They would cry words 'Homeland' and 'Justice',
but neither 'Homeland' nor 'Justice' can shield them from the Law
When the guns fell silent and the body counts faded from the headlines, what remained was a deeper question: What did the Philippines sacrifice in the name of order?
For years, the “war on drugs” was sold as a moral crusade — a necessary purge to save the nation from decay. Supporters rallied behind Rodrigo Duterte, insisting that harsh measures were proof of strong leadership. Critics were dismissed as elitists, liberals, or worse — traitors from those who self-described “not Filipino for nothing.”
But beneath the rhetoric of patriotism and public safety lies an uncomfortable truth: when the state abandons due process, it abandons justice itself.
When the ICC report meant Justice
Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has been slapped with international charges over alleged killings carried out during his notorious “war on drugs,” the International Criminal Court (ICC) revealed Friday. The 16-page report by the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor accuses Duterte of orchestrating a “widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population” aimed at “neutralizing” suspected criminals, particularly those linked to the country’s illegal drug trade.
The charges span the period from 2013 to 2018, encompassing Duterte’s tenure as mayor of Davao City and his subsequent presidency. The ICC filing details the operations of the Davao Death Squad, a vigilante group alleged to have carried out extrajudicial killings in Duterte’s hometown, and a nationwide police network that reportedly expanded this model when Duterte assumed national office in 2016.
The report specifies 76 murders and two attempted murders as part of the formal charges. However, prosecutors note that the actual scale of killings during this period was “significantly greater,” reflecting a campaign that many human rights advocates have long described as brutal and far-reaching. Victims reportedly ranged from alleged drug dealers and users to ordinary civilians, including minors, many of whom were publicly labeled as criminals by law enforcement before their deaths.
The ICC filing was signed by Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang and is dated from The Hague, Netherlands. The document highlights not only Duterte’s alleged role in directing the killings but also the involvement of senior officials and law enforcement agencies, indicating that the alleged campaign was systemic, coordinated, and backed by the structures of state power, rather than isolated incidents of violence.
Observers say the ICC’s formal charges mark a significant development in the long-running debate over the “war on drugs,” which has polarized Philippine society and drawn intense international scrutiny. While Duterte and his supporters have defended the campaign as a necessary measure to combat crime and maintain public order, critics argue that it represents a blatant disregard for due process, human rights, and the rule of law, leaving thousands of families grieving and communities living under fear.
The ICC’s case signals that domestic support or political office does not provide immunity from international legal accountability. The Pre-Trial Chamber will now examine the evidence to determine whether the charges can proceed to trial, while additional documentation submitted by the Prosecution — much of it confidential — is expected to further detail the alleged scope and mechanics of the campaign.
State-backed violence guised as crime deterrence
Several top officials are listed as “co-perpetrators,” including Senators Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa and Christopher “Bong” Go; former police chiefs Camilo Cascolan, Oscar Albayalde, and Vicente Danao; former justice secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II; and NBI chiefs Dante Gierran and Isidro Lapeña.
Lawyer Kristina Conti, representing families of victims, argued that the inclusion of these officials shows the killings were systematic and state-backed, not random acts of violence.
The ICC categorizes the alleged crimes into three groups:
1. Murder in Davao (2013–2016): 19 victims killed under Duterte’s mayoral watch.
2. High-Value Targets (2016–2017): 14 alleged drug kingpins reportedly killed for secret cash rewards.
3. Barangay Operations (2016–2018): 43 deaths and two attempted murders in local police operations, including three children.
Duterte is accused of designing the policy, ordering killings, and publicly encouraging officers and hired guns, even promising immunity to those who carried them out. The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber will now decide whether there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. Meanwhile, prosecutors have quietly added new evidence to the case, though details remain confidential.
Collateral damage is still death- and no justification from authorities
can't overturn the wheels of justice
For years, supporters of Duterte have defended these operations as necessary, framing them as a war the nation had to fight. They have said critics are “not Filipino for nothing,” and dismissed the deaths of innocents as “collateral damage.” Liberals and the left were painted as soft, naïve, or obstructionist for opposing the campaign.
But patriotism is not obedience to fear. Love of country does not require the suspension of law. The issue has never been the danger of drugs; it has been the abandonment of due process, the disregard for courts, and the instrumentalization of fear to enforce so-called order.
Operations that target civilians under the guise of policy are not justice; they are terror institutionalized. Labeling the dead as “suspects” does not sanctify the act, and incentives for killing do not transform murder into law enforcement. The rule of law is the very foundation of a functioning state — when it is bypassed, no one is safe.
Supporters may claim that order was restored and crime fell. But fear is not stability. Silence is not peace. And for every moment of apparent safety, the institutions that protect rights, investigate crime, and uphold justice are eroded, leaving future generations more vulnerable.
The truth is unflinching: no homeland, no political office, no chorus of supporters can shield anyone from law. International mechanisms exist precisely to hold leaders accountable when domestic systems fail. Rights exist not for convenience, but for protection. And the law exists not to serve fear, but to restrain it.
The debate is no longer simply about drugs. It is about whether a nation chooses fear as its foundation or law as its anchor. Once fear replaces justice, it is not only criminals who live in danger — it is everyone.