The ongoing hearings in the Philippine Senate and House of Representatives over the controversial "War on Drugs" continue to capture national attention, drawing a sharp divide between lawmakers as they grapple with the legacy of the Duterte administration’s bloody campaign. These investigations have laid bare significant concerns over the conduct of law enforcement during the drug war, highlighting the alleged reward system that incentivized extrajudicial killings and opened the door to corruption, both in law enforcement and the criminal underworld.
Senate's Role: Confronting Duterte's Legacy
The Senate’s investigation into the Duterte administration’s war on drugs has emerged as a significant battleground for political and legal accountability. The hearings, primarily led by the Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs, are a direct attempt to uncover the truth behind one of the most controversial and deadly policies in Philippine history. However, the Senate's approach has been far from straightforward, with tension between those who seek to hold Duterte accountable and his allies who seek to protect his legacy.
Under the leadership of former police chief-turned-senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, who was a staunch ally of Duterte during the latter’s presidency, the Senate hearings have often become a platform for defending the drug war rather than fully scrutinizing it. Dela Rosa, who oversaw many of the police operations during the early days of the war on drugs, has been a vocal defender of the administration’s policies. In fact, the hearings have sometimes been criticized for allowing Duterte’s allies to dominate the narrative, focusing on justifying the need for a tough anti-drug campaign rather than investigating the human rights violations and extrajudicial killings that occurred under it.
The Senate’s investigation has, to some extent, been seen as a political exercise, with much of the focus on defending the Duterte administration's controversial policies rather than pushing for substantive accountability. Senators allied with Duterte have sought to downplay the human rights abuses, framing the war on drugs as an effort to protect the Filipino public from the scourge of illegal narcotics. They argue that Duterte's actions were necessary to address a dire national crisis, a stance that has been consistently echoed by the former president himself during his appearances before the committee. In his testimony, Duterte has defended his actions, painting them as a moral and national security imperative, even as evidence of extrajudicial killings and police brutality mounts.
Duterte’s Defenses and the Senate's Tensions
Duterte’s appearance in the Senate, especially his direct testimony before the committee, has sparked intense confrontation and heightened political tensions. In previous hearings, Duterte remained defiant, offering no apology for the deaths and standing by his “order to kill” policy. His justification for the killings has ranged from claims that the war was necessary to "save the youth" from drugs to painting himself as a victim of international criticism and political pressure. The former president has also accused critics of politicizing the issue, suggesting that the calls for accountability are rooted in personal vendettas and attempts to undermine his administration’s achievements.
This line of defense has created a deeply polarized atmosphere in the Senate hearings. On one side are those, primarily Duterte's allies, who continue to defend the drug war, offering rationalizations that the campaign was necessary for national security, economic stability, and the well-being of Filipino citizens. On the other side, the opposition senator Risa Hontiveros has been unwavering in her condemnation, emphasizing that the drug war violated human rights, disregarded due process, and fueled a climate of impunity. These senators have often clashed with Duterte’s defenders, using the hearings as a platform to bring attention to the victims of extrajudicial killings and push for a full investigation into the illegal actions of the police.
In these debates, some senators have directly challenged Duterte’s rhetoric and actions, arguing that the killings carried out under the drug war were not isolated incidents but part of a systematic policy designed to eliminate perceived enemies of the state. They have pointed to the sheer scale of the violence, which claimed thousands of lives, many of whom were not drug lords or criminals but poor and vulnerable individuals from marginalized communities. This contrast in narratives—between Duterte's defenders and his critics—has turned the Senate hearings into a microcosm of the broader political divide in the country.
Expect Denials and Justifications
As the death toll continues to rise, an unsettling phenomenon is emerging: some supporters of the war on drugs are not just justifying the killings but actively denying the existence of the war on drugs itself. This form of denial, particularly from those who were once at the helm of the Duterte administration or continue to support his policies, resembles the phenomenon of holocaust denial—a refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of state-sanctioned violence despite overwhelming evidence. In the case of the drug war, this denial comes in many forms: minimizing the scale of extrajudicial killings, dismissing the testimonies of victims’ families, or even suggesting that the deaths are part of the collateral damage in a righteous war on drugs.
For many Duterte supporters, the ongoing narrative has become about "winning the war," to the point where the human cost is often dismissed as a necessary evil. Duterte himself, in defending his drug war, has claimed that the deaths were a natural consequence of the larger struggle to cleanse the nation of the drug trade. The undeniable fact that thousands of innocent people, many of whom were not even involved in drugs, lost their lives in these operations is brushed off as an unfortunate but acceptable result of the campaign. Similar to how some choose to downplay or deny the atrocities of historical events like the Holocaust, there are segments of the public and political establishment that refuse to confront the full consequences of Duterte's violent policies.
The denial also extends to attempts to avoid any recognition of the victims' right to due process and justice. Extrajudicial killings, in which suspects are summarily executed without trial or evidence, are reframed as “justifiable” actions of law enforcement, arguing that the elimination of drug dealers or users is essential to the national security and public order of the country. This rhetoric shields the perpetrators from accountability and perpetuates a culture of impunity.
Moreover, the justification of collateral damage further complicates the pursuit of justice. Under the guise of eradicating drugs, many innocent individuals were caught in the crossfire or unjustly executed. Families and communities have had to deal with the devastating consequences of a system that allows authorities to operate with impunity. This mentality—that the "greater good" of eradicating drugs justifies the loss of innocent lives—has been used as a shield by Duterte’s supporters to deflect responsibility. The notion that some casualties are "acceptable" because they fall within the broader scope of a "war" on drugs, even if they involve systemic injustice, is not unlike the dismissal of civilian deaths in other violent conflicts where power dynamics and political agendas outweigh human rights concerns.
The Political Nature of Accountability: A "Führerprinzip" in Practice?
For all the grandstanding about the pursuit of truth and justice in the ongoing investigations, the issue of the Duterte administration’s drug war is, at its core, deeply political. Solons, or lawmakers, who sit in these hearings may insist that the matter "shouldn’t be tainted by politics," but in reality, the war on drugs itself was a highly politicized campaign from the very beginning. While the Senate and House hearings may seem to take on the appearance of objective inquiries into state violence, the reality is that many of those involved are not disinterested observers seeking truth but rather actors entrenched in the political polarization that defines Philippine politics. The war on drugs became, under Duterte, a tool of political power, both domestically and internationally.
During the Duterte administration, those who spoke out against the drug war—primarily opposition figures, human rights groups, and civil society organizations—were often met with fierce attacks, demonized as enemies of the state. Critics were labeled as "drug protectors" or "terrorists," with the government using its rhetoric of national security to justify the suppression of dissent. Opposition senators like Leila de Lima were incarcerated under dubious charges, and human rights advocates were persecuted or threatened. The government painted its critics as traitors, undermining the rule of law in favor of a more authoritarian approach where dissent was silenced, and the leader's will was paramount.
This practice, which some observers have likened to the "Führerprinzip" (leader principle), mirrors the authoritarian practices of fascist regimes where the leader's word supersedes all written law and the very structure of government is bent to serve the realization of the leader’s will. Under Duterte, the war on drugs was framed not as a legal process bound by the constitution or international norms but as an essential component of his personal mandate. This principle meant that Duterte's word, from declaring the drug war to ordering police to kill suspects, became the de facto law of the land, overriding existing legal frameworks and human rights protections.
Under the "Führerprinzip", government policies and decisions were often based on the leader’s directive, regardless of the legality or consequences. The Philippine government, under Duterte, operated in a similar fashion, with public institutions, including law enforcement, military, and even the judiciary, expected to conform to the president’s directives. Public statements that called for the extrajudicial killing of drug suspects were made without regard for legal due process, and in some cases, those who opposed Duterte were openly threatened with violence or imprisonment. In this environment, the law became a mere formality, bent to fit the broader agenda of the leader, while human rights and democratic principles were sidelined in favor of an unrelenting pursuit of Duterte’s vision of the "War on Drugs."
Lack of Concrete Accountability
Despite the high-profile nature of the Senate’s inquiries, the hearings have struggled to yield concrete results in terms of holding anyone accountable. This is partly because of the lack of willingness from some Senate members to directly challenge the former president and his allies, whose political influence still looms large over the country’s political landscape. Even though there have been important revelations during these hearings—such as the admission by certain police officers that extrajudicial killings were carried out as part of the drug war—many senators appear reluctant to push the issue too hard, fearing political backlash or even legal retribution from Duterte’s loyalists.
While opposition senators have pressed for the establishment of an independent body to investigate the drug war and for the prosecution of those responsible for unlawful killings, they have often been outnumbered in committee discussions. The hearings have, at times, taken on a performative character, with grandstanding from both sides, and a perceived lack of urgency in addressing the root causes of the abuses. The legal framework needed to prosecute those responsible for extrajudicial killings under Duterte’s regime remains a contentious issue, with many lawmakers still hesitant to challenge the former president directly, fearing the political fallout.
One of the most contentious aspects of the Senate’s role in the investigation is its inability to hold the Duterte administration to full account for its policies, especially when key players, including former law enforcement officials and government insiders, refuse to testify or offer full cooperation. While senators have been able to extract some testimonies, including damning admissions from lower-ranking police officers and even former Duterte administration officials, these have not resulted in significant legal consequences or major policy changes. The Senate has largely avoided a deeper, more substantive examination of how the war on drugs was financed, organized, and carried out at the highest levels.
In contrast, the House of Representatives, particularly through the efforts of the Quad Committee (comprising the Committees on Dangerous Drugs, Justice, Public Order, and Good Government), has been more methodical and focused in its inquiry. This body has been praised for its detailed and systematic approach to investigating the financial and operational aspects of Duterte’s drug war.
A critical revelation that has emerged from these hearings is the alleged use of illegal "Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations" (POGOs) to fund a reward system that incentivized law enforcement officers to kill in the name of the drug war. The connection between the drug war and these illegal gambling operations has raised alarms about the links between state-sanctioned violence and criminal syndicates, which allegedly benefited from the system of rewards and payments tied to each "kill" made during operations. This finding not only deepens concerns about the abuse of power but also suggests that Duterte’s campaign was intertwined with organized crime, further complicating the moral and legal questions surrounding the drug war.
The House hearings have also focused on how police officers were allegedly rewarded for their participation in extrajudicial killings, with some members of the police admitting to killings during the drug war. The use of rewards, rather than proper legal procedures, points to a systemic breakdown in law enforcement and casts serious doubt on the integrity of the police force involved. The discussions in the lower house, which have included testimonies from former police officers, human rights advocates, and victims’ families, aim to highlight the broader societal impact of these extrajudicial killings, demanding that those responsible be held accountable, from the officers on the ground to the highest levels of government.
The Reward System: A Deadly Incentive
One of the most disturbing and morally bankrupt aspects of the Duterte administration’s war on drugs was the implementation of a reward system that financially incentivized police officers for killing suspected drug offenders. This reward scheme, which was widely reported by whistleblowers, human rights advocates, and even some police officers themselves, transformed the fight against drugs into a bloodthirsty pursuit in which the value of human life was undermined and disregarded. Officers, who were supposed to uphold the law and ensure the safety and well-being of citizens, became agents of extrajudicial violence, driven by financial gain rather than the pursuit of justice.
Under this system, police officers were allegedly paid based on the number of drug suspects they killed, with some reports suggesting that the rewards were even tied to the quantity of drugs seized during an operation. This arrangement fostered a "kill or be killed" mentality, creating an environment where police officers were incentivized to use lethal force without regard for due process or the presumption of innocence. In many cases, victims were executed without an arrest, trial, or any meaningful effort to determine their guilt or innocence. Suspects were often gunned down in cold blood, their deaths chalked up to "encounters" or "resistance" during anti-drug operations, even though many of these individuals had not been given any opportunity to defend themselves or surrender peacefully.
This incentivization of killing was, in essence, a perversion of the law enforcement process. Instead of arresting suspects and bringing them to trial—where evidence and due process would determine their guilt—police officers were motivated by the financial rewards associated with dead bodies. This created a perverse and deadly feedback loop, where police officers who had already killed multiple suspects were further rewarded, and those who did not meet their "kill quotas" were penalized or ostracized within the law enforcement community. This atmosphere of brutal competition and impunity not only dehumanized both the victims of these killings and the police officers carrying them out but also sent a clear message that killing could be a lucrative career path, while the basic principles of justice and the rule of law were eroded.
The consequences of this reward system were far-reaching, impacting not only the immediate victims of extrajudicial killings but also the wider Philippine society. As the body count mounted, the rule of law collapsed, replaced by a culture of fear, violence, and lawlessness. Communities that were already struggling with poverty and marginalization became breeding grounds for this lawless violence, as the police—who were supposed to protect them—became their executioners. In many cases, the people most affected by the drug war were the poor and the disenfranchised, who found themselves disproportionately targeted in these operations, often being killed or "disappeared" simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The rewards were often substantial, and in many instances, they were paid out by the government itself. The financial incentives for extrajudicial killings acted as a form of tacit government endorsement for this kind of lawlessness. Police officers who were part of this network would receive cash bonuses, gifts, or even promotions based on their success in eliminating drug suspects. In some cases, police officers who had been caught committing extrajudicial killings or other abuses were not disciplined but rather rewarded for their "effective" enforcement of Duterte’s brutal policies. The money earned from these kills would often go into the pockets of officers and their superiors, who maintained a system of corruption that allowed such violations of human rights to continue unchecked.
However, the reward system did not end with the police. Allegations surfaced that certain politicians, government officials, and private individuals with vested interests in the drug war were also involved in this deadly scheme, further muddying the waters of accountability and justice. Some reports suggested that political figures, including local government officials, may have been complicit in facilitating these extrajudicial killings, either by turning a blind eye or actively encouraging them in exchange for personal gain, including political favors, protection, or financial kickbacks.
These political figures, often from the pro-Duterte camp, may have had various reasons for aligning themselves with the drug war. For some, it was an opportunity to secure their positions of power, riding on the wave of Duterte’s popularity among those who believed the drug war would bring about swift and decisive justice. Others may have seen the drug war as a way to maintain control over marginalized communities, using the fear of violence to keep local populations subdued and politically compliant.
In addition to politicians, there were widespread reports of illegal syndicates and organized crime groups getting involved in the drug war, capitalizing on the lawlessness created by Duterte’s policies. The government’s supposed focus on eradicating illegal drug syndicates ironically benefited some of these groups. As the war on drugs eliminated rival syndicates, other criminal organizations seized the opportunity to fill the vacuum left behind. At the same time, some reports indicated that drug syndicates and illegal gambling groups, particularly those involved in offshore gaming operations (OGOs), were also implicated in funding the reward system that encouraged police to kill. These offshore gambling operations, often linked to money laundering schemes, reportedly funneled funds into the police network, ensuring the continuation of this deadly incentive program.
This added layer of complexity exposed a deeply troubling connection between the government’s anti-drug policy and the criminal underworld. It suggested that the drug war was not only about targeting drug users and dealers but also about securing financial resources for those in positions of power. Some individuals within law enforcement allegedly received payouts from criminal syndicates in exchange for information about operations or protection for illegal businesses, further blurring the lines between state-sanctioned violence and organized crime.
The intertwining of state power with criminal interests under the guise of the drug war exposed the very real possibility that Duterte’s policies were not only morally indefensible but also strategically flawed. What was meant to be a crackdown on drug cartels and criminal activity instead became a system in which law enforcement officials, politicians, and even criminal syndicates benefited from the violence. The legal and moral costs of such a system were incalculable, as entire communities were subjected to unrelenting fear and violence while powerful figures continued to profit from the bloodshed.
As more and more details have emerged in the hearings and investigations into the drug war, the true extent of this deadly reward system has become clearer. The testimonies from former police officers, whistleblowers, and victims’ families paint a grim picture of a nation in which the very institutions that were supposed to protect its citizens became complicit in a nationwide campaign of violence. These revelations only add weight to the ongoing calls for accountability, as those responsible for these heinous acts must be held to account—whether they are the officers on the front lines or the high-ranking officials and politicians who enabled and profited from the system.
Indeed, those who benefitted from the brutal system of extrajudicial killings in the "War on Drugs" have a vested interest in downplaying or even denying the existence of the drug war's most horrific outcomes. This strategy mirrors the tactics employed by those who deny historical atrocities, such as Holocaust denial, wherein individuals or groups attempt to minimize, distort, or completely erase the reality of what occurred, often to protect their own interests or avoid facing the consequences of their actions.
In the case of the Duterte administration’s war on drugs, this denial takes several forms. Supporters of the drug war, including high-ranking officials and allies of Duterte, have often sought to deflect responsibility by shifting the blame onto the opposition, accusing them of "politicizing" the issue for their own agendas. By framing the issue as a political attack, they attempt to undermine the legitimacy of calls for accountability. The assertion that the opposition is “politicizing” the issue implies that the deaths, while tragic, are secondary to the perceived need for political stability or the “greater good” of Duterte’s drug-fighting campaign. This rhetorical tactic serves to shift the focus away from the violence and its victims, redirecting public attention to the supposed motives of those demanding justice.
Moreover, proponents of the drug war frequently attempt to deflect blame by framing the victims as either complicit or deserving of their fate. They argue that those who were killed were drug dealers, addicts, or members of criminal syndicates, implying that their deaths were a natural, inevitable outcome of their illegal activities. This narrative allows the perpetrators of violence to absolve themselves of guilt, suggesting that the victims were not innocent but rather active participants in criminality deserving of punishment outside the law.
This form of justification, however, ignores the fundamental principles of due process and human rights. By focusing on the alleged guilt of the victims, the government and its supporters seek to create a moral justification for extrajudicial killings, distancing themselves from the cold, calculated violence that became the hallmark of the drug war. In doing so, they not only obscure the full scope of the human rights abuses committed but also create a dangerous precedent where the lives of the most vulnerable are devalued.
The analogy to the controversial "Holocaust denial" is not without merit, particularly in the way it seeks to minimize the scale of the tragedy or to deny that it even took place. Holocaust deniers, for example, often downplay or ignore the vast number of victims, dismissing the scale of the atrocity as exaggerated or fabricated. Similarly, supporters of the drug war have downplayed the alarming statistics of extrajudicial killings, either by denying that such deaths occurred systematically or by claiming that the numbers are inflated or politically motivated. They argue that the media, human rights groups, and international organizations have exaggerated the figures to discredit the government’s efforts. This tactic is especially prevalent when the death toll is questioned or when calls for an independent investigation arise—those who benefit from the war on drugs seek to paint such inquiries as mere political stunts, suggesting that the real issue is not the loss of life but the "dangers" posed by those seeking to destabilize the government.
This denial extends not only to the magnitude of the killings but also to the systemic nature of the violence. By framing the drug war as an isolated series of operations, disconnected from the overarching policies and incentives that underpinned it, those in power hope to erase the narrative of state-sponsored violence. They dismiss the evidence that the war was structured around rewards for killings, turning a blind eye to the corruption, criminal syndicates’ involvement, and the lack of accountability within the police force. As with Holocaust denial, the goal is to obfuscate the historical truth in order to protect the reputations of those who profited from the violence or were complicit in its execution.
In a perverse twist, those defending the war on drugs may even attempt to blame the victims themselves, accusing them of contributing to their own deaths by their association with drugs, crime, or gang activities. This rhetoric places the blame for their deaths squarely on the shoulders of the victims, suggesting that they brought about their own fatal outcome through their lifestyle choices or criminal behavior. By framing the narrative in this way, Duterte's supporters attempt to absolve the state and its enforcers from responsibility for the deaths, shifting the moral burden onto the deceased. It is a form of victim-blaming that absolves perpetrators of their crimes and undermines the rights of individuals to live without fear of arbitrary execution.
What this denial ultimately does is to strip the victims of their humanity, turning them into statistics or faceless casualties in a larger, impersonal war. It allows those in power to continue with impunity, knowing that they can rely on the apathy or confusion sown by these misleading narratives. By downplaying the true scale of the drug war’s violence and framing it as a necessary or even inevitable consequence of eradicating drugs, those who defended Duterte’s policies seek to preserve their political power, evade responsibility for their actions, and avoid facing the moral and legal consequences of their role in creating a climate of violence.
This denial also serves to disempower the families of the victims, who are left to mourn the loss of their loved ones in a society where the state offers little recourse for justice. Many of the victims were not hardened criminals, but impoverished individuals caught in the crossfire of a brutal campaign. Families who seek answers are often told by those in power that their loved ones were “just drug users” or “members of criminal syndicates,” minimizing their grief and delegitimizing their calls for justice.
The refusal to confront the truth of the war on drugs—as it was carried out under Duterte’s administration—continues to be a profound injustice. Those who deny the full extent of the violence or downplay the role of the government in orchestrating these killings are not only perpetuating a culture of impunity but also reinforcing a dangerous narrative that legitimizes extrajudicial violence as an acceptable tool of governance. Just as those who denied the atrocities of past genocides distorted history to suit their agendas, so too do defenders of the drug war distort the facts in order to protect those who benefit from the suffering of others.
In this light, the struggle for justice is not just about holding individuals accountable for their actions but also about confronting the pervasive culture of denial that seeks to erase the truth. The drug war cannot be swept under the rug of political convenience or ignored in favor of maintaining power. The victims deserve recognition, the families deserve justice, and the Philippine people deserve to know the full extent of the human cost of Duterte’s policies. Only by confronting the truth can any real healing begin—both for the victims and for a nation that has yet to fully reckon with its past.
Looking Forward: The Path to Accountability
As these investigations continue, there remains a pressing question: will anyone truly be held accountable for the countless lives lost in the drug war? The hearings, despite their differing approaches between the Senate and the House, serve as a platform for victims and whistleblowers to expose the corruption, the abuse of power, and the systemic violations that occurred under the guise of public safety.
While Duterte’s allies in the Senate continue to protect the former president and the policy from full scrutiny, the efforts of the Quad Committee in the House have shed light on the intricate web of corruption and extrajudicial violence that characterized the drug war. Public sentiment is shifting, with many calling for justice not just for the victims but for the restoration of faith in the Philippine justice system.
Ultimately, the truth about the drug war—and the accountability of those who orchestrated and carried it out—remains elusive. However, these hearings are part of a larger struggle to expose the darker truths of the Duterte administration’s policies and the harm they caused to Philippine society. The full extent of the human cost remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the push for justice will not be easily silenced, and the echoes of this bloody legacy will reverberate for years to come.