By Taraneh Sanat
Duterte’s Legacy: The Philippine Drug War
In 2016, Rodrigo Duterte was elected president of the Philippines, riding a wave of popularity to the presidential posting after enjoying a 22-year tenure as mayor of the city Davao. During his years as mayor, Duterte built up a reputation as a hard-liner on crime and corruption, specifically targeting those he claimed were involved in the drug trade as dealers or users. Duterte’s tactics were notorious for their ruthlessness and he frequently encouraged the public to kill those they suspected to be drug dealers or addicts. The monumental effect this had on the city cannot be overstated, with human rights groups estimating that more than 1,000 people were killed without access to legal process while Duterte was mayor. These tactics would continue when Duterte was sworn in as president. Upon taking office, he launched a brutal, nation-wide anti-drug campaign that has continued to ravage the country, even after Duterte left office in 2022.
Under Duterte and his administration, vigilante killing campaigns were actively encouraged by the government, leading to indiscriminate killings that generated international outrage and turned much of the Philippines into “a macabre house of mourning”. Bloody crime scenes became an everyday occurrence and oftentimes, those suspected of dealing or using were simply disappeared from the street, later turning up dead. By the time Duterte left office in June, 2022, sources estimated that the drug war had taken the lives of anywhere between 12,000 to 30,000 people, many of whom were children caught in the crossfire of street killings. Despite the devastating impact of the campaign, Duterte never shied away from taking credit for the extrajudicial killings which took place on his watch, stating in a senate inquiry into his anti-drug campaign that he had “no apologies, no excuses” for his actions.
Despite this purported confidence, Duterte surely knew he may face consequences for his actions from the international community. Halfway through his presidency, Duterte withdrew the Philippines as a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This was seemingly an attempt to remove his crimes from the jurisdiction of an international court of law, after it was announced the ICC would begin an investigation into Duterte’s role in the drug war. Unfortunately for the former president, this move would prove unsuccessful in the coming years.
Duterte’s Arrest and Conflict with the ICC
On March 7, 2025, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Duterte, charging him with crimes against humanity for his role in the Philippine drug war. The charges are comprehensive, spanning from Duterte’s times as mayor of Davao to 2019, when the Philippines withdrew as a member of the organization. Shortly thereafter, Duterte was taken into custody by the Filipino authorities and sent to the Hague to stand trial. The ability of the ICC to act on this arrest warrant has been controversial, since the Philippines no longer exists within their jurisdiction. Duterte’s family and legal team have argued the arrest was exercised under murky legal grounds, claiming the detention was illegal and should be classified as a kidnapping. Although the arrest signals that Duterte can no longer shirk responsibility for the drug war, arguments about the legality of the arrest could delay justice for the victims and their families. While the international criminal prosecution is being awaited, the question of how the ICC arrest could affect political accountability across the country lingers at the forefront.
More Political Accountability?
Although the arrest has been celebrated as a new chapter by many Filipinos, the issue has become highly controversial, causing many to question whether Duterte will ever be brought to justice in Manila. While pro-democracy activists and victims’ families hail the arrest as a victory for accountability, Duterte’s support within the country is nothing to balk at. Despite his long record of human rights abuses, Duterte continued to enjoy popularity throughout his presidency, leaving office with a 73 percent approval rating. Grassroots movements have emerged post-ICC arrest, generating crowds in the thousands campaigning for Duterte’s release. They believe that if he is to be held accountable for the actions taken during the drug war, then it should be by a Filipino court. Some even view the government’s cooperation with the ICC as a betrayal in and of itself, feeling that President Marcos’ cooperation with authorities was simply a political ploy, meant to strengthen his own position. Still, these two contrasting views on Duterte seem to have an overarching theme –– defining accountability and collective memory in the Philippines post-drug war.
Many activists in the Philippines have viewed Duterte’s arrest as a fresh start, allowing the country to move towards a stronger democratic process. However, it is important to acknowledge that the political system which allowed Duterte to evade political accountability for decades still stands. Already, President Marcos has acquiesced to calls from the Senate to investigate the legality of the ICC’s arrest, indicating that the system may waver in the face of intimidation from politicians. Duterte himself was a frequent offender in the realm of social accountability, filling judicial appointments with those more sympathetic to his anti-drug policies, likely in anticipation that he would one day face domestic prosecution. Due to this, it is unlikely that Duterte will be brought up on criminal charges in the Philippines soon, setting a precedent which could complicate the role of the Philippine judicial system in prosecuting political violence cases.
Compounding this issue is presidential politics between the Marcos and Duterte families, who have joined together in a political coalition under the current administration. Duterte’s daughter, Sara Duterte, currently serves as vice president to Ferdinand BongBong Marcos Jr., son of former Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos. The combination of these notorious families originally presented a powerful obstacle for the ICC to prosecute its case. President Marcos had previously gone on record saying he was opposed to cooperating with the international court, but amidst a fall out with the vice president, he became more inclined to aid in the arrest. Marcos used the opportunity presented by the ICC to secure his own place amidst his feud with Sara Duterte –– not necessarily to act as a forebringer of change in the Philippines. Given the opportunity to prosecute Duterte domestically, Marcos Jr. may find himself wavering to move against his supporters for the sake of accountability. Sara Duterte also poses a unique obstacle to ensuring her father is brought to task for his crimes. In the months following her father’s arrest, Sara signaled her interest in running for president herself in 2028. Sara herself has been accused of involvement in the drug war, making it safe to assume the father-daughter political duo won’t see the inside of a courtroom with her at the helm of the Philippines political system.
What’s Next?
As Rodrigo Duterte prepares to plead his case in front of the ICC, the battle for his legacy in the Philippines will continue. It will certainly be a case of contention in the Philippines and closely watched by his supporters and those who rejoiced in his arrest. Despite inevitably being confronted with his crimes abroad, the current state of politics in the Philippines makes it unlikely that Duterte’s arrest will generate more accountability amongst the nation’s political elite. The reluctance of President Marcos and Vice President Sara Duterte to become involved in the ICC’s prosecution of Duterte indicates this clearly to both those who have been affected by the violent drug war and the international community on the whole. However, the arrest of Duterte is undeniably a win for human rights activists in the Philippines, who have campaigned for the ICC to acknowledge his administration’s crimes for years. Hopefully, this decisive action taken by the ICC against the former president will stand as a message to other leaders that crimes against humanity will not be ignored by international courts.
Photo from Truthout Website
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own, and may not reflect the opinions of The St Andrews Economist.