Delos Santos, Jana Ricci M.

Purposive Communication
BSEDMT 1-1N Political Analysis Paper

DRUG ON WAR during the Presidency of the Former President Rodrigo Roa-Duterte

Introduction
President Rodrigo R. Duterte became the most internationally known Filipino leader since
Ferdinand Marcos, the country's infamous dictator, and Corazon Aquino, the iconic housewife-turned-
president. A great deal of media attention has been paid to his murderous war on drugs as well as to his
often crass and controversial statements. This analysis takes an in-depth look at the complex dynamics
contributing to democratic backsliding in the Philippines. It also raises the question of what the U.S.
government and nongovernmental organizations can and should do to defend democracy in America's
former colony. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs has resulted in the deaths of
thousands of suspected drug users and pushers, mostly young males living in poor urban
neighbourhoods, at the hands of the police or unidentified assailants. Many of these deaths were
premeditated extra-judicial killings (EJKs), which violate both the Philippine Constitution and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Why is Duterte singularly focused on drugs and crime? Given the Philippines' high
degree of poverty, underfunded and corrupt law enforcement institutions, and glacially sluggish court,
it's not surprising that crime is a huge issue. Smuggling, illicit gambling, narcotics, human trafficking, and
money laundering are all prominent components of the Philippine political economy. According to
International Alert research, the illegal economy in Mindanao plays a significant role in maintaining the
island's many wars. Crime has long been a serious social problem in the Philippines, and politicians and
police have long participated in, protected, or otherwise benefited from criminal activity. Marcos
pointed to criminality and lawlessness as a justification for martial law in 1972; Joseph Estrada's image
as a crime fighter was an important aspect of his political appeal in the 1990s. But it would be an
exaggeration to assert that the Philippines is becoming a narco-state, where state institutions have been
penetrated by power and wealth of drug lords and the economy depends heavily on the production or
distribution of illegal drugs.

Why has Duterte made illegal drugs his signature issue? There is an awful political
logic to considering drugs as a cancer on society. His image as an efficient mayor of Davao City was built
on his ability to combat narcotics and crime. Furthermore, popular support of the Davao Death Squad, a
clandestine organization that targeted suspected drug traffickers, minor criminals, and homeless
youngsters, demonstrated the low cost and great rewards of an extra-legal war on drugs and crime. As
president, Duterte's countrywide war on drugs continues to resonate with people from all walks of life,
especially as long as the primary victims are the urban poor. The drug war also provides a powerful and
helpful political narrative in which Duterte is the sole moral authority to save the country from the
threats presented by drug traffickers and other criminals. The drug war waged by Philippine President
Rodrigo Duterte has been viewed as a harsh but necessary reaction to a significant socioeconomic
problem. In December 2016, 85 % of those polled said they were pleased with the government's efforts;
by June 2018, just 78% said they were. This narrative of narcotics as an existential threat has been used
to justify imprisoning opposition Senator Leila de Lima (a vocal critic of the drug war), exerting control
over local authorities, and framing the motivation of Islamic extremists who overran Marawi City. At the
same time, over three-quarters of Filipinos (73%) think EJKs occur, and nearly as many are scared that
they may be a victim of one (EJK).

Why is there such strong public support for the drug war? One argument is that the
wealthy and powerful in the Philippines enjoy near-total impunity, while the poor and middle classes are
subjected to exorbitant costs, delays, favouritism, and corruption. Few Filipinos, on the other hand, ever
go to court, and polls show that the courts and the police both have reasonably high popularity ratings.
This view might erode if the war were expanded to target alleged drug users in the middle and upper
classes. According to the PNP, the national crime rate has declined more than 20% over the past years,
and surveys suggest that Filipinos feel more secure. A third explanation is that the drug war is seen as a
welcome example of government responsiveness.

The drug war’s impact on the Philippine National Police. The PNP is the government
agency most closely involved in carrying out the drug war, also known as Oplan Double Barrel or Oplan
Tokhang in the Philippines, and hence the most immediately affected by it. PNP elements' participation
in EJKs is well-documented and undeniable. Some of the larger repercussions of the PNP's involvement
are worth investigating further. The Philippine National Police, and its predecessor, the Philippine
Constabulary, have long stood at the crossroads of politics, crime, and the rule of law. He regarded the
police as a crucial pillar of his governance as mayor of a city plagued by political and criminal violence.
Corruption has a long history in the PNP, notably in the areas of illicit gambling, narcotics, and
smuggling. Individual greed contributes to some of this corruption, but it is also a result of low salary,
political collusion, and flaws in the legal system. Philippine presidents and municipal leaders have
utilized the police to demonstrate their power, reinforce their legitimacy, selectively battle crime, and
repress opposition, as historian Alfred McCoy has documented.

Impact on the justice system. The Philippines' already overcrowded legal system has been
exacerbated by the drug war. The number of suspected criminals awaiting trial in detention facilities, as
well as the volume of cases to be investigated, prosecuted, and tried, has expanded considerably.
Although this working paper does not attempt to provide a full picture of the impact on the judicial
system, some of the available data suggests that these burdens exist. There were 28,000 drug arrests in
2016, up 44% over 2015, and over 47,300 drug-related charges were filed. The Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency performed 34,744 drug enforcement operations in the first ten months of 2017,
resulting in 66,672 arrests. Roughly 70,700 drug-related cases were submitted in court in 2017, with
about 21,400 of them being evaluated. According to the Supreme Court, more than 289,000 drug
lawsuits had been filed in subordinate courts around the country as of 2017. As of May 2018, there were
over 141,000 detainees in jails that were 582% overcapacity. According to the Department of Justice's
Bureau of Corrections, in 2017 the national prison system held 41,500 inmates, more than double its
capacity. In November 2018, a Regional Trial Court issued the first legal judgment against the PNP,
finding three policemen guilty of murdering Kian Delos Santos. Currently, there is one case before the
Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the government's plan for eradicating illegal drugs.
Data from the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, which oversees provincial and municipal jails,
show an even more disturbing situation.

Impact on public health. The government's punitive approach to reduce drug usage has
serious public health implications. It has surpassed the country's meagre rehabilitation capabilities and
is negatively impacting drug-related disorders. The Philippines had just 48 drug rehabilitation clinics and
roughly fifty medical staff educated in addiction treatment as of mid-2017. According to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency, about 990,000 "drug personalities" willingly surrendered in 2016, with 1.2
million persons surrendering by May 2017.

Impact on local politics and government. Duterte's virtually single concentration on the
drug war has far-reaching implications for local politics and administration in the Philippines. Although
the Philippines' subnational government is highly decentralized in many ways, most local government
units (LGUs) rely on central government funds and face the difficulty of unmet mandates. Local
governments play an important role in the drug war, and officials must balance a number of competing
interests, including safeguarding civilians, working with local law enforcement, and presenting success
to central authorities.

Conclusion
So far, there has been real change in several areas, including the drug war, the weakening of
democratic institutions, and the reorientation of the Philippines' foreign relations to China. The
possibility of constitutional changes, up to and including federalism, would be highly significant for the
Philippines. There are essential elements of continuity among these developments. Most
macroeconomic policies and public finance management have been quite consistent thus far. Most prior
social development projects have also been expanded (with some adjustments or rebranding) by the
government. Finally, the Bangsamoro Organic Law was passed, marking the end of a decades-long
process. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's administration has adopted a somewhat more statist
approach to economic development and he has shown selective pandering to 1960s-style anti-U.S.
nationalism, which exaggerates the influence of the United States. There are worrying signs of
regression back to some of the worst aspects of traditional Philippine politics. Little effort has been
made to reduce the entrenched power of political dynasties and oligarchs. Philippines may be entering
uncharted territory in its struggle between those who want a strongman and those who believe in
democracy. The best-case scenario is a gradual reassertion of checks and balances brought about by a
softening of public support for President Rodrigo Duterte. But it is also possible that the country's
contentious politics could move in dangerous directions. Under any of these scenarios, there is a risk of
mass mobilization (both for and against) that could lead to extra constitutional and potentially violent
forms of people power.