Revisiting Duterte’s War on Drugs:
A War on Crime or a War for Control?
Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs was launched with an iron fist, branded as a decisive move to protect Filipinos from the perils of illegal narcotics. Yet, as the years passed, the reality became clear: it was less a war on drugs and more a war on the poor. With thousands of extrajudicial killings, a compromised justice system, and rampant corruption within law enforcement, Duterte’s campaign became a grim spectacle of state-sanctioned violence. Now that he is under arrest and facing trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC), his supporters decry the move as “kidnapping,” while ignoring the thousands who were kidnapped from life itself—killed without trial, without defense, and without justice.
This raises critical questions: Was the war on drugs ever truly about eradicating the drug menace, or was it a means to control the drug trade, eliminate competition, and consolidate political power? More importantly, does Duterte’s arrest signal a step toward justice, or does it merely scratch the surface of a deeper, more systemic problem of impunity in the Philippines?
The War on Drugs: Who Really Benefited?
Duterte’s drug war was framed as a necessary measure to cleanse the country of criminal elements. But a closer look reveals that those who suffered the most were not the major drug lords or syndicate bosses but the most vulnerable members of society—small-time drug users, petty dealers, and the urban poor.
Police operations frequently targeted low-income communities, with many of the victims unable to afford legal defense or bribe their way to safety. Thousands were executed on mere suspicion, often based on dubious “watch lists” compiled by local officials. Meanwhile, high-profile figures involved in the drug trade, including politicians and law enforcement officers, faced little to no consequences.
Consider the case of Michael Yang, Duterte’s former economic adviser, who was linked to the illegal drug trade. Despite allegations and evidence pointing to his involvement, he remained untouchable, shielded by his political connections. Similarly, the notorious “ninja cops”—police officers who recycled confiscated drugs back into circulation—continued their operations with impunity, with some even receiving promotions.
If Duterte’s war on drugs was truly about eliminating the drug menace, why did it overwhelmingly target the powerless while allowing those with influence to thrive? The answer is simple: the war was not about ending drugs—it was about controlling who could profit from them.
Dura Lex Sed Lex: A Law Misused and Abused
Supporters of Duterte’s drug war frequently invoked the Latin phrase Dura lex, sed lex—“The law is harsh, but it is the law”—to justify the extreme measures taken by the administration. But this interpretation was flawed from the start.
The true meaning of Dura lex, sed lex is that the law must be applied fairly and consistently, regardless of one’s status. However, Duterte’s approach perverted this principle by enforcing the law selectively. The poor bore the full brunt of the campaign, while those with political or financial power were either spared or given a second chance.
Moreover, many of the killings were carried out extrajudicially, meaning they were outside the boundaries of the legal system entirely. Due process was disregarded, and law enforcement became both judge and executioner. The courts, which should have been the final arbiter of justice, became complicit through their inaction, failing to investigate cases of wrongful deaths.
By the time Duterte left office, the war on drugs had created a parallel justice system where accusations alone could be a death sentence. The law was not harsh—it was weaponized against those least capable of defending themselves.
The ICC and the Failure of the Philippine Justice System
With Duterte now facing trial at the ICC, his defenders argue that the Philippines has its own judiciary and does not need international intervention. However, this claim collapses when one examines the state of the local justice system.
Despite the thousands of documented killings, only a handful of police officers have been convicted for abuses related to the drug war. Even then, convictions only occurred in cases where media attention made it impossible to ignore the injustices. For the vast majority of victims, no justice was served.
The ICC operates under the principle of complementarity, meaning it only steps in when a country is unwilling or unable to prosecute crimes against humanity. The fact that the ICC had to take action at all is an indictment of the Philippine legal system’s failure to hold its own leaders accountable.
Yet, Duterte’s supporters refuse to acknowledge this reality. Instead, they paint his arrest as an attack on national sovereignty, ignoring that sovereignty is meaningless when the state itself has failed to protect its citizens from unlawful killings.
Duterte’s Arrest: A Step Forward, But Not Enough
While Duterte’s arrest is a significant step toward accountability, it does not undo the damage caused by his policies. The institutions that enabled his drug war remain intact. Law enforcement agencies still operate with a culture of impunity, and the political climate still rewards strongman tactics over genuine governance.
Moreover, Duterte’s brand of populism has left a lasting impact. His rhetoric of violence and lawlessness has been adopted by other politicians, who see fear and coercion as legitimate tools of leadership. His arrest may remove him from power, but it does not dismantle the machinery of oppression that he helped build.
For true justice to be achieved, the following steps must be taken:
1. Comprehensive Investigations – Every case of extrajudicial killing must be properly investigated, with those responsible held accountable, regardless of rank or status.2. Judicial Reforms – The courts must be strengthened to ensure independence and integrity, preventing future leaders from exploiting the system.3. Police and Military Oversight – Law enforcement agencies must undergo significant reforms to eliminate corruption and abuse of power.4. Victim Reparations – Families of victims must receive compensation and support to rebuild their lives after the injustices they suffered.
Until these steps are taken, Duterte’s arrest will remain largely symbolic—an important move, but not a complete reckoning.
Beyond Duterte: The Fight Against Impunity Continues
Duterte’s war on drugs was never truly about public safety; it was about consolidating control, silencing dissent, and reshaping the country’s political landscape through fear. His arrest by the ICC is a long-overdue response to the atrocities committed under his administration, but it is not the end of the struggle.
The biggest threat is that another Duterte may rise—another leader who will exploit the same rhetoric, the same tactics, and the same disregard for human rights. If Filipinos do not demand deeper institutional reforms, history may repeat itself.
The war on drugs was not just Duterte’s war. It was a systemic war against the powerless, a war that used the facade of law and order to justify mass killings. If the country fails to learn from this dark chapter, then Duterte’s arrest will be just another political footnote, rather than a turning point toward real justice.
The real question remains: Will the Philippines finally break the cycle of impunity, or will it allow the next strongman to rewrite the same bloodstained script?