Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte appeared at a senate hearing on Monday to defend his controversial anti-drug campaign that left thousands dead. Duterte, who held office from 2016 to 2022, staunchly defended the policies that drove the drug war, while facing sharp criticism from human rights advocates both domestically and internationally. In his opening statement, the former president declared that he bore no regret or remorse, asserting that the measures taken were necessary to address the country’s drug problem.
“Do not question my policies because I offer no apologies, no excuses. I did what I had to do, and whether or not you believe it or not, I did it for my country,” Duterte, 79, stated emphatically in his testimony. “I hate drugs, make no mistake about it.”
The senate investigation, chaired by opposition senators, comes as the International Criminal Court (ICC) continues its probe into whether Duterte’s drug war was a state-sanctioned crime against humanity. The hearing aims to establish further insights into how the policy was implemented and the role Duterte and other high-ranking officials may have played.
When Duterte assumed office in June 2016, he launched an unprecedented crackdown on illegal drugs, ordering police to pursue drug suspects aggressively. According to police reports, this campaign left more than 6,000 people dead, though rights groups estimate the actual toll could be much higher—potentially reaching tens of thousands. Most of the victims were reportedly impoverished individuals, with accusations that many were killed without due process or definitive proof linking them to drug-related crimes.
Rights groups and international observers, including the United Nations, raised immediate concerns about the methods employed by Duterte’s administration, particularly the frequent reports of extrajudicial killings. Witnesses and families of victims recounted instances of police officers and unidentified gunmen targeting suspects in their homes and on the streets. These practices earned Duterte criticism from multiple human rights organizations and spurred the ICC’s investigation, which seeks to determine whether these actions constituted crimes against humanity.
Standing before the senate on Monday, Duterte reiterated his staunch opposition to drugs and denied any wrongdoing, framing his actions as a necessary response to a national crisis. According to him, the Philippines was on the brink of a societal collapse due to widespread drug use and trafficking.
“Drug-related crimes are on the rise again,” Duterte claimed. “Every day, we hear reports of children being raped, people getting killed. The purveyors of this menace are back in business.”
Duterte maintained that his approach, though extreme, was aimed at protecting the Filipino people. He cited instances of families destroyed by drug abuse and described the drug problem as an existential threat to the nation’s future. He also argued that his strategy had helped bring crime rates down, claiming that the recent surge in criminal incidents linked to drugs justifies the need for sustained enforcement.
Throughout his testimony, Duterte adopted a defiant tone, repeatedly asserting his conviction that the drug war was a righteous fight. He urged lawmakers and critics to understand the gravity of the drug crisis and argued that the results of his campaign validated his approach.
The international community, led by the ICC, has been closely scrutinizing Duterte’s drug war. In 2018, the ICC began its preliminary examination into the Philippines’ drug crackdown after receiving numerous complaints and evidence submitted by human rights advocates. Duterte, however, responded swiftly by withdrawing the Philippines from the ICC in 2019, a move he justified by accusing the court of meddling in Philippine sovereignty.
Despite the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC, the tribunal asserted that it retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was still a member. Additionally, the ICC investigation includes alleged killings that took place in Davao City during Duterte’s tenure as mayor before he became president.
The ICC’s investigation centers on whether the state’s crackdown constituted a systematic attack against civilians, which could qualify as a crime against humanity. If the ICC concludes that Duterte’s drug war was state-sanctioned and included widespread extrajudicial killings, the former president and possibly other high-ranking officials could face prosecution under international law.
Human rights organizations in the Philippines, such as Karapatan and Amnesty International Philippines, have been vocal in demanding accountability for the drug war’s thousands of casualties. These groups contend that Duterte’s policies created a culture of impunity among law enforcement officers, who, they argue, felt emboldened to use lethal force with minimal oversight.
Amnesty International, in a report on the drug war, highlighted how the campaign disproportionately targeted economically disadvantaged communities, leaving many families without recourse to justice. In numerous cases, families have accused police officers of fabricating evidence, manipulating crime scenes, and covering up extrajudicial killings.
Leni Robredo, a prominent opposition figure and former vice president, has also spoken out against Duterte’s policies, describing the drug war as “a tragedy that exploited the poor.” She has called for increased transparency and accountability in addressing the abuses that took place.
Family members of victims have been vocal in their pursuit of justice, expressing frustration over the slow pace of investigations and the limited number of police officers convicted. So far, only nine officers have been found guilty of killing drug suspects, a small fraction compared to the thousands who lost their lives.
During the senate hearing, relatives of victims gathered outside the building, holding photos of their loved ones and calling for Duterte to be held accountable. Many of them shared stories of how their family members were killed, often in situations where the victims posed no visible threat.
“We have been asking for justice for years,” said Maria Hernandez, whose 21-year-old son was killed in 2018. “All we want is for those responsible to be held accountable and for the killings to stop.”
Although Duterte’s term ended in 2022, his successor, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., has not entirely abandoned the drug war. However, Marcos has taken a markedly different approach, focusing more on prevention and rehabilitation rather than enforcement. Under his administration, there has been a push to address drug addiction through education and healthcare rather than violence.
Despite the shift in focus, the underlying problem of drug-related crime persists in the Philippines. Marcos has also made it clear that his government will not cooperate with the ICC investigation into Duterte’s drug war. His stance has sparked further debate over the Philippines’ obligations to international law and whether the country should assist in holding past leaders accountable for potential human rights violations.
Political analysts speculate that Marcos’s decision to maintain a distance from the ICC probe reflects his efforts to appeal to Duterte’s loyal supporters, who continue to form a significant political base.
Duterte’s testimony before the senate represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the drug war. Legal experts suggest that his defiant defense could complicate efforts by rights groups to hold him accountable. By framing his actions as patriotic, Duterte may be attempting to sway public opinion in his favor and deflect attention from the allegations against him.
In the weeks leading up to his senate appearance, Duterte’s lawyers signaled that they would challenge any attempt to bring their client before the ICC. The legal team has argued that the ICC’s jurisdiction does not extend to the Philippines following its withdrawal from the court and that Duterte is protected by sovereign immunity.
Nonetheless, the outcome of the ICC investigation could have far-reaching implications for international law. If the court proceeds with charges against Duterte, it would set a precedent for holding former heads of state accountable for domestic policies that result in mass casualties.
Public sentiment around the drug war remains deeply divided in the Philippines. Polls indicate that while many Filipinos supported Duterte’s tough-on-crime stance during his presidency, there is also a growing demand for accountability, especially among families directly affected by the killings.
Political analyst Herman Cruz commented on the significance of the senate probe, stating that it underscores the challenges of balancing law enforcement with human rights protections.
“What we’re witnessing here is a struggle between upholding justice and ensuring public safety,” Cruz explained. “This hearing could lead to much-needed reforms in law enforcement, but it also risks further polarizing a nation already divided on this issue.”
With the ICC investigation ongoing, Duterte’s legacy is poised to be a contentious chapter in Philippine history. The former president’s testimony could influence both domestic and international perspectives on his administration’s policies, affecting how future generations view the trade-offs made in the name of public safety.
