025%2F&trk=flagship-messaging-android
https://alumni.asianculturalcouncil.org/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAPlR6NjbGNrA-VG_2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHoy6hXUptbaQi5LdFAHcNWqhwblxYv_wRDZyf06-O7Yjv73hEGOOlphX0cPZ_aem_sK6989WBcpBEFLsQqr0kdg
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ started Independent Curatorial Manila™ as a nonprofit philantrophy while working for institutions simultaneosly early on.
The Independent Curatorial Manila™ or ICM™ is a curatorial services and guide for emerging artists in the Philippines. It is an independent/ voluntary services entity and aims to remains so. Selection is through proposal and a prerogative temporarily. Contact above for inquiries.
Comments