The State, the Dead, and the Record:
How the Philippines is Still Arguing With Duterte's War on Drugs
By Kat Ulrike
Photo from ICC
The difficulty with political violence is that it rarely ends when the violence itself subsides. Governments change, policemen are reassigned, slogans disappear from official speeches and the emergency vocabulary of one administration gives way to the managerial vocabulary of the next. Yet the arguments that justified the violence, the grievances of those who suffered from it and the loyalties formed around those who ordered or defended it tend to survive. What had once been a contest over policy becomes, in time, a contest over memory.
The Philippines has entered precisely such a period over Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs. The raids and nightly casualty reports that defined much of his presidency no longer occupy the center of national political life, but the country has not arrived at an agreed understanding of what happened. Thousands of deaths remain embedded in police records, court complaints, family recollections and human-rights investigations. At the same time, a substantial political constituency continues to remember the campaign not principally as an episode of abuse but as a period in which the state recovered an authority that previous governments had seemed unwilling or unable to exercise. The disagreement is therefore not simply over Duterte. It concerns the older Philippine question of how much coercion a weak or frustrated state may employ in the name of restoring order.
The appearance of Duterte before the International Criminal Court has given this argument a new institutional setting without resolving it. The Hague can determine criminal responsibility within the limits of the charges and evidence before it. An independent Truth Commission in the Philippines has begun the broader work of documenting cases that may never reach an international courtroom. Between them remains the political nation itself, still divided over whether the drug war should be remembered primarily as a campaign against criminal disorder or as a period in which the state permitted violence to outrun law. That division was visible even before a single witness at Duterte’s trial had been called.
Two Audiences
There were at least two Philippine audiences watching Rodrigo Duterte when he appeared in person before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and the distance between them was considerably greater than the miles separating Manila from the Netherlands. Duterte, now 81, sat in a dark suit and white shirt behind his lawyers while the judges discussed witnesses, evidence, scheduling and the practical arrangements for a trial expected to begin on Nov. 30. It was his first physical appearance before the tribunal since he was taken into ICC custody in March 2025. He did not address the court. For much of the hearing, the drama lay less in what Duterte said than in the fact that he was physically there at all.
For his allies, the images revived a familiar political language. Robin Padilla posted photographs of Duterte accompanied by the word Tatay—“Father”—while Christopher “Bong” Go, his aide for more than two decades, used the affectionate “Father Digong.” The vocabulary was revealing. Duterte was not presented merely as a former chief executive awaiting trial but as the paternal figure around whom a political family and constituency had long organized their loyalties. His own public response was more explicitly political: “Everything I did, I did it for my country.” The sentence compressed into eleven words the defense that had surrounded much of his presidency—that whatever harshness attended the anti-drug campaign had to be understood through the purpose his supporters attributed to it: the restoration of order and the protection of the public.
Another audience had gathered in Quezon City. Families of people killed during the anti-drug campaign watched the proceedings with lawyers, church representatives and human-rights advocates. Their attention was directed toward the same face and movements, but they drew from them almost the opposite reassurance. Llore Pasco, whose sons Crisanto and Juan Carlos Lozano were killed in a police operation in 2017, said she had been surprised but pleased to see Duterte appear. Translated into English, her reaction was practical rather than triumphant: “We were surprised, but of course we were happy that he finally appeared, and we saw that he looked well. He even gained weight. So we expect that he really is capable of facing trial.”
Dahlia Cuartero, whose son Jesus Cuartero III was also killed during the drug war, expressed a similar hope in the language of prayer. “Our prayer was answered—that he would remain strong so that all his victims could be given justice,” she said. “We were happy to see that he was strong.” The peculiar moral geometry of the moment was difficult to miss. These relatives were not hoping to see an accused adversary diminished by illness. They wanted him healthy enough to remain before the judges, understand the proceedings and stay alive long enough for the judicial process to run its course.
Neri Colmenares, who represents some alleged victims, converted those impressions into a legal argument. In his view, Duterte’s behavior in court suggested that he understood what was happening and recognized supporters in the gallery. Translated into English, Colmenares said: “It showed that President Duterte can do this, that he is fit for trial because he understands what is happening. He still knows how to wave to his supporters. He knows where in the gallery his supporters are.” He added that forgetfulness alone should not automatically be treated as proof that a defendant cannot stand trial. That is an advocate’s interpretation rather than a clinical finding, but it demonstrates how an ordinary human gesture could immediately acquire evidentiary and political meaning.
The defense has presented a sharply different picture. Duterte’s lawyers say significant memory impairment prevents him from reliably retaining recent information and from giving meaningful instructions about a complicated criminal case. Prosecutors, relying on a three-member medical panel, have argued that he remains capable of exercising his procedural and fair-trial rights. The question belongs properly to medicine and law rather than to photographic interpretation. An accused person’s fitness cannot depend upon whether relatives of the dead want a trial to continue or whether his admirers see an elderly statesman enduring detention with dignity. Yet outside the chamber politics had already done what politics normally does: it had given the same image several meanings.
Even politicians who did not speak as either prosecutors or unconditional defenders found themselves responding to the human image. JV Ejercito said he felt sadness at seeing Duterte after a long absence, describing him as extremely thin and frail. Translated, Ejercito said: “I felt sad when I saw him for the first time in a long time because he was very thin and very frail, with his hair grown long.” But when asked about the families of those killed during the drug campaign, he stopped short of converting personal sympathy into a judgment on the proceedings. “Let justice take its course,” he said.
The multiplicity of these responses matters because there was no single Rodrigo Duterte visible on the screen. There was the accused before an international tribunal, the aging former president who elicited ordinary human sympathy, the paternal political figure remembered by loyalists, and the architect of an anti-drug campaign associated with thousands of deaths. One audience saw endurance. Another saw the possibility of accountability. Neither image, by itself, tells us what the court will decide. Together, however, they tell us why the drug war has remained politically unsettled long after Duterte ceased to exercise presidential power.
What Was the “War”?
The most important division is not over Duterte’s present condition but over the past that placed him in The Hague. Nearly a decade after the anti-drug campaign became the organizing drama of his presidency, Filipinos continue to disagree not only about individual killings but about what the campaign represented. To its critics, it became a period of unlawful violence, institutional impunity and the erosion of due process. To many of its defenders, it remains a necessary response to a narcotics and criminality problem that ordinary institutions had failed to contain.
Ronald dela Rosa, Duterte’s first national police chief, has stated the second position more candidly than most. In October 2024, asked whether he regretted implementing the campaign, he replied: “No regrets. If you are going to give me the chance to do it again, I will do it again. The same approach.” He went further, arguing that a campaign against drug personalities could not succeed through gentleness. “You have to be forceful enough,” he said, for the government’s message to reach criminals unmistakably.
Three months later, dela Rosa offered a more qualified but substantively similar defense. Loss of life was regrettable, he said, including the deaths of police officers during operations, but that did not mean the campaign itself should never have been undertaken. Without it, he claimed, the Philippines might have become a “narco-state,” with powerful drug lords exercising influence over provinces, cities and politicians. His conclusion was emphatic: “We have to do that. We had to do that.”
Such statements are significant because they show that severity was not merely an accidental embarrassment later disowned by the campaign’s principal implementers. Severity formed part of the governing argument. Dela Rosa’s defense begins from the premise that criminality had become emboldened because the state had ceased to command sufficient fear. The solution was therefore not simply better police administration or more efficient prosecution but a restoration of the psychological asymmetry between government and those it regarded as lawbreakers. The criminal was to understand, in unmistakable terms, that the state had recovered its capacity to punish.
Dela Rosa has also insisted that the campaign was not designed selectively to spare one class of offender while targeting another. “We didn’t discriminate as to who we are going to arrest,” he said in 2024, arguing that drug lords, pushers, traffickers and users were all targets of enforcement. He has acknowledged that human-rights violations occurred in some cases and argued that these should be investigated individually rather than used to classify the entire campaign as a crime against humanity. That distinction is central to the defense mounted by many Duterte supporters: abuses may have occurred, they say, but abuses committed within a policy do not necessarily define the legal or moral character of the policy itself.
This interpretation cannot be understood merely as the retrospective self-defense of officials facing international scrutiny. Duterte’s rhetoric possessed a genuine constituency because it answered frustrations that preceded his presidency. Many Filipinos experienced the criminal-justice system as slow, unequal and vulnerable to local influence. Police could appear corrupt or ineffective; prosecutors and courts moved at a pace far removed from the immediacy of neighborhood crime; wealthy or politically connected defendants could seem capable of manipulating procedure. Within such circumstances, a politician promising uncomplicated force could present himself not as the destroyer of government but as the man finally willing to make government work.
The political attraction of Duterte therefore lay partly in the collapse of distinctions that liberal institutions normally try to preserve. He spoke about narcotics, crime, corruption, weak policing and cumbersome legal process as aspects of a single disorder requiring executive will. What his critics heard as contempt for procedure, supporters frequently heard as impatience with institutional paralysis. What critics interpreted as menace could be heard by supporters as reassurance.
Dela Rosa later accused legislators of opportunism for having praised the anti-drug campaign while Duterte was politically dominant and condemning it after circumstances changed. In his recollection, lawmakers had once thanked the administration for restoring peace, tranquility and safer streets, only to reverse themselves later. The accusation is partisan, but it points toward a historical fact that should not be overlooked: the drug war did not initially exist outside respectable Philippine politics. It enjoyed substantial public and institutional support. Any serious reconstruction of the period must explain that support rather than treating it merely as an embarrassing national aberration.
This is what makes the language of “war” important. Calling anti-drug enforcement a war was not merely colorful rhetoric. War has enemies, casualties, sacrifices and emergency measures. Criminal law has suspects, warrants, evidence, defendants and trials. Once policing is imagined as warfare, the restraints associated with ordinary criminal procedure can begin to look like impediments placed upon those defending society.
Duterte’s supporters can reasonably object that the metaphor did not automatically suspend the law. Police still operated under statutes, arrests still occurred, courts continued to function, and officers retained a lawful right to defend themselves when confronted by armed suspects. Forcefulness and illegality are not synonymous. But critics begin from the opposite institutional concern: a suspected dealer remains a citizen, suspicion does not amount to conviction, and precisely because the state possesses overwhelming coercive power, restraints upon lethal force become more rather than less important.
The argument is therefore more substantial than the familiar opposition between “security” and “human rights.” Both sides claim an idea of order. The defenders of Duterte emphasize the capacity of government to protect ordinary people from criminal disorder. His critics emphasize the legal restraints necessary to protect ordinary people from arbitrary state power. One camp fears a state too weak to govern; the other fears a state powerful enough to escape accountability.
The Archive of the Dead
The families watching in Quezon City carry another archive of the drug-war years. It is composed not principally of crime statistics or political speeches but of bodies, wakes, disputed police reports, exhumations, witnesses and the long bureaucratic aftermath of violent death. Where a defender of the drug war may remember a neighborhood dealer disappearing from a street corner, a mother may remember a son who never returned home.
The phrase nanlaban became one of the essential words of the period. Literally, it meant that a suspect “fought back.” In police reports it could describe an officer responding to armed resistance during an operation. Among many families and human-rights advocates, however, it became shorthand for an official explanation they believed was repeatedly used to justify killings after the fact. The significance of the word lay precisely in this collision of narratives. A police report and a family testimony might describe the same death in incompatible ways, and the issue became not merely whether a person had died but whether the state’s own record could be trusted.
It is in this unresolved space that the independent Philippine Truth Commission has begun its work. Formally launched in May 2026 by Church leaders, lawyers, academics and human-rights advocates, the commission describes itself as independent, civilian-led, survivor-centered and trauma-informed. Raul Pangalangan, a former ICC judge, chairs it; its commissioners include forensic pathologist Raquel Fortun, trauma specialist Al Fuertes, theologian Daniel Franklin Pilario and human-rights advocate Carlos Conde. Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David serves as adviser. Its stated mission is to document and preserve evidence of violations associated with the anti-drug campaign while providing spaces in which victims and witnesses can place their experiences on the public record.
The commission says it has documented more than 7,500 incidents. That number must be understood with care. It describes the scope of the commission’s documentation; it is not a judicial determination that 7,500 crimes have been legally established. The distinction is essential because a truth process earns authority not by converting every testimony into a finding but by separating allegation, corroboration and conclusion.
The commission’s first public truth-telling session concerned Luzviminda Siapo and her 18-year-old son Raymart, who had a congenital clubfoot that affected his ability to walk and run. According to the commission’s account, Raymart was taken hours after a neighbor accused him of selling marijuana and was later shot. The hearing sought not merely to establish the circumstances of his death but to restore the biography that death had eclipsed: he was a son and brother, was preparing to work with an uncle and had discussed continuing his education. The session combined family testimony with documentary and forensic material in an attempt to create a record that would survive beyond the emotional force of recollection.
Its second session examined the death of 17-year-old Darwin Hamoy in Payatas during a 2016 police operation. His family disputed the police claim that Darwin and others had fought back during a buy-bust operation. Years later, according to the commission, examination of his exhumed remains documented injuries consistent with gunshot wounds and classified his manner of death as homicide. The inquiry extended beyond the instant of death into the family’s attempts to find the body, complaints against police officials and the psychological, social and economic consequences of the killing.
These are questions a criminal indictment may never need to answer. A court asks whether the prosecution can establish the elements of a crime and connect them to the accused. A broader historical inquiry may ask what happened to a family after the funeral, how children understood the disappearance of a father or brother, how barangay officials compiled lists of suspected drug personalities, what policemen believed their superiors expected of them and how repeated presidential rhetoric changed the range of violence that citizens were willing to tolerate.
Pangalangan’s argument for the truth-telling sessions rests largely upon this difference. Many victims and survivors, he has said, will never have cases before the ICC. Their stories therefore cannot depend upon whether an international prosecutor finds them necessary to proving a particular charge against Duterte. The court and the commission are not substitutes for one another because they are engaged in different kinds of inquiry.
Yet the commission’s historical burden extends beyond giving the dead back their names. If it is to explain the period rather than merely memorialize one side of it, it must also take seriously the experience of citizens who insist that the anti-drug campaign improved their lives. Their testimony cannot determine whether a particular killing was lawful, but neither should it be excluded from the social history of the policy. A resident who says the street became safer after a dealer disappeared is describing a political experience. That claim may be compared with crime data, surveys and local evidence, but it remains part of the reason Duterte’s program acquired democratic support.
The important distinction is between recording a claim and accepting it. A policeman who says a suspect fired first makes a claim that may be tested against ballistics, autopsy findings, witnesses and scene evidence. A family alleging execution makes another claim requiring corroboration. A politician who says crime fell because of the campaign makes an empirical assertion that can be tested against data. A supporter who says the campaign restored dignity or peace to a neighborhood makes a more subjective statement but one that nevertheless belongs in the historical record.
Listening broadly does not require concluding that every account is equally well supported. Indeed, a truth commission becomes useful precisely when it refuses the lazy convention by which journalism sometimes places two contradictory statements beside each other and calls the resulting symmetry balance. Evidence can strengthen one account, weaken another or leave matters genuinely unresolved.
What The Hague Can Decide
The ICC operates under a different discipline. It is not writing the final history of the Duterte presidency. It must determine whether specified charges against a particular accused have been proved according to the Rome Statute while preserving the accused’s procedural rights. Duterte faces crimes-against-humanity allegations connected with killings during periods in which the court says it possessed jurisdiction. He denies the charges. The upcoming trial will be governed by rules of evidence, legal responsibility and proof rather than by the larger political question of whether Filipinos approve or disapprove of the drug war.
The status conference itself illustrated the practical narrowness of the task. Presiding Judge Joanna Korner discussed the prosecution’s witnesses, evidence, disclosures and the sitting schedule. The chamber is also considering arrangements shaped partly by Duterte’s age and health. The problem facing the judges is not whether the entire Philippine drug war was morally acceptable; it is how to conduct a manageable and fair criminal trial concerning the charges before them.
The dispute over Duterte’s mental fitness reinforces the distinction. Families may reasonably interpret his courtroom behavior as indicating awareness. Supporters may reasonably interpret the same scene as the stoicism of an old man determined to acknowledge them. Neither observation settles the medical question. The judges must examine expert reports and decide whether Duterte possesses the capacity required to understand proceedings and meaningfully assist his defense.
This is also why the rights of the accused and the interests of victims should not be treated as competing moral luxuries. A proceeding in which an incapable defendant could not understand or answer the case would satisfy little beyond vengeance. Conversely, a system in which age, political stature or loyal public support shielded an otherwise capable accused from trial would hardly satisfy the principle of accountability. Fair process is not a concession granted to Duterte by his critics; it is part of what gives any eventual judgment legitimacy.
The same caution will be necessary once the trial ends. A conviction would establish criminal responsibility for charges proved to the court’s standard. It would not prove every allegation ever made about every police operation under Duterte. An acquittal would mean that the prosecution failed to establish the particular charges to the required standard; it would not retroactively declare every contested drug-war death lawful.
Courts necessarily exclude more history than they include. Prosecutors select representative incidents, documents and witnesses because no trial can become infinite. Some deaths will fall outside jurisdictional dates. Others may lack evidence. Still others may be unnecessary to a prosecution theory already supported by stronger cases. This is not indifference; it is the architecture of adjudication.
The danger lies in asking the judgment to carry a political meaning it cannot logically bear. Duterte’s supporters may be tempted to interpret an acquittal as vindication of the entire drug war. His opponents may be tempted to interpret a conviction as judicial confirmation of every accusation ever made against the administration. Neither conclusion follows automatically. The law is more precise, and therefore in some respects less emotionally satisfying, than political memory.
Truth Without Monopoly
The Truth Commission faces almost the reverse problem. The court must narrow; the commission must broaden without losing rigor. It is attempting to construct a record capable of containing personal testimony, police documentation, forensic examination, public rhetoric and institutional behavior without collapsing these different forms of evidence into a single moral narrative.
The presence of Fortun is especially important because forensic evidence imposes a discipline upon both state narrative and family memory. A bullet trajectory cannot explain why Duterte won an election or why citizens supported aggressive policing, but it may indicate whether a particular account of a shooting is physically possible. Exhumed remains cannot establish the moral legitimacy of the drug war, but they may recover information neglected or concealed in an original investigation. The physical record is limited, but it is often resistant to rhetoric.
The commission’s trauma-informed procedures address another problem. Participants are not merely sources of data. They may remain vulnerable to intimidation, political abuse and renewed psychological distress. Its media rules therefore restrict unsolicited interviews around truth-telling sessions and emphasize the privacy, security and well-being of participants. This may appear to be a peripheral procedural matter, but it reflects an important difficulty of public truth processes: suffering can be exploited even by those who believe themselves to be documenting it.
The commission must nevertheless avoid becoming an institution whose conclusions are determined by the political identities of those who created it. If it appears to Duterte supporters simply as the organized voice of people who had already decided that the former president was guilty, its findings will persuade mainly those who required no persuasion. Conversely, if calls for “balance” become a demand that documented evidence always be offset by an unsupported denial, then balance becomes another mechanism of obscuring fact.
The harder standard is openness without false equivalence. Dela Rosa’s assertion that the campaign was necessary belongs in the record because it reveals the governing logic of the policy. His claim that the Philippines risked becoming a narco-state can be examined historically. His acknowledgment that some human-rights violations occurred can be placed alongside his insistence that those cases should be investigated individually. Duterte’s statement that everything he did was for the country belongs in the record as an assertion of political intention. None of these statements proves the lawfulness of a particular killing, but excluding them would impoverish an account of why the campaign happened and why it retained adherents.
The same principle applies to Pasco, Cuartero and other relatives. Their testimony explains the human meaning of accountability to those who have waited years for formal proceedings, but testimony is not automatically a judicial finding. Their accounts become historically stronger when connected to independent witnesses, documents and physical evidence.
This is what distinguishes truth seeking from merely collecting narratives. A society may possess many memories, but evidence gives those memories different weights.
The Politics of Remembering
The Philippines has never suffered from a shortage of narratives. Governments manufacture them, oppositions construct counter-narratives and political families transmit selective memories from one electoral generation to the next. A fact invoked solemnly while one coalition holds power can become propaganda after a realignment, only to be rediscovered when political usefulness changes again. History often functions less as a public archive than as an arsenal from which present factions select convenient weapons.
The drug war is unusually vulnerable to this tendency because it remains recent and most of its protagonists are still politically active. Duterte’s children and allies remain in public life. Police officers who implemented the policy can still defend it. Families of the dead continue to campaign. Human-rights organizations remain engaged in litigation and documentation. The institutions being asked to interpret the period are institutions that themselves lived through it.
There has therefore been no clean historical distance between the event and the argument over the event. The same citizens who once voted during the drug-war years are being asked to interpret their own choices. Some former allies have become critics; some critics have entered alliances with former supporters. The facts consequently compete not only with ignorance but with changing political interest.
Dela Rosa has complained precisely about this instability. His recollection of politicians once thanking the administration for safer streets and later condemning the campaign is intended as an accusation of opportunism. It is also an inadvertent reminder that political memory is frequently retrospective. Policies that appear normal while power is consolidated can acquire very different meanings after power disperses.
A useful historical record must therefore preserve what political actors said at the time, not merely how they explain themselves later. Duterte’s speeches, police directives, legislative hearings, contemporaneous surveys, crime statistics, autopsy reports, court records and accounts from poor communities must all be treated as part of the record. The post-Duterte reinterpretation of the drug war is itself historically relevant, but it cannot substitute for contemporaneous evidence.
Here the continuing loyalty of Duterte supporters also matters. Padilla’s and Go’s use of “Father” is not evidence in the ICC case, but it is evidence of the paternal political relationship Duterte cultivated. Dela Rosa’s refusal to repent is not proof that the campaign was lawful, but it is evidence that the governing philosophy of the drug war survives its presidency. Those reactions prevent the historian from writing a convenient story in which the entire country awoke after 2022 and unanimously repudiated what had occurred.
Likewise, the testimonies of families prevent the story from becoming an uncomplicated tale of popular order restored. They demonstrate that the same policy experienced as security by one household could be experienced as terror by another. The question is not which emotion should be deleted from history but what happened in the specific cases from which those emotions arose.
This is why the best description of the conflict may not be between law and order, or even between rights and security. It is between different fears. The Duterte constituency feared the failure of the state: drugs, criminality, corrupt institutions and the apparent immunity of offenders. Many victims’ families came to fear the success of an unrestrained state: armed officers, lists, accusations, raids and official explanations they believed they had no power to challenge.
Neither fear should be romanticized. Fear of crime can become a justification for arbitrary authority; fear of authority can obscure the real violence criminality inflicts upon communities. A serious account must be capable of holding both propositions simultaneously without allowing either to predetermine the facts of individual cases.
The War After the War
The anti-drug campaign no longer occupies the Philippine presidency in the form it did between 2016 and 2022. Subsequent police leadership publicly shifted emphasis toward supply chains and high-value targets rather than street-level users, explicitly describing the recalibrated policy as less bloody and more attentive to human rights. The Marcos administration has itself contrasted its approach with lethal enforcement, emphasizing large drug seizures in operations in which no one was killed.
But the political conflict created by the Duterte years has not disappeared with the policy’s alteration. It has changed arenas. The first war was conducted through police operations, presidential speeches and the language of emergency. The second is being conducted through court filings, testimony, forensic reports, historical documentation and struggles over public memory.
For the ICC, the final question will be bounded: what has been proved against Rodrigo Duterte under the law governing the charges? For the Truth Commission, the question is broader: what happened to people and institutions during the anti-drug campaign, including those whose cases will never enter an international courtroom? For the Philippine public, the unresolved question is broader still: what relationship between authority, legality and social order did the country accept during those years, and how should that acceptance be remembered?
The responses to Duterte’s courtroom appearance reveal why no single institution can provide all three answers. Pasco and Cuartero saw a defendant apparently strong enough for proceedings to continue. Colmenares saw behavior he believed relevant to fitness. Ejercito saw the physical decline of a former president and felt sadness while still insisting that justice should proceed. Padilla and Go saw the political father they continued to recognize. Dela Rosa, in his repeated defenses of the campaign, has made clear that he regards its central methods as necessary and would not repudiate them merely because the political climate has changed.
These statements belong in the same history, but they do not perform the same evidentiary function. A mother’s account of losing a son is testimony about a death and its consequences. A former police chief’s declaration that the campaign was necessary is evidence of governing philosophy. A senator’s sadness is a political and human reaction. A former president’s claim that he acted for his country is an assertion of intention. None can replace forensic evidence, documentary proof or a judicial finding, but each helps explain the political world in which those forms of evidence must now be interpreted.
That distinction may be the most important protection against turning the aftermath of the drug war into another partisan mythology. The task is not to find a sentence capacious enough to make one side disappear. It is to construct a record sturdy enough that neither loyalty nor hatred can easily rewrite it.
The same photograph from The Hague may continue to mean different things. One viewer can see an old leader enduring confinement; another can see an accused finally present before judges. Those are interpretations. What happened during particular operations, who gave particular orders, what police reports omitted or accurately recorded, what the forensic evidence shows and what responsibility the law ultimately assigns are questions susceptible, at least in part, to proof.
The first drug war was justified by its architects as a struggle to restore order. The struggle that follows concerns the order of memory itself: which facts survive, which testimonies are tested, which claims are corroborated and whether the historical record can resist the recurrent Philippine habit of changing with the government presently in power.
The ICC trial may eventually produce a judgment. The Truth Commission may eventually produce an archive and a set of findings. Neither will abolish political disagreement, nor should either be expected to do so. Their more modest but more durable contribution would be to make future disagreement answerable to evidence.
That may be the real war after the war. It is less dramatic than midnight raids, presidential threats or courtroom photographs, but it is likely to last much longer. It will determine not whether Filipinos are permitted to admire or condemn Rodrigo Duterte, but whether the period over which they continue to argue can eventually be remembered as history rather than indefinitely recycled as political ammunition.