Between Their Narrative of "Progress"
and Realities riddled by "Controversy":
Revisiting the "Duterte Legacy"
Rodrigo Roa Duterte, the former President of the Philippines, remains one of the most polarizing figures in recent political history. Celebrated for transformative infrastructure projects and sweeping reforms, yet criticized for alleged human rights abuses, his legacy is deeply contested—praised by many, but also scrutinized for its darker dimensions.
Duterte’s tenure brought tangible improvements that cannot be ignored. Initiatives such as extending the validity of passports, driver’s licenses, and seamen’s books to ten years eased bureaucratic burdens for ordinary Filipinos. The “Build, Build, Build” program ushered in a new era of infrastructure development: rehabilitated MRT lines, airports, bridges, and coastal roads that improved mobility and commerce. Manila Bay, Boracay Island, and the Pasig River were given long-overdue rehabilitation, signifying efforts to balance development with environmental care.
Social reforms were also visible. Salary increases for public school teachers, nurses, and military personnel offered a sense of dignity to essential workers. The establishment of Malasakit Centers provided accessible healthcare across the nation. During the Marawi Siege and the global pandemic, Duterte’s administration responded with social amelioration programs and contingency measures aimed at alleviating the plight of ordinary Filipinos.
Yet, beyond these achievements lies a shadow that cannot be ignored. The so-called “War on Drugs”—Duterte’s flagship campaign—has been marred by allegations of extrajudicial killings. Thousands of lives were lost in operations that often blurred the line between law enforcement and state-sanctioned violence. While supporters argue that this iron-fisted approach restored “order” and “stability,” critics contend that it undermined the rule of law, normalized impunity, and betrayed public trust.
Moreover, the Duterte administration’s track record raises questions about political patronage. Highlighting achievements such as infrastructure development and social programs is undoubtedly valid; these initiatives reflect a functioning government that prioritized national progress. However, framing these successes as uniquely attributable to one leader risks perpetuating a culture of dependency and hero-worship. Infrastructure and welfare programs are matters of state policy, not personal gifts. Praising them as favors, rather than expected duties, reduces governance to political theatrics.
To see the “legacy” as presented by Duterte’s supporters, a concerned critic might argue that it is not his personal work, but rather the result of national policies that involve an effort between the state and the people. After all, the Filipino people contribute taxes, making the state accountable for the services and benefits citizens receive. Such progress should be seen as the work of a functioning government—not the creation of a single leader. Yet, supporters often frame these developments as the exclusive achievement of Duterte himself, leading to a dangerous idolization that borders on a cult of personality.
This is further complicated by the irony that Duterte, who once promised to put an end to the politics of patronage, ended up tolerating the very same tactics in his administration. The public celebration of infrastructure and welfare programs in his name risks undermining the principle of collective governance, as it centers power in the individual rather than in the institutions that serve the people. Duterte’s leadership, as shown in these instances, creates an irony that cannot be overlooked.
Nevertheless, this does not diminish a blatant truth: Duterte, despite his populist rhetoric, swore an oath to uphold the status quo—the political and institutional structures that govern the Philippines. And in doing so, he not only perpetuated the politics of patronage but also reinforced the very framework that allows such politics to thrive.
A critical aspect of Duterte’s legacy also lies in his foreign policy decisions, particularly his stance towards China. How can one praise a leader who kowtows to a country that claims a part of this nation as theirs? This gesture, often hailed by his supporters as an example of an independent foreign policy, is in reality a troubling example of seeking allies to justify apathy towards a concerned world in exchange for mere “aid.” Worse, the country Duterte so eagerly sought alignment with launders dirty money in its financial systems, a fact that casts serious doubts on the integrity of these international dealings. The Philippines, under Duterte’s leadership, seemed to be compromising sovereignty and principles in exchange for temporary economic favors, undermining its standing in the global arena.
Regardless of the rhetoric, Duterte was no different from any other ruler. In the end, he upheld the status quo, throwing crumbs to the people while maintaining the political structures that allowed inequality and corruption to persist. The promise of change? It turned out to be nothing more than superficial, aesthetic, performance art—a show designed to distract, rather than to reform.
In retrospect, Duterte’s presidency reflects a paradox: remarkable strides in infrastructure and public services, yet a troubling legacy of extrajudicial acts, foreign policy missteps, and deep societal divisions. While history will ultimately judge Rodrigo Duterte’s place in the Filipino consciousness, one fact remains: governance must always be held accountable. No amount of progress can excuse abuses of power, and no leader—no matter how celebrated—should be above the rule of law.
The nation’s future depends not just on remembering achievements, but on learning from the flaws that came with them. Progress and justice are not mutually exclusive; the Filipino people deserve both.
On the other hand, it may not be surprising that as support for Duterte continues, people can expect a degree of denialism regarding his controversial acts—whether by blaming political rivals or downplaying the situation to uphold their own narrative. Just as Holocaust denialists spread falsehoods to fit their agendas, Duterte’s staunchest supporters may likewise attempt to rewrite history, ignoring or minimizing the human rights violations and abuses committed under his watch. The denial of such truths only serves to protect the mythos of a leader rather than confronting the realities of his policies.
Regardless of the statements, Duterte was no different from any other ruler. He upheld the status quo while throwing crumbs to the people, masking the harsh truth behind superficial promises of change. It was all but an aesthetic, a performance art designed to project a false narrative of progress.