Acop to Bato: Rebut report with proof, not theatrics
A senior lawmaker on Sunday called out Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa for resorting to “emotional outbursts and theatrics, like invoking religion, to avoid accountability” and challenged him to present evidence that would refute the findings of the House of Representatives.
Antipolo City Rep. Romeo Acop, vice chair of the House of Representatives’ quad committee, also questioned former chief presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo’s credibility and authority to speak on behalf of former President Rodrigo Duterte on the megapanel’s preliminary finding of the bloody drug war supposedly serving as a cover for a “grand criminal enterprise” from which Duterte and his inner circle allegedly profited.
Acop maintained that the quad committee’s work was grounded on evidence and not driven by personal or political motives.
“We’re just doing our job. This is not about destroying anyone or any group,” Acop said. “It’s about uncovering the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.”
“If Senator Dela Rosa feels the findings are inaccurate, he should present evidence to counter them rather than resorting to baseless claims of political intent,” he said.
Dela Rosa has so far refused to appear before a joint probe of four House committees and explain his role, if any, in the killing of more than 6,000 drug suspects during the Duterte administration.
‘Grand criminal enterprise’
Acop was tasked last Thursday to present a summary of the committee’s findings after 13 public hearings, which showed that the Duterte administration’s war on drugs purportedly served as a cover for a “grand criminal enterprise” where Duterte and his inner circle allegedly enabled and profited from the narcotics trade.
He cited statements from former police intelligence officer Col. Eduardo Acierto, who alleged Duterte as well as Senators Christopher Bong Go and Dela Rosa were “key figures in protecting the illegal drugs network in the Philippines.”
Dela Rosa took exception to the quad committes’s preliminary findings and even challenged Acop to meet him before a Church altar to determine who was telling the truth, saying, “How dare you, Mr. Acop?”
In response, the House lawmaker said, “How dare I? I dare because this is my responsibility—to uncover the truth and ensure accountability. Everything I said during the summation is fully backed by the findings of the quad committee, based on testimonies and evidence from 13 hearings.”
“These findings are not speculation or personal opinion. If Senator Dela Rosa has contrary evidence, let him present it. Otherwise, his accusations are baseless,” he added.
It was not the first time Dela Rosa spoke publicly against the House investigation of controversies that arose while the senator was chief of the Philippine National Police.
Who’s opportunistic?
In August, shortly after Vice President Sara Duterte resigned her post as education secretary, Dela Rosa called congressmen “unprincipled” and “opportunistic” in starting a probe of the Vice President’s use of public funds.
“If anyone is the real opportunist, it’s Senator Dela Rosa, who shamelessly used his ties with the former President [Rodrigo Duterte] to rise from [Philippine National Police] chief to senator, leading a bloody drug war that targeted the powerless while shielding the powerful,” Acop retorted at that time.
Acop, a lawyer and a former police general, further rebuked Dela Rosa for his behavior which violated a tradition of respect within the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), from which the senator and the congressman both graduated.
“It’s a no-no for someone of the lower class in the PMA to disrespect a member of the upper class,” the congressman said.
Acop is part of the PMA’s 1970 Magiting class while Dela Rosa was of the 1986 Sinagtala class.
“Senator Dela Rosa should remember that respect begets respect,” Acop continued. “If he truly believes in this value, he should engage in proper discourse and refrain from emotional outbursts and theatrics, like invoking religion to avoid accountability.”
Acop further said, “This investigation is not about personalities—it is about uncovering the truth and seeking justice for the victims of the bloody antidrug campaign,” adding, “Why is he so angry? Discourse is part of politics. If he believes the evidence is wrong, he should challenge it with facts, not emotion. The process demands respect, and anger will not change the truth.”
