President Rodrigo R. Duterte's government is most notable for his aggressive war on drugs. Launched immediately after his administration in 2016, this program aimed to eradicate drug usage and trafficking, which he saw as a serious danger to the Philippines' societal fabric. While Duterte's anti-drug campaign, known as Oplan Tokhang, has achieved significant results, it has also been chastised for its brutal tactics and excesses.
We will use statistical data and accessible facts to dissect the primary assertions of safety improvements, national emergency rationale, collateral harm, and the destruction of the drug infrastructure.
1. The Philippines is Safer Because of Duterte's Drug War.
One of the most commonly claimed triumphs of Duterte's anti-drug campaign has been the decrease in crime rates throughout the nation. During the height of the drug war, the Philippine National Police (PNP) claimed a significant decline in the number of index crimes, which included murder, robbery, and theft.
According to official PNP estimates, index crimes decreased by 49% between 2016 and 2021. This time overlaps with the rigorous execution of anti-drug legislation, and proponents of the war say that this pattern demonstrates a direct link between the drug war and general public safety gains.
Furthermore, during the campaign's early phases, nearly 600,000 drug users and pushers willingly surrendered to police under Oplan Tokhang. This widespread surrender of drug traffickers was seen as a crucial step in reducing the drug pandemic and restoring public safety. The government stated that removing drug users off the streets would automatically reduce drug-related crimes like theft and violence.
However, these numbers should be investigated. Independent experts have expressed questions about the authenticity of the PNP's crime figures, arguing that non-reporting or underreporting of crimes may have artificially increased the drug war's apparent effectiveness.
Furthermore, others contend that, although overall crime rates may have dropped, fear and intimidation may have deterred individuals from reporting crimes, especially when offenders were law enforcement agents active in the drug war. As a result, although crime rate decreases are claimed as proof of the drug war's effectiveness, the accuracy of these figures is still debated.
2. Duterte's Drug War was a Response to a De Facto National Emergency.
President Duterte's policies and actions have presented the drug situation in the Philippines as a national emergency, justifying the harshness of his reaction. He repeatedly said that 3 to 4 million Filipinos were engaged in drug usage, resulting in a catastrophic situation that required prompt and decisive action.
While these statistics were extensively reported, surveys done by the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) revealed a lesser but still substantial total of 1.8 million drug users. Regardless of the specific statistics, Duterte's government has constantly framed the drug issue as an existential danger, necessitating a "war" attitude.
Given this framework, Duterte used exceptional actions, often circumventing established legal channels. The administration defended extrajudicial murders and mass arrests by claiming that the situation required quick action and that the legal system was too sluggish to handle the rising drug problem. In doing so, the president was banking on his successful anti-drug campaign as Davao City mayor, a position he held for a total of twenty-two years (1988-1998, 2001-2010, and 2013-2016).
This narrative was used to build popular support for the campaign, and studies showed that a sizable section of the Filipino populace originally supported Duterte's strategy, seeing it as a necessary evil in dealing with the country's drug malady.
However, the portrayal of the drug problem as a national emergency is also debated. Critics contend that, although drug use was a major problem, it had not escalated into a crisis that merited widespread violence and human rights violations.
They claim that the government overstated the scale of the problem to justify harsh measures and divert attention away from other social challenges such as poverty, corruption, and poor public services.
3. The Drug War's Excesses: Mistakes and Unnecessary Killings
Like any conflict, Duterte's drug campaign had its share of excesses, and it has been the most contentious aspect of his leadership. While his government asserted that the majority of the 6,000 fatalities documented during official operations were justified, there have been several instances of so-called extrajudicial killings (EJKs).
Human rights groups like Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) believe that the true death toll is between 12,000 and 30,000, with many of the deaths taking place outside of official police operations. Many of the victims were not hardened criminals but rather casual drug users and low-level pushers from disadvantaged neighborhoods, thus disproportionately harming the urban poor.
Perhaps the most high-profile example was the 2017 murder of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos, which prompted a national and worldwide outcry. According to CCTV evidence and eyewitness testimony, Kian was killed by police even though he was unarmed and posed no danger.
Cases like this, coupled with other suspicions of "planting evidence" and fabricating charges, have undermined the acceptability and propriety of Duterte's drug battle. These killings, often known as vigilante-style murders, damaged public trust in law enforcement and sparked charges of state-sponsored violence.
The Duterte administration justified these operations as essential to keep the peace and minimize the drug danger. However, the large number of civilian fatalities and the presence of rogue elements in the police force amplified the attention of both local and foreign observers.
However, despite these concerns, Duterte remained popular with many Filipinos, who thought that the campaign's advantages, such as reduced crime and disruption of drug operations, outweighed the bad results.
4. Dismantling the Drug Infrastructure
According to Duterte's government, one of the primary triumphs of the drug war has been the demolition of criminal syndicates and the interruption of the illicit drug trade. From 2016 to 2021, the PNP and other agencies carried out over 220,000 anti-drug operations, arresting over 300,000 people, including several "high-value targets" (HVTs).
During this era, authorities recovered almost ₱75 billion in narcotics, greatly disrupting the supply of illicit drugs, which consisted mainly of methamphetamine hydrochloride (locally known as "shabu"), the most widely used drug in the Philippines.
Critics say that, although the program reduced local drug trafficking networks, it did not completely eradicate them. Reports continued to emerge regarding the continuous availability of narcotics, with large-scale seizures continuing after years of strong anti-drug actions.
Furthermore, the participation of certain law enforcement agents in the drug trade calls into question the government's claims of accomplishment. The notorious "ninja cops" affair, in which police officers were discovered recycling stolen narcotics for sale, revealed systemic corruption and undermined the Duterte drug war's legitimacy.
Where This Analysis Hits a Snag
The statistics cited to back up Duterte's claims of success in the drug war are mostly from official sources, such as the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). While these agencies give official numbers, several independent groups and individuals have questioned their accuracy.
Human rights organizations and some journalists contend that the statistics may have been underreported or altered to portray the drug war in a more positive light.
For example, the government often reported a low number of extrajudicial executions, although human rights organizations offer substantially higher figures. Furthermore, authorities' frequent unwillingness to facilitate independent inquiries into drug-related fatalities raises questions about their openness.
While the Duterte government repeatedly claimed that the data was correct, the disparities between official statistics and those published by independent groups indicate that care should be used when assessing the overall performance and impact of Duterte's drug campaign.
Conclusion
President Duterte's drug war has had a significant effect on the Philippines. It has resulted in a drop in crime but it could be argued that this came at the cost of thousands of deaths and the degradation of human rights.
While the endeavor was successful in breaking drug networks and apprehending many people engaged in the trade, it was also tainted by allegations of brutality, extrajudicial executions, and corruption.
Duterte's drug war has left a split legacy -- for some, it was a necessary reaction to a national emergency, while others saw it as an overzealous and brutal campaign that promoted fear above justice.
Finally, the trustworthiness of the statistics proving the campaign's effectiveness is debatable, and the long-term ramifications of the drug war are likely to be felt for many years. But one thing is sure, and that is the Philippines is that much safer because of Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs, and to many Filipinos, that is all that matters.
Sources
Amnesty International. (2017). "If you are poor, you are killed": Extrajudicial executions in the Philippines' "war on drugs". Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa35/5517/2017/en/
Chin, C. (2021). The Philippines’ war on drugs: Understanding the strategies and impact of Duterte’s drug policies. Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, 34(1), 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jdp/jpab123
Human Rights Watch. (2017). "License to kill": Philippine police killings in Duterte's "war on drugs". Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/03/02/license-kill/philippine-police-killings-dutertes-war-drugs
International Criminal Court. (2021). Report on preliminary examination activities: Philippines (2016-2021). Retrieved from https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/2021-PE-Philippines.pdf
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). (2020). Anti-drug operations annual report. Retrieved from https://pdea.gov.ph/our-accomplishments
Philippine National Police (PNP). (2021). PNP year-end review: Crime statistics and anti-drug operations. Retrieved from https://www.pnp.gov.ph/index.php/crime-statistics
Rappler. (2020, July 2). Duterte’s drug war: 4 years of killings in numbers. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/duterte-war-drugs-4-years-numbers
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2019). Global report on drug trends in Southeast Asia: The Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacific/2019/Philippines-drug-report.pdf