1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Brief overview of the Topic

The anti-drug campaign initiated by former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa

Duterte in 2016 has been a defining and controversial policy of his administration. Officially

aimed at eradicating illegal drug use and trafficking, the campaign has been marked by

aggressive law enforcement strategies, including police operations and allegations of

extrajudicial killings. While it was publicly framed as a means to protect society and ensure

public safety, the campaign quickly became the subject of intense criticism and scrutiny both

domestically and internationally.

The anti-drug war's methods, particularly its focus on law enforcement, have raised

ethical and moral concerns. Advocates argue that the campaign sought to address the severe

social issues caused by widespread drug abuse and criminality in the Philippines. However,

critics highlight its heavy reliance on controversial tactics, such as targeting impoverished

communities and bypassing due process. According to reports, thousands of individuals

accused of drug-related crimes were killed, often without proper investigation or trial

(Curato, 2017). The war has also drawn international condemnation for its perceived

disregard for human rights, with some labeling it as a breach of the country’s commitment to

uphold justice and the rule of law. Moreover, the societal consequences of the anti-drug

campaign go beyond the immediate loss of life. Families have been torn apart, and fear has

permeated communities. While the administration claimed that the campaign significantly

reduced crime rates, its impact on marginalized groups and the country's legal system has

been profound. Ethical theories, such as utilitarianism and deontology, have been invoked to

analyze whether the supposed benefits of the campaign justify the means employed.
 2

The anti-drug war under Duterte’s administration remains a highly polarizing issue. It

highlights the tension between ensuring public safety and upholding ethical standards, human

rights, and the rule of law. By examining the campaign’s moral justifications and

consequences, it becomes evident that the anti-drug war has left a lasting impact on

Philippine society, raising important questions about the balance between justice and human

dignity in the pursuit of a drug-free nation. This brief overview sets the stage for a deeper

exploration of the ethical dimensions of Duterte’s anti-drug war and its implications for

governance and morality

Thesis Statement

This paper investigates the ethical dimensions of Duterte’s anti-drug war, analyzing

its justifications and consequences through the lenses of utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue

ethics. The campaign aimed to create a drug-free Philippines by addressing widespread drug

use and criminality through aggressive law enforcement measures, including controversial

strategies such as extrajudicial killings. However, this approach raises significant ethical

concerns, particularly its disregard for human rights and the undermining of the rule of law.

By examining its societal impact and the international community's response, and by

applying ethical theories, this study seeks to determine whether the campaign's outcomes

justify its means, exploring the balance between justice, safety, and human dignity in the

pursuit of its objectives.

CHAPTER 2

DISCUSSION

Background Informatiom
 3

The anti-drug campaign launched by former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in

2016 represents a critical juncture in the country’s approach to addressing drug-related

crimes. Promising to eradicate illegal drug use and trafficking, Duterte’s “War on Drugs”

became a central policy of his administration. While proponents hailed it as a bold move to

combat criminality, the campaign has been widely criticized for its reliance on aggressive law

enforcement measures, including alleged extrajudicial killings. This section provides an

overview of the war on drugs, its historical context, and the underlying societal dynamics that

shaped its implementation.

The war on drugs in the Philippines, under Duterte’s administration, was framed as a

necessary response to the growing prevalence of illegal drug use and its perceived threats to

public safety. Duterte, during his presidential campaign, promised a hardline approach to the

issue, vowing to eliminate drugs within six months of assuming office. Once elected, he

empowered law enforcement agencies to conduct aggressive operations targeting individuals

involved in the drug trade. However, reports of police misconduct, such as planting evidence

and incentivizing extrajudicial killings, began to surface, sparking ethical and human rights

debates.

The roots of the Philippines’ drug problem can be traced back to the late 20 th century,

when the country became a key transit point for drug trafficking in Southeast Asia. By the

early 2000s, the domestic use of illegal drugs, particularly methamphetamine or shabu,

became widespread, particularly in urban and impoverished communities. Previous

administrations implemented anti-drug policies focusing on rehabilitation and law

enforcement, but they were often criticized for inefficiency and corruption. Duterte’s

approach marked a stark departure from these strategies, as he emphasized punitive measures

over rehabilitation, which led to widespread fear and controversy.

 4

The defining feature of Duterte’s war on drugs was its reliance on extrajudicial

methods, which included police-led operations that often resulted in killings. Official police

reports claim over 6,000 fatalities during legitimate operations by 2022, but human rights

organizations estimate much higher numbers, including collateral civilian deaths. Duterte’s

public speeches supported these aggressive tactics, with remarks such as, “Do your duty, and

I will die for you. Kill them all if you must” (Francisco, 2016). Such rhetoric created an

atmosphere where law enforcement felt emboldened to bypass due process, legitimizing the

use of violence as a moral imperative to maintain societal order.

The campaign disproportionately targeted low-income communities, portraying drug

users as irredeemable threats to society. Duterte’s use of war metaphors, referring to drug

users as “slaves” with “shriveled brains,” dehumanized them, reinforcing the perception that

they were beyond redemption (Camacho & Montiel, 2021).

The methods employed in the campaign raised significant ethical concerns,

particularly regarding human rights violations and the erosion of democratic principles.

Critics argue that the anti-drug war undermined the rule of law by prioritizing swift

punishment over due process. Reports of law enforcement corruption, including falsified

charges and financial incentives for suspect eliminations, exacerbated these issues.

Furthermore, the campaign’s focus on impoverished communities highlighted systemic

inequalities, as wealthier drug offenders often evaded similar scrutiny.

On the societal level, the campaign had profound consequences. Families were torn

apart by the loss of loved ones, and fear became a pervasive element in affected communities.

The normalization of violence not only eroded public trust in law enforcement but also

contributed to a culture of impunity. Internationally, the anti-drug war attracted

 5

condemnation from human rights organizations and institutions like the International

Criminal Court (ICC), further isolating the Philippines diplomatically.

By exploring the war on drugs in this context, the ethical and social dimensions of

Duterte’s policy come to light, emphasizing the complex interplay between public safety,

justice, and human rights.

Ethical Justification

Utilitarian Perspectives

From a utilitarian perspective, Duterte's war on drugs could be seen as justified if it

succeeded in reducing crime and making people feel safer. The main idea behind

utilitarianism is to create the greatest good for most people. Supporters of Duterte’s campaign

argue that its goal was to reduce crime and make communities safer, which would benefit the

majority of citizens by giving them a sense of security (Curato, 2017). According to this

view, if the campaign made streets safer and reduced crime, it would improve the well-being

of the larger population, even if some harsh methods were used.

However, this justification is challenged by the negative effects of the campaign. The

loss of many lives, the fear created in communities, and the emotional pain suffered by

families affected by the violence raise doubts about whether the campaign truly created

greater good. Many innocent people were caught in the violence, and the fear it caused has

had long-lasting effects on people's mental health. Claudio (2016) points out that while the

campaign focused on eliminating drugs, it ignored deeper social problems like poverty,

inequality, and lack of education, which are often the causes of drug use. From a utilitarian

point of view, the harm done especially to vulnerable groups might outweigh the benefits of

reduced crime, making it hard to justify the campaign ethically. This suggests that, overall,

the harm caused may have been greater than any good achieved.
 6

In conclusion, while Duterte's anti-drug campaign might be defended as a utilitarian

effort to create a safer society, the harm it caused to innocent people and the failure to address

underlying social issues raise serious ethical concerns. The principle of doing the most good

for the most people is complicated by the suffering experienced by marginalized

communities, suggesting that the campaign's negative effects may have outweighed its

intended benefits.

Argument Against the Utilitarian Perspective

Critics argue that the campaign’s negative outcomes outweigh its intended benefits,

making it difficult to justify from a utilitarian standpoint. The widespread killings, fear, and

psychological trauma inflicted on marginalized communities, especially the poor, created

immense harm. Innocent individuals, including children, became collateral victims of police

operations, further questioning whether the campaign truly resulted in greater societal good.

Claudio (2016) contends that focusing on punitive measures ignored root causes of drug

addiction, such as poverty, lack of education, and inadequate mental health resources. Instead

of addressing these systemic problems, the campaign exacerbated societal inequalities and

left long-term social scars, ultimately undermining the utilitarian principle of maximizing

overall well-being.

Deontological Perspectives

From a deontological perspective, the morality of an action is determined by

adherence to ethical principles and duties, rather than by its outcomes. This perspective

emphasizes the agency and autonomy of individuals, respecting their rights to make choices

and treating them as ends in themselves, rather than as means to an end. Duterte's war on

drugs, which relied heavily on extrajudicial killings and bypassed due process, violates these

fundamental principles (Heydarian, 2018). In a deontological framework, everyone has an

 7

inherent right to agency, the freedom to make choices and to have their dignity respected,

regardless of the larger societal goals or outcomes.

to deontological ethics, no end goal, even the reduction of crime or drug use can

justify the use of morally unacceptable means. The systematic use of violence and the denial

of due process in Duterte's campaign disregard individuals' right to a fair trial and to be

treated with respect and dignity. The Universalizability principle, central to Kantian

deontology, argues that we should act only in ways that we will to become a universal law. If

it were universalized that authorities could kill individuals without due process or trial, it

would lead to a breakdown of trust and justice, which contradicts the moral law.

Abinales (2018) notes that the state’s moral duty is to protect justice and the rights of

its citizens, not to instill fear or prioritize expediency over legality. The deontological view

holds that the government, as an agent of the state, has an ethical responsibility to respect and

uphold the rights of individuals, even if doing so might be inconvenient or slow. By

undermining these principles, the anti-drug war fails morally because it treats individuals as

means to an end, rather than as ends in themselves, and violates the universal principle of

justice.

Argument Against the Deontological Perspective

Supporters of the anti-drug war argue that strict adherence to moral principles is

impractical in situations where urgent action is needed to address widespread societal issues.

They contend that following due process for every individual involved in the drug trade could

delay justice and allow criminality to thrive unchecked. The principle of prioritizing public

safety, even at the expense of individual rights, is invoked to argue that the campaign’s harsh

measures were necessary to restore order and protect the greater good. Critics of deontology
 8

assert that rigid adherence to duties can sometimes conflict with pragmatic decision-making

in governance, leading to ineffective responses to urgent crises.

Virtues Ethics

Virtue ethics, based on Aristotle’s philosophy, focuses on the character and intentions

behind actions, emphasizing virtues like compassion, justice, and integrity. From this

viewpoint, Duterte’s war on drugs, though showing strong leadership, lacks many essential

virtues for ethical governance. Compassion, a key virtue in Aristotle's ethics, is missing from

the campaign, which largely targeted the poor and treated drug addiction as a criminal issue

rather than a health problem (Curato, 2017).

For Aristotle, true leadership is about balancing decisiveness with empathy and

ensuring the well-being of all. Instead of promoting understanding and rehabilitation,

Duterte’s campaign relied on fear and punishment. As Claudio (2016) argues, a virtuous

leader would focus on long-term solutions, like education, rehabilitation, and community

support, to address drug addiction in a more compassionate way. According to Aristotle’s

"Golden Mean", actions should be balanced and avoid extremes. Duterte’s approach,

focusing heavily on punishment and violence, ignores the need for mercy and care, which are

key virtues in ethical leadership. Moreover, considering the Filipino values of family,

community support, and helping others, the campaign contradicts these cultural virtues by

prioritizing punishment over compassion.

In conclusion, from a virtue ethics perspective, Duterte’s anti-drug war fails to

demonstrate the virtues of compassion, justice, and humanity necessary for good leadership.

Instead of promoting human flourishing, the campaign undermines these values and fails to

lead in a morally virtuous way.

Argument Against the Virtue Ethics Perspective

 9

Proponents of Duterte’s leadership style argue that strong and decisive action, even if

perceived as lacking compassion, can still align with virtuous governance when addressing

critical threats to society. From this view, Duterte’s methods demonstrated courage,

determination, and a commitment to fulfilling his campaign promises, which are seen as

leadership virtues. Supporters claim that addressing the drug crisis required a firm stance, and

Duterte’s actions, though controversial, reflected his resolve to protect the majority from the

harms of drug-related criminality. In this argument, virtues such as decisiveness and

responsibility for the safety of citizens are prioritized over compassion, framing Duterte as a

leader who acted boldly in a time of crisis.

Consequences

Societal Impact

Duterte’s anti-drug war has profoundly affected the Philippines’ social, political, and

economic fabric. While it aimed to curb drug-related crimes and improve public safety, it has

resulted in significant societal consequences, particularly for marginalized communities.

These include the normalization of violence, erosion of trust in law enforcement, and

deepening social inequalities. Analyzing these impacts reveals the broader implications of

prioritizing punitive measures over human rights and due process.

The campaign has desensitized society to violence, with extrajudicial killings

becoming a regular occurrence. Communities, especially the urban poor, live in fear of being

caught in the crossfire, perpetuating a cycle of marginalization (Abinales, 2018). Public trust

in the police has eroded due to allegations of corruption and abuse of power. Human rights

groups report cases of extrajudicial killings without sufficient evidence, damaging the

credibility of law enforcement and hindering community cooperation (Claudio, 2016).

Marginalized communities have borne the brunt of the campaign. Families in urban slums
 10

have lost loved ones without legal recourse, while wealthier individuals accused of drug-

related crimes often face less scrutiny, deepening social inequalities (Curato, 2017). The

psychological toll includes increased anxiety, depression, and trauma among survivors and

families. This fear has disrupted community cohesion, with individuals hesitant to speak out

against injustices (Camacho & Montiel, 2021). The reliance on extrajudicial measures has

weakened democratic institutions, undermining the judiciary’s role and creating a culture of

impunity. This erosion of governance challenges the principles of justice and equality under

the law (Heydarian, 2018).

The societal impact of Duterte’s anti-drug war underscores the complexities of

balancing security and human rights. While it may have temporarily reduced drug-related

crime, it has normalized violence, eroded trust in law enforcement, and disproportionately

harmed marginalized communities. Furthermore, the weakening of democratic institutions

poses long-term governance challenges. Addressing these consequences requires

accountability, equitable policies, and a renewed commitment to human rights.

International Impact

Duterte’s anti-drug war has not only affected Philippine society but has also

reverberated internationally, shaping global perceptions of human rights, governance, and the

country’s geopolitical standing. While some foreign leaders and nations have supported

Duterte’s approach, many international organizations and governments have strongly

criticized it for violating fundamental human rights. These reactions highlight the broader

implications of the campaign on international relations, the Philippines’ reputation on the

global stage, and its compliance with international law.

The anti-drug war has led to strained relationships between the Philippines and

several Western democracies, particularly the United States, the European Union, and
 11

Canada. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch

have accused the Philippine government of widespread human rights violations, prompting

international scrutiny. For instance, in 2018, the European Parliament passed a resolution

condemning the extrajudicial killings linked to the campaign and called for an independent

investigation (European Parliament, 2018). These criticisms have led to reduced foreign aid

and diplomatic tensions, with Duterte frequently responding with hostile rhetoric.

The widespread reports of human rights abuses have tarnished the Philippines’

reputation on the global stage. Reports from the United Nations Human Rights Council

(UNHRC) detailed systemic violence and extrajudicial killings, prompting calls for sanctions

and international accountability. Alston (2019) notes that the Philippines’ failure to adhere to

international human rights standards has positioned it as a state that prioritizes punitive

measures over justice, undermining its credibility as a democratic nation. This reputational

damage has affected the country’s ability to attract international investments and foster trust

among global partners.

In contrast to Western criticism, Duterte’s anti-drug war has garnered support from

some authoritarian regimes. Countries such as China and Russia have expressed approval of

his tough stance on crime, offering assistance in the form of arms deals and training for law

enforcement. This alignment has strengthened Duterte’s ties with these nations while

signaling a shift in Philippine foreign policy toward a more independent and non-traditional

stance. Heydarian (2018) argues that this pivot has implications for regional security and the

balance of power in Southeast Asia, as it reflects a departure from the country’s historically

strong ties with the West.

The international impact of Duterte’s anti-drug war underscores the complex

dynamics between national policies and global human rights standards. While the campaign
 12

has gained support from authoritarian states and bolstered Duterte’s image as a strongman

leader, it has also drawn widespread condemnation from Western democracies and human

rights organizations. These criticisms have strained diplomatic relations, tarnished the

Philippines’ international reputation, and prompted calls for greater accountability through

international law. Moving forward, addressing these impacts will require the Philippines to

reconcile its domestic policies with its obligations to the global community, ensuring that

justice, human rights, and the rule of law are upheld.

CHAPTER 3

CONCLUSION

Summary of Key Points

President Rodrigo Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, launched in 2016, aimed to eradicate

illegal drug use and criminality in the Philippines. While its goal was to create a safer society,

the campaign became controversial for its aggressive methods, including extrajudicial

killings and violations of due process. These tactics raised significant ethical and human

rights concerns, both domestically and internationally.

From a utilitarian perspective, proponents argued that the campaign’s primary goal

was to protect the majority by reducing crime and ensuring public safety. However, critics

highlighted the disproportionate harm caused to marginalized communities, the psychological

 13

fear instilled in society, and the failure to address root causes like poverty and inequality.

These unintended consequences challenge the campaign’s ethical justification.

Deontological ethics emphasizes adherence to moral duties, such as respecting

individuals’ rights and ensuring due process. From this perspective, the campaign violated

fundamental principles by treating people as means to an end rather than as individuals

deserving dignity and justice. Even if the campaign reduced crime, its methods undermined

the rule of law and fairness.

Through the lens of virtue ethics, Duterte’s leadership showed decisiveness but lacked

essential virtues such as compassion, justice, and integrity. Instead of addressing drug

addiction as a public health issue, the campaign focused on punishment and violence,

contrary to the Filipino values of community and empathy.

The societal impact of the campaign was profound, with many poor communities

suffering the brunt of the violence. Families lost loved ones, often without justice, and fear

permeated society. Public trust in law enforcement eroded as allegations of abuse and

corruption increased.

On the international stage, the anti-drug campaign faced widespread condemnation

from organizations such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC),

which labeled it a potential crime against humanity. This global backlash strained the

Philippines’ diplomatic relations and tarnished its reputation as a nation committed to justice

and human rights.

The campaign’s ethical dilemmas highlight the challenges of balancing public safety

with the protection of human rights and dignity.

Reflection on the Ethical Implications

 14

The ethical implications of Duterte’s anti-drug war show the difficult balance between

protecting society and respecting people’s rights and dignity. While the goal of reducing

crime and drug use might have been reasonable, the methods used such as killings without

trial raise serious moral concerns.

From a utilitarian point of view, the harm caused to innocent people and the fear

created in communities make it hard to justify the campaign. Deontologically, the campaign

ignored basic principles of justice and fairness, which are essential in any ethical society.

Even if the campaign reduced crime, it did so by violating people’s rights. Virtue ethics

shows that the campaign lacked compassion and failed to lead in a morally good way, as it

focused more on punishment than on helping those affected by drug use. The societal impact

of the anti-drug war has been far-reaching. It has increased fear and suffering, particularly

among the poor, and weakened trust in the police. On the international stage, it has led to

criticism from human rights organizations, putting the country’s reputation at risk.

In conclusion, while the campaign aimed to solve a serious problem, it raises

important ethical questions about how to balance safety and justice. The campaign’s methods

the loss of life and disregard for human rights make it hard to justify, and it shows the

importance of following ethical principles in any policy or action.

 15

References

Abinales, P. (2018). The Philippines' war on drugs: A critique. Journal of Asian Politics,

13(2), 75-92.

Abinales, P. (2018). The state, justice, and the politics of fear: A critique of Duterte's war on

drugs. Journal of Philippine Politics, 24(1), 33-49.

Brasilino, J. M. (2019). The politics of violence: War metaphors in the Philippine War on

Drugs. Southeast Asian Journal of Politics and Governance, 22(1), 88-104.

Camacho, S. A., & Montiel, R. F. (2021). The dehumanization of drug users in Duterte’s

war on drugs: A discourse analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 45-59.

 16

Curato, N. (2017). The Duterte Phenomenon: A Study of the Philippine Presidency and its

Implications for Democracy. Philippine Political Science Journal, 38(2), 1-18.

Curato, N. (2017). Politics of anxiety, politics of hope: Penal populism and Duterte’s rise to

power. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 35(3), 91-109.

Curato, N. (2017). The Duterte effect: Public opinion and political polarization in the

Philippines. Philippine Political Science Review, 18(1), 50-65.

Claudio, L. (2016). The Duterte Drug War: A Deeper Look at Its Social and Economic

Impact. Philippine Journal of Social Issues, 29(4), 45-59.

Claudio, L. (2016). The war on drugs in the Philippines: Moral implications and

consequences. Asian Journal of Political Science, 24(3), 134-150.

Francisco, R. P. (2016). The politics of violence: Duterte’s rhetoric and the Philippine

War on Drugs. Asian Politics Review, 4(2), 121-135.

Heydarian, R. (2018). The Duterte Presidency: A Brief Overview of Its Moral and Legal

Challenges. Asian Journal of Political Science, 26(3), 58-72.

Heydarian, R. (2018). Deconstructing Duterte: Human rights and the Philippine drug war.

Southeast Asian Affairs, 2018(1), 23-42.

European Parliament. (2018). European Parliament resolution on the situation in the

Philippines. European Union Archives.

Alston, P. (2019). State violence and human rights: A case study of Duterte’s war on drugs.

International Journal of Human Rights, 23(4), 567-589.

 17

Thesis Statement

This research investigates the ethical dimensions of Duterte’s anti-drug war, analyzing its

justifications and consequences through the lenses of utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

The campaign aimed to create a drug-free Philippines by addressing widespread drug use and

criminality through aggressive law enforcement measures, including controversial strategies such as

extrajudicial killings. However, this approach raises significant ethical concerns, particularly its

disregard for human rights and the undermining of the rule of law. By examining its societal impact

and the international community's response, and by applying ethical theories, this study seeks to

determine whether the campaign's outcomes justify its means, exploring the balance between

justice, safety, and human dignity in the pursuit of its objectives.

Note:

Red ¿ General Statement

Purple ¿ The Goal of the Anti-Drug (Supporting Detail 1 or SD1)

 18

Yellow ¿ Ethical Concern Raised by the Campaign (Supporting Detail 2 or SD2)

Blue ¿ Application of Ethical Theories; Its argument and counter argument (SD3)