The Political Nature of Accountability under Duterte: The "Führerprinzip" in Practice?

The Political Nature of Accountability under Duterte:
The "Führerprinzip" in Practice?

The War on Drugs initiated by Rodrigo Duterte upon his ascension to the presidency of the Philippines in 2016 was not merely a law-and-order measure but a politically charged campaign designed to consolidate his personal power. While presented as a necessary response to drug-related crime, it quickly became clear that Duterte’s war was grounded more in his political will than in legal processes or democratic norms. His administration's disregard for due process, combined with the politicization of state institutions, reflected a governance model where the "Führerprinzip"—the "leader principle"—reigned supreme. In this framework, Duterte's personal authority became the law, overriding judicial oversight, constitutional protections, and international human rights standards.

Politicizing Law Enforcement and Weaponization of State Power:

A Campaign for Consolidation of power and interest

Duterte’s War on Drugs rapidly evolved from a law enforcement initiative into a mechanism for political consolidation. By framing the campaign as a moral crusade, Duterte not only sought to eliminate perceived criminal threats but also to solidify his political base, presenting himself as the nation’s protector from chaos and drug abuse. His infamous "license to kill" rhetoric, for example, justified extrajudicial killings under the guise of national security, offering law enforcement officers a free pass to act with impunity. Duterte's public directive to police officers to "encourage suspects to fight back" was a clear signal that the legal system was secondary to his political agenda—extrajudicial killings were excused as necessary to preserve national order, even when they blatantly violated human rights.

Moreover, Duterte’s political suppression extended to those who questioned or challenged his policies. Critics, including human rights organizations, opposition politicians, and even journalists, were labeled as “drug protectors” or “terrorists”, and subjected to harassment, arrest, and even imprisonment. The case of Senator Leila de Lima—who was incarcerated on what many saw as politically motivated charges—exemplifies how opposition figures were persecuted simply for standing against the drug war. Duterte’s administration framed any challenge to the drug war as a betrayal of the national interest, further consolidating his political base while criminalizing dissent.

Politicization also infected legislative bodies, where many politicians, including senators seeking re-election, publicly voiced concern about the drug war or feigning impartiality, but, in practice, shielded Duterte from legal scrutiny. Legislative hearings into the abuses of the War on Drugs often became grandstanding exercises rather than genuine attempts to ensure accountability. Instead of questioning the legitimacy of Duterte’s policies, these lawmakers focused on deflecting criticism and protecting their political interests, a reflection of the political power Duterte wielded to prevent meaningful checks on his actions.

This political capital that Duterte wielded was such that his allies in the legislature were willing to ignore calls for accountability, choosing instead to defend a campaign that had fundamentally undermined constitutional safeguards. It's either "accept it or not" as these solons who chose to support treat the situation as implementation of political will and therefore disregard human rights, due process, or the constitution itself. And regardless of trying to "depoliticize" its nature, this weaponization of state power became particularly evident in the way that Duterte’s critics were treated. Opposition figures and human rights activists were not only silenced but actively punished for their dissent. The use of state violence to suppress these critics mirrored the tactics of authoritarian regimes, where opposition is viewed as a threat to the leader’s power rather than a legitimate expression of political disagreement. Duterte’s critics were framed as enemies of the state, demonized as traitors and "anti-national" for their opposition to his policies.

The Führerprinzip: A Governance Model Based on the Leader’s Will

Central to Duterte’s leadership style was a rejection of institutional checks and balances in favor of a leader-centered governance model. This model, exemplified by the "Führerprinzip", places the leader’s will above legal and constitutional constraints. Duterte’s administration embodied this principle in its disregard for due process and its elevation of presidential authority to an unprecedented level. Under Duterte, law enforcement and other state actors were expected to execute his directives without question, turning the rule of law into a mere extension of his personal vision.

Duterte’s frequent statements, such as his assertion that, "If allowed to return as mayor of Davao, I would do it all over again," revealed the depth of his personal attachment to the drug war and its extrajudicial tactics. The campaign was not merely a policy; it was framed as his personal mission to eliminate drug criminals and assert control over the nation, further solidifying the notion that the law, in his eyes, was a tool for implementing his own agenda. Even in the face of mounting international condemnation, Duterte maintained that his actions were justified by his mandate, a belief that his leadership was above both Philippine law and international human rights standards.

For sure Duterte’s supporters may disagree with any criticism of his leadership, but their support for his harsh approach to the law suggests they believe that the implementer of the law—the president—should have the freedom to interpret it as he sees fit. As member of the bar what more a former prosecutor, Duterte was trained and faced the courts to implement law, often deciding guilt or innocence based on evidence. However, once he became mayor and then president, his legal training became distorted to serve his political objectives. A prosecutor’s role should be to apply the law impartially, with fairness and due process to ensure justice. Yet, under Duterte, justice became highly personalized—with his will as the leader has to be above if not became the law. He referred to the drug war as "his personal mission," where his view of “justice” and “order” became the driving force behind law enforcement. In this framework, due process was discarded in favor of “political will”, with extrajudicial killings and violent crackdowns justified as upholding the law. Constitutional safeguards, like judicial review and legal accountability, were seen as obstacles to his vision of order and were sidelined.

Thus, under this mindset, Duterte treated the law as a malleable tool to enforce his goals, allowing him to justify violence and impunity. His Führerprinzip-like approach led to the idea that the leader’s will should supersede legal norms. Supporters of his policies tacitly accepted this notion, agreeing that the president, not the law, should have the final say on matters of justice. This blurred the line between rule of law and rule by leader, turning the law into a tool of political control rather than a means to ensure justice.

Bending the Law: Legal Impunity and Authoritarian Governance

Duterte’s manipulation of legal processes underlined his rejection of legal accountability. His disregard for the law was not limited to his rhetoric but extended to the systematic undermining of legal safeguards. Through public declarations like "license to kill" and directives to law enforcement to treat suspects as "enemies," Duterte effectively redefined justice. Rather than following due process, the law was bent to suit his political aims. Extrajudicial killings and violent crackdowns on drug suspects became the norm, with police acting as judge, jury, and executioner. The rule of law, which is meant to provide accountability and fairness, was rendered irrelevant in Duterte’s model of governance.

And by redefining justice, this sounds like "theory of two demons" that appear to morally equate what perceived as immoral, if not violent actions against the state with illegal repressive activities carried out by the state. If necessary, this disregard the law of the land by claiming such "drastic" moves as "legal" or as a "moral necessity." 
In the case of Duterte’s drug war, there is a similar moral equivalence at play. By framing the drug war as a battle for national survival, Duterte justified state-sanctioned violence, including extrajudicial killings, as a necessary and righteous action against the “enemy”—the drug trade and criminals to counter that of crimes perpetuated by the "enemy". True that the long arm of the law as needed to combat crime as supporters would insist, but with Duterte's distortion of the law, this justification has created "legal impunity" by implementing a necessary evil to counter a greater evil- regardless of collateral damages, false accusations, or mistaken identities; if not created a false dichotomy where violence committed by the state was seen as legitimate while perceived "violence" from opposition or dissenting voices (who questioned the legality of the drug war or any of Duterte's controversial policies) was framed as illegal or subversive.  

And as a former prosecutor, Duterte was trained in the application of the law, but as president, he adopted a crude interpretation of justice that placed his will above constitutional protections, justifying such bloodied actions as "political will" or as "moral necessity". The drug war, far from being a legal crusade against crime, became a political campaign to eliminate his enemies and entrench his power. His repeated insistence that the War on Drugs was a moral imperative meant that the law, in his view, was secondary to the preservation of his political vision.

The dangerous precedent set by Duterte’s War on Drugs lay in how the law was manipulated to serve the interests of one man, making the law literally harsh "but it is the law" people meant to obey. The state's monopoly on violence was wielded to enforce Duterte’s political agenda, bypassing due process and turning legal institutions into mere instruments of executive power.

The Dangerous Implications of Personalizing "Justice" and "Rule by Law"

Duterte's personalized approach to justice eroded the democratic safeguards designed to protect citizens from abuse. In a functional democracy, the judiciary, legislature, and executive act as independent checks on each other, ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of one individual. However, under Duterte, these institutions were subordinated to his will, and any challenge to his authority was quickly dismissed or repressed. 

Opposition figures, human rights organizations, and journalists who criticized the War on Drugs were not only silenced but often persecuted. Those who dared to question Duterte’s policies were labeled "drug protectors" or "enemies of the state" and subjected to threats, harassment, imprisonment, or worse. Duterte's manipulation of the legal system reflected the dangers of personalized justice, where legal norms are disregarded in favor of an executive order that reinforces the leader’s political objectives.

Sovereignty as an Alibi: The Erosion of Legal Accountability

Duterte often invoked the principle of national sovereignty to justify his war on drugs, claiming that it was an internal matter immune to foreign scrutiny. His frequent defense of the drug war as a sovereign right to protect the nation from drug-related crime became a shield against international criticism and accountability. While sovereignty is indeed a legitimate principle, Duterte’s application of it was more an alibi for the erosion of legal accountability than a defense of the nation’s interests. By invoking sovereignty, he sought to circumvent both domestic legal norms and international human rights standards, positioning the drug war as a national security issue rather than a legal or moral concern.

International organizations, such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC), condemned the extrajudicial killings and violations of human rights under Duterte’s leadership, but these critiques were dismissed as foreign interference. Duterte’s rhetorical defense of sovereignty allowed him to deflect attention from the illegal and immoral actions of his government, providing cover for the authoritarian overreach of his regime. In this way, sovereignty was reduced from a means of protecting the nation’s citizens to a tool for perpetuating Duterte’s political control.

The Public’s Role in Challenging Duterte’s Legal Reinterpretation

Despite Duterte’s attempts to frame his War on Drugs as a moral imperative, significant resistance arose from civil society, legal experts, and political opposition. Many Filipinos rejected the notion that sovereignty could be used to justify the breakdown of the rule of law. As Duterte’s legal reinterpretations increasingly bent the law to serve his political goals, opposition groups began to assert that the law existed not to serve the whims of the president, but to protect the rights of all citizens. Legal experts and human rights organizations argued that Duterte’s disregard for due process represented a grave violation of the Philippine Constitution and international legal obligations.

The political opposition, civil society, and ordinary Filipinos rallied around the idea that no leader should be above the law. They pointed out that while sovereignty may provide a degree of legal autonomy, it could not serve as an excuse for authoritarian governance that trampled on individual rights and democratic processes. In this context, public resistance to Duterte’s legal overreach became crucial in defending the integrity of the legal system and the democratic values that had once anchored the Philippines’ political identity.

Conclusion: The Authoritarian Nature of Duterte's Rule

Rodrigo Duterte’s War on Drugs was far more than a law-and-order initiative—it was a deeply political project that sought to consolidate his personal power at the expense of democratic institutions and legal accountability. His leadership, marked by a rejection of legal norms and constitutional safeguards, exemplified the dangers of the "Führerprinzip", where the law becomes a tool to serve the leader’s will. By centralizing power in his office and manipulating the legal system to fit his personal vision, Duterte undermined the rule of law and opened the door for authoritarianism to flourish in a nation that had once prided itself on democratic governance.

Duterte’s reliance on sovereignty as a defense against international scrutiny and his crude interpretation of the law revealed the extent to which his administration distorted legal principles to suppress opposition, consolidate power, and undermine legal protections. In doing so, he had set a dangerous precedent, demonstrating how authoritarianism can take root in a democracy when the law is no longer a safeguard but a tool of personal control. The political nature of accountability under Duterte’s rule was marked by a disregard for constitutional norms and an unwavering belief in the supremacy of the leader’s will, providing a stark reminder of the fragility of democracy in the face of unchecked executive power.