Painfully familiar pattern of impunity

Another member of the legal profession, this time a judge, was killed the other day. According to media reports, Judge Joseph Wee Sit, 38, of Branch 2 of the Regional Trial Court in Basilan, was ambushed by motorcycle-riding gunmen in Zamboanga City in the early morning hours of November 12, 2026.

Police are looking into a possible work-related motive, particularly his handling of high-profile cases. Zamboanga City Mayor Khymer Olaso offered a ?2-million reward for information leading to the arrest of the assailants.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) pointed out that Judge Wee Sit was killed on the very day the organization convened a public forum titled “Safeguarding the Legal Profession: Addressing Attacks and Ending Impunity.” At the forum, lawyers recounted the threats, harassment, surveillance, and violence they had experienced in the course of their work. They also revisited the killings of fellow lawyers, many of which remain unresolved.

The killing of a sitting judge earlier that same day underscored the urgency of addressing violence against members of the legal profession and the impunity surrounding such attacks.

As expected, the killing was followed by statements of condemnation, expressions of sympathy, and calls for a thorough investigation from the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

The Supreme Court, apart from expressing condolences, reported that the Office of the Judiciary Marshals was coordinating with law enforcement and that assistance had been directed for Judge Wee Sit's family. The IBP called for an investigation not only into the gunmen but also into anyone who planned, financed, facilitated, or concealed the crime. It also called for stronger security measures for judges.

These statements are necessary, and the concern they express is genuine. But it saddens me to say that the statements have become painfully familiar. We condemn the killing, sympathize with the family, warn about threats to judicial independence, demand an investigation, and call for accountability.

Yet, many killings remain unresolved, and the problem of impunity persists. In its August 20, 2024 resolution concerning the implementing rules of the Judiciary Marshals Act (A.M. No. 24-04-09-SC), the Supreme Court discussed the history of violence against members of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court cited reports that approximately 33 to 34 judges have been killed while in service, and that fewer than 10% of these cases have been resolved. It also acknowledged that, in several cases, the persons who instigated the killings remained unidentified. It recounted figures showing that, as of January 2021, only two convictions had been secured in cases involving the killing of at least 54 judges, prosecutors, and lawyers since 2016.

A report published in June 2025 by Caravana Filipina, an international fact-finding mission involving 10 lawyers’ organizations, documented the pattern of impunity in attacks against Philippine legal professionals between 2016 and 2023. It found that, with only one exception, none of the killings examined by the mission had proceeded to trial. Instead, the cases were prematurely classified as “cold cases” during the initial stages of investigation.

The mission also found a consistent pattern of incomplete and inadequate investigations, which it concluded had fostered a pervasive culture of impunity. The report also documented recurring methods of assassination, often involving motorcycle-riding gunmen who attacked their victims in public places, sometimes in broad daylight and in the presence of witnesses and CCTV cameras.

For me, if the authorities and institutions responsible for administering justice are really serious about ending impunity, they must go beyond the usual law enforcement response. Political violence in the Philippines cannot be understood simply as a series of isolated murders. We have a long history of private armed groups, hired killers, and powerful political patrons who use violence to protect their interests. We must confront the possibility that most of these assassins operate across different sectors, serving politicians, and criminal organizations.

Can we do that even if the evidence points to politicians, law enforcement personnel, and other influential figures in the country?

We must examine the political culture that allows private armies, patronage networks, and the concentration of power in a few families to flourish. How can we expect effective investigations when those who may have reasons to obstruct justice can also exert considerable influence over local law enforcement?

Unless we confront private armed groups, patronage networks, and the political dynasties and structures that sustain the violence, we cannot end impunity.