drug addiction in philippines essay

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Ann Glob Health
• v.85(1); 2019

The Manila Declaration on the Drug Problem in the Philippines

Nymia simbulan.

1 University of Southern California, US

Leonardo Estacio

Carissa dioquino-maligaso, teodoro herbosa, mellissa withers.

2 University of the Philippines, PH

When Philippine President Rodrigo R. Duterte assumed office in 2016, his government launched an unprecedented campaign against illegal drugs. The drug problem in the Philippines has primarily been viewed as an issue of law enforcement and criminality, and the government has focused on implementing a policy of criminalization and punishment. The escalation of human rights violations has caught the attention of groups in the Philippines as well as the international community. The Global Health Program of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU), a non-profit network of 50 universities in the Pacific Rim, held its 2017 annual conference in Manila. A special half-day workshop was held on illicit drug abuse in the Philippines which convened 167 participants from 10 economies and 21 disciplines. The goal of the workshop was to collaboratively develop a policy statement describing the best way to address the drug problem in the Philippines, taking into consideration a public health and human rights approach to the issue. The policy statement is presented here.

When Philippine President Rodrigo R. Duterte assumed office on June 30, 2016, his government launched an unprecedented campaign against illegal drugs. He promised to solve the illegal drug problem in the country, which, according to him, was wreaking havoc on the lives of many Filipino families and destroying the future of the Filipino youth. He declared a “war on drugs” targeting users, peddlers, producers and suppliers, and called for the Philippine criminal justice system to put an end to the drug menace [ 1 ].

According to the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) (the government agency mandated to formulate policies on illegal drugs in the Philippines), there are 1.8 million current drug users in the Philippines, and 4.8 million Filipinos report having used illegal drugs at least once in their lives [ 2 ]. More than three-quarters of drug users are adults (91%), males (87%), and have reached high school (80%). More than two-thirds (67%) are employed [ 2 ]. The most commonly used drug in the Philippines is a variant of methamphetamine called shabu or “poor man’s cocaine.” According to a 2012 United Nations report, the Philippines had the highest rate of methamphetamine abuse among countries in East Asia; about 2.2% of Filipinos between the ages 16–64 years were methamphetamines users.

The drug problem in the Philippines has primarily been viewed as an issue of law enforcement and criminality, and the government has focused on implementing a policy of criminalization and punishment. This is evidenced by the fact that since the start of the “war on drugs,” the Duterte government has utilized punitive measures and has mobilized the Philippine National Police (PNP) and local government units nationwide. With orders from the President, law enforcement agents have engaged in extensive door-to-door operations. One such operation in Manila in August 2017 aimed to “shock and awe” drug dealers and resulted in the killing of 32 people by police in one night [ 3 ].

On the basis of mere suspicion of drug use and/or drug dealing, and criminal record, police forces have arrested, detained, and even killed men, women and children in the course of these operations. Male urban poor residents in Metro Manila and other key cities of the country have been especially targeted [ 4 ]. During the first six months of the Duterte Presidency (July 2016–January 2017), the PNP conducted 43,593 operations that covered 5.6 million houses, resulting in the arrest of 53,025 “drug personalities,” and a reported 1,189,462 persons “surrendering” to authorities, including 79,349 drug dealers and 1,110,113 drug users [ 5 ]. Government figures show that during the first six months of Duterte’s presidency, more than 7,000 individuals accused of drug dealing or drug use were killed in the Philippines, both from legitimate police and vigilante-style operations. Almost 2,555, or a little over a third of people suspected to be involved in drugs, have been killed in gun battles with police in anti-drug operations [ 5 , 6 ]. Community activists estimate that the death toll has now reached 13,000 [ 7 ]. The killings by police are widely believed to be staged in order to qualify for the cash rewards offered to policeman for killing suspected drug dealers. Apart from the killings, the recorded number of “surrenderees” resulting in mass incarceration has overwhelmed the Philippine penal system, which does not have sufficient facilities to cope with the population upsurge. Consequently, detainees have to stay in overcrowded, unhygienic conditions unfit for humans [ 8 ].

The escalation of human rights violations, particularly the increase in killings, both state-perpetrated and vigilante-style, has caught the attention of various groups and sectors in society including the international community. Both police officers and community members have reported fear of being targeted if they fail to support the state-sanctioned killings [ 9 ]. After widespread protests by human rights groups, Duterte called for police to shoot human rights activists who are “obstructing justice.” Human Rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have said that Duterte’s instigation of unlawful police violence and the incitement of vigilante killings may amount to crimes against humanity, violating international law [ 10 , 11 ]. The European Union found that human rights have deteriorated significantly since Duterte assumed power, saying “The Philippine government needs to ensure that the fight against drug crimes is conducted within the law, including the right to due process and safeguarding of the basic human rights of citizens of the Philippines, including the right to life, and that it respects the proportionality principle [ 12 ].” Despite the fact that, in October 2017, Duterte ordered the police to end all operations in the war on drugs, doubts remain as to whether the state-sanctioned killings will stop [ 13 ]. Duterte assigned the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) to be the sole anti-drug enforcement agency.

Duterte’s war on drugs is morally and legally unjustifiable and has created large-scale human rights violations; and is also counterproductive in addressing the drug problem. International human rights groups and even the United Nations have acknowledged that the country’s drug problem cannot be resolved using a punitive approach, and the imposition of criminal sanctions and that drug users should not be viewed and treated as criminals [ 14 ]. Those critical of the government’s policy towards the illegal drug problem have emphasized that the drug issue should be viewed as a public health problem using a rights-based approach (RBA). This was affirmed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon on the 2015 International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illegal Trafficking when he stated, “…We should increase the focus on public health, prevention, treatment and care, as well as on economic, social and cultural strategies [ 15 ].” The United Nations Human Rights Council released a joint statement in September 2017, which states that the human rights situation in the Philippines continued to cause serious concern. The Council urged the government of the Philippines to “take all necessary measures to bring these killings to an end and cooperate with the international community to pursue appropriate investigations into these incidents, in keeping with the universal principles of democratic accountability and the rule of law [ 16 ].” In October 2017, the Philippines Dangerous Drug Board (DDB) released a new proposal for an anti-drug approach that protects the life of the people. The declaration includes an implicit recognition of the public health aspect of illegal drug use, “which recognizes that the drug problem as both social and psychological [ 16 ].”

Workshop on Illicit Drug Abuse in the Philippines

The Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) is a non-profit network of 50 leading research universities in the Pacific Rim region, representing 16 economies, 120,000 faculty members and approximately two million students. Launched in 2007, the APRU Global Health Program (GHP) includes approximately 1,000 faculty, students, and researchers who are actively engaged in global health work. The main objective of the GHP is to advance global health research, education and training in the Pacific Rim, as APRU member institutions respond to global and regional health challenges. Each year, about 300 APRU GHP members gather at the annual global health conference, which is hosted by a rotating member university. In 2017, the University of the Philippines in Manila hosted the conference and included a special half-day workshop on illicit drug abuse in the Philippines.

Held on the first day of the annual APRU GHP conference, the workshop convened 167 university professors, students, university administrators, government officials, and employees of non-governmental organizations (NGO), from 21 disciplines, including anthropology, Asian studies, communication, dentistry, development, education, environmental health, ethics, international relations, law, library and information science, medicine, nutrition, nursing, occupational health, pharmaceutical science, physical therapy, political science, psychology, public health, and women’s studies. The participants came from 10 economies: Australia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand, and the US. The special workshop was intended to provide a venue for health professionals and workers, academics, researchers, students, health rights advocates, and policy makers to: 1) give an overview on the character and state of the drug problem in the Philippines, including the social and public health implications of the problem and the approaches being used by the government in the Philippines; 2) learn from the experiences of other countries in the handling of the drug and substance abuse problem; and 3) identify appropriate methods and strategies, and the role of the health sector in addressing the problem in the country. The overall goal of the workshop was to collaboratively develop a policy statement describing the best way to address this problem in a matnner that could be disseminated to all the participants and key policymakers both in the Philippines, as well as globally.

The workshop included presentations from three speakers and was moderated by Dr. Carissa Paz Dioquino-Maligaso, head of the National Poison Management and Control Center in the Philippines. The first speaker was Dr. Benjamin P. Reyes, Undersecretary of the Philippine Dangerous Drugs Board, who spoke about “the State of the Philippine Drug and Substance Abuse Problem in the Philippines.” The second speaker was Dr. Joselito Pascual, a medical specialist from the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, at the University of the Philippines General Hospital in Manila. His talk was titled “Psychotropic Drugs and Mental Health.” The final speaker was Patrick Loius B. Angeles, a Policy and Research Officer of the NoBox Transitions Foundation, whose talk was titled “Approaches to Addressing the Drug and Substance Abuse Problem: Learning from the Experiences of Other Countries.” Based on the presentations, a draft of the Manila Declaration on the Drug Problem in the Philippines was drafted by the co-authors of this paper. The statement was then sent to the workshop participants for review and comments. The comments were reviewed and incorporated into the final version, which is presented below.

Declaration

“Manila Statement on the Drug Problem in the Philippines”

Gathering in this workshop with a common issue and concern – the drug problem in the Philippines and its consequences and how it can be addressed and solved in the best way possible;

Recognizing that the drug problem in the Philippines is a complex and multi-faceted problem that includes not only criminal justice issues but also public health issues and with various approaches that can be used in order to solve such;

We call for drug control policies and strategies that incorporate evidence-based, socially acceptable, cost-effective, and rights-based approaches that are designed to minimize, if not to eliminate, the adverse health, psychological, social, economic and criminal justice consequences of drug abuse towards the goal of attaining a society that is free from crime and drug and substance abuse;

Recognizing, further, that drug dependency and co-dependency, as consequences of drug abuse, are mental and behavioral health problems, and that in some areas in the Philippines injecting drug use comorbidities such as the spread of HIV and AIDS are also apparent, and that current prevention and treatment interventions are not quite adequate to prevent mental disorders, HIV/AIDS and other co-morbid diseases among people who use drugs;

Affirming that the primacy of the sanctity/value of human life and the value of human dignity, social protection of the victims of drug abuse and illegal drugs trade must be our primary concern;

And that all health, psycho-social, socio-economic and rights-related interventions leading to the reduction or elimination of the adverse health, economic and social consequences of drug abuse and other related co-morbidities such as HIV/AIDS should be considered in all plans and actions toward the control, prevention and treatment of drug and substance abuse;

As a community of health professionals, experts, academics, researchers, students and health advocates, we call on the Philippine government to address the root causes of the illegal drug problem in the Philippines utilizing the aforementioned affirmations . We assert that the drug problem in the country is but a symptom of deeper structural ills rooted in social inequality and injustice, lack of economic and social opportunities, and powerlessness among the Filipino people. Genuine solutions to the drug problem will only be realized with the fulfillment and enjoyment of human rights, allowing them to live in dignity deserving of human beings. As members of educational, scientific and health institutions of the country, being rich and valuable sources of human, material and technological resources, we affirm our commitment to contribute to solving this social ill that the Philippine government has considered to be a major obstacle in the attainment of national development.

The statement of insights and affirmations on the drug problem in the Philippines is a declaration that is readily applicable to other countries in Asia where approaches to the problem of drug abuse are largely harsh, violent and punitive.

As a community of scholars, health professionals, academics, and researchers, we reiterate our conviction that the drug problem in the Philippines is multi-dimensional in character and deeply rooted in the structural causes of poverty, inequality and powerlessness of the Filipino people. Contrary to the government’s position of treating the issues as a problem of criminality and lawlessness, the drug problem must be addressed using a holistic and rights-based approach, requiring the mobilization and involvement of all stakeholders. This is the message and the challenge which we, as members of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities, want to relay to the leaders, policymakers, healthcare professionals, and human rights advocates in the region; we must all work together to protect and promote health and well being of all populations in our region.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Just how big is the drug problem in the Philippines anyway?

PhD candidate in Medical Anthropology, Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam

Disclosure statement

For his research on drug use in the Philippines, Gideon Lasco received funding from the University of Amsterdam's Global Health Research Priority Area.

View all partners

“Hitler massacred three million Jews … there’s three million drug addicts. There are. I’d be happy to slaughter them.”

These words, spoken by Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte in September, have become notorious worldwide.

Duterte has since apologised for the reference to the Holocaust. But alongside continued concern about the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines drug war, questions remain about whether there are actually three million drug users in the country – and whether they are addicts.

If true, drug users would represent 3% of the nation’s population – even higher than Thailand’s 1.8% (based on a recent estimate of 1.2 million), or Indonesia’s 1.8% based on an official (but questionable) estimate of 4.5 million .

Are there really three million “drug addicts” in the Philippines?

The official statistics show a much lower figure. In 2015, the Philippine Dangerous Drugs Board estimated a total of 1.8 million drug users . Of this number, 859,150 were thought to be users of shabu or crystal methamphetamine – the drug of particular concern in the country.

The term “user” was defined in the report as someone who had used drugs at least once in the past year. Of all drug users, 85% reported using at least once monthly and 50% cited weekly use. Thus the number of drug “abusers” or “addicts” is necessarily lower than that.

Still, we can’t dismiss Duterte’s claims on the sole basis of the 2015 survey or previous ones, given the variability of their results.

In 2005, the drugs board reported five million regular users of methamphetamine alone - amounting to a prevalence of 6% of the country. This prompted the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to suggest that the Philippines has the “the world’s highest methamphetamine prevalence rate” at the time.

But just three years later, the prevalence was reported to be only 1.9% .

Given the poor quality of the reports themselves (the 2008 report cites Wikipedia as reference), it’s unclear whether they reflect actual changes, or merely methodological flaws.

Duterte’s philosophy of drug use

While Duterte’s figures cannot be definitively dismissed, his view of drug users can be. His use of the term adik (addict) - a word that has very negative connotations in the Philippines - is in line with his conviction that users of illicit drugs, particularly methamphetamines, are beyond redemption.

He has claimed, for instance, that the continuous use of shabu would “ shrink the brain ”, making users “ no longer viable as human beings in this planet ”. Based on these statements, and contrary to his own government’s official stance and efforts , Duterte seems to think rehabilitation is not an option.

Numerous studies present a far more complex picture. While methamphetamine has indeed been demonstrated to cause damage to neurons and the brain’s white matter , various therapies, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy and to a lesser extent, pharmacotherapy , have shown promise as forms of rehabilitation.

What’s more, alternative models of dealing with substance abuse, including those that employ demand-reduction and harm-reduction frameworks , strongly suggest that drug use is embedded in, and in part determined by, users’ social and physical environment .

My own ethnographic research among young drug users in a poor urban community in the Philippines resonates with these perspectives. Caught in an informal economy where income opportunities are scarce and living conditions are harsh, shabu allows the youths to stay awake and work at night, gives them energy, alleviates their hunger, and provides them with moments of euphoria amid their difficult lives.

While some of them exhibit signs of addiction (they have gaunt, hollowed-out faces, for instance), most remain functional. And while some of them admit to resorting to crime (such as stealing mobile phones), the only crime most commit is taking drugs.

Educational and economic opportunities, I found, can help them move away from drug use – and prevent many others from using drugs in the first place.

A widely held view

Duterte’s philosophy of drug use is shared by many Filipinos, and has common since the very beginning of the “war on drugs” in the early 1970s. In 1972, Filipino bishops described drug users as “mental and physical wrecks”, calling them “worst saboteurs” who were “worthy of the highest punishments”.

In 1988, the Philippine Supreme Court, foreshadowing Duterte’s assertions, wrote in one of its decisions that it was:

Common knowledge that drug addicts become useless if not dangerous members of society and in some instances turn up to be among the living dead.

In many towns and cities in the Philippines, anti-drug posters (with messages like “Get high on God, not on drugs”) are displayed prominently, as if to demonstrate public’s resolve to get rid of what they see as society’s great menace.

These sentiments underwrite the widespread support that Duterte’s war on drugs enjoys. And although a majority of Filipinos think drug suspects should not be killed , many see the extrajudicial killings as a necessary evil to get rid of the far worse menace of drug addicts and the criminality associated with them.

In light of this attitude, what must be most urgently addressed is the lack of understanding about drug use and the dearth of information about the true extent and nature of drug use in the country. That means scholarly and journalistic investigations that fill these gaps must be communicated effectively to the public.

Otherwise, the official discourse and popular understandings of drug use will remain unchallenged - and the “three million addicts” in the Philippines will all be deserving of the “highest punishment” in the eyes of their fellow Filipinos.

• Methamphetamines
• War on Drugs
• Philippines
• Rodrigo Duterte
• Philippine war on drugs
• Global perspectives

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Finance Business Partner

Head of Evidence to Action

The human rights consequences of the war on drugs in the Philippines

Subscribe to this week in foreign policy, vanda felbab-brown vanda felbab-brown director - initiative on nonstate armed actors , co-director - africa security initiative , senior fellow - foreign policy , strobe talbott center for security, strategy, and technology.

August 8, 2017

• 18 min read

On August 2, 2017, Vanda Felbab-Brown submitted a statement for the record for the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the human rights consequences of the war on drugs in the Philippines. Read her full statement below.

I am a Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution.  However, as an independent think tank, the Brookings Institution does not take institutional positions on any issue.  Therefore, my testimony represents my personal views and does not reflect the views of Brookings, its other scholars, employees, officers, and/or trustees.

President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs in the Philippines is morally and legally unjustifiable. Resulting in egregious and large-scale violations of human rights, it amounts to state-sanctioned murder. It is also counterproductive for countering the threats and harms that the illegal drug trade and use pose to society — exacerbating both problems while profoundly shredding the social fabric and rule of law in the Philippines. The United States and the international community must condemn and sanction the government of the Philippines for its conduct of the war on drugs.

THE SLAUGHTER SO FAR

On September 2, 2016 after a bomb went off in Davao where Duterte had been  mayor for 22 years, the Philippine president declared a “state of lawlessness” 1 in the country. That is indeed what he unleashed in the name of fighting crime and drugs since he became the country’s president on June 30, 2016. With his explicit calls for police to kill drug users and dealers 2 and the vigilante purges Duterte ordered of neighborhoods, 3 almost 9000 people accused of drug dealing or drug use were killed in the Philippines in the first year of his government – about one third by police in anti-drug operations. 4 Although portrayed as self-defense shootings, these acknowledged police killings are widely believed to be planned and staged, with security cameras and street lights unplugged, and drugs and guns planted on the victim after the shooting. 5 According to the interviews and an unpublished report an intelligence officer shared with Reuters , the police are paid about 10,000 pesos ($200) for each killing of a drug suspect as well as other accused criminals. The monetary awards for each killing are alleged to rise to 20,000 pesos ($400) for a street pusher, 50,000 pesos ($990) for a member of a neighborhood council, one million pesos ($20,000) for distributors, retailers, and wholesalers, and five million ($100,000) for “drug lords.” Under pressure from higher-up authorities and top officials, local police officers and members of neighborhood councils draw up lists of drug suspects. Lacking any kind transparency, accountability, and vetting, these so-called “watch lists” end up as de facto hit lists. A Reuters investigation revealed that police officers were killing some 97 percent of drug suspects during police raids, 6 an extraordinarily high number and one that many times surpasses accountable police practices. That is hardly surprising, as police officers are not paid any cash rewards for merely arresting suspects. Both police officers and members of neighborhood councils are afraid not to participate in the killing policies, fearing that if they fail to comply they will be put on the kill lists themselves.

Similarly, there is widespread suspicion among human rights groups and monitors, 7 reported in regularly in the international press, that the police back and encourage the other extrajudicial killings — with police officers paying assassins or posing as vigilante groups. 8 A Reuters interview with a retired Filipino police intelligence officer and another active-duty police commander reported both officers describing in granular detail how under instructions from top-level authorities and local commanders, police units mastermind the killings. 9 No systematic investigations and prosecutions of these murders have taken place, with top police officials suggesting that they are killings among drug dealers themselves. 10

Such illegal vigilante justice, with some 1,400 extrajudicial killings, 11 was also the hallmark of Duterte’s tenure as Davao’s mayor, earning him the nickname Duterte Harry. And yet, far from being an exemplar of public safety and crime-free city, Davao remains the murder capital of the Philippines. 12 The current police chief of the Philippine National Police Ronald Dela Rosa and President Duterte’s principal executor of the war on drugs previously served as the police chief in Davao between 2010 and 2016 when Duterte was the town’s mayor.

In addition to the killings, mass incarceration of alleged drug users is also under way in the Philippines. The government claims that more than a million users and street-level dealers have voluntarily “surrendered” to the police. Many do so out of fear of being killed otherwise. However, in interviews with Reuters , a Philippine police commander alleged that the police are given quotas of “surrenders,” filling them by arresting anyone on trivial violations (such as being shirtless or drunk). 13 Once again, the rule of law is fundamentally perverted to serve a deeply misguided and reprehensible state policy.

Related Content

Vanda Felbab-Brown

September 6, 2016

Angelica Mangahas, Luke Lischin

August 18, 2016

Joseph Chinyong Liow

May 13, 2016

SMART DESIGN OF DRUG POLICIES VERSUS THE PHILIPPINES REALITY

Smart policies for addressing drug retail markets look very different than the violence and state-sponsored crime President Duterte has thrust upon the Philippines. Rather than state-sanctioned extrajudicial killings and mass incarceration, policing retail markets should have several objectives: The first, and most important, is to make drug retail markets as non-violent as possible. Duterte’s policy does just the opposite: in slaughtering people, it is making a drug-distribution market that was initially rather peaceful (certainly compared to Latin America, 14 such as in Brazil 15 ) very violent – this largely the result of the state actions, extrajudicial killings, and vigilante killings he has ordered. Worse yet, the police and extrajudicial killings hide other murders, as neighbors and neighborhood committees put on the list of drug suspects their rivals and people whose land or property they want to steal; thus, anyone can be killed by anyone and then labeled a pusher.

The unaccountable en masse prosecution of anyone accused of drug trade involvement or drug use also serves as a mechanism to squash political pluralism and eliminate political opposition. Those who dare challenge President Duterte and his reprehensible policies are accused of drug trafficking charges and arrested themselves. The most prominent case is that of Senator Leila de Lima. But it includes many other lower-level politicians. Without disclosing credible evidence or convening a fair trial, President Duterte has ordered the arrest of scores of politicians accused of drug-trade links; three such accused mayors have died during police arrests, often with many other individuals dying in the shoot-outs. The latest such incident occurred on July 30, 2017 when Reynaldo Parojinog, mayor of Ozamiz in the southern Philippines, was killed during a police raid on his house, along with Parojinog’s wife and at least five other people.

Another crucial goal of drug policy should be to enhance public health and limit the spread of diseases linked to drug use. The worst possible policy is to push addicts into the shadows, ostracize them, and increase the chance of overdoses as well as a rapid spread of HIV/AIDS, drug-resistant tuberculosis, and hepatitis. In prisons, users will not get adequate treatment for either their addiction or their communicable disease. That is the reason why other countries that initially adopted similar draconian wars on drugs (such as Thailand in 2001 16 and Vietnam in the same decade 17 ) eventually tried to backpedal from them, despite the initial popularity of such policies with publics in East Asia. Even though throughout East Asia, tough drug policies toward drug use and the illegal drug trade remain government default policies and often receive widespread support, countries, such as Thailand, Vietnam, and even Myanmar have gradually begun to experiment with or are exploring HARM reduction approaches, such as safe needle exchange programs and methadone maintenance, as the ineffective and counterproductive nature and human rights costs of the harsh war on drugs campaign become evident.

Moreover, frightening and stigmatizing drug users and pushing use deeper underground will only exacerbate the spread of infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and tuberculosis. Even prior to the Duterte’s brutal war on drugs, the rate of HIV infections in the Philippines has been soaring due to inadequate awareness and failure to support safe sex practices, such as access to condoms. Along with Afghanistan, the Philippine HIV infection rate is the highest in Asia, increasing 50 percent between 2010 and 2015. 18 Among high-risk groups, including injection- drug users, gay men, transgender women, and female prostitutes, the rate of new infections jumped by 230 percent between 2011and 2015. Duterte’s war on drugs will only intensify these worrisome trends among drug users.

Further, as Central America has painfully learned in its struggles against street gangs, mass incarceration policies turn prisons into recruiting grounds for organized crime. Given persisting jihadi terrorism in the Philippines, mass imprisonment of low-level dealers and drug traffickers which mix them with terrorists in prisons can result in the establishment of dangerous alliances between terrorists and criminals, as has happened in Indonesia.

The mass killings and imprisonment in the Philippines will not dry up demand for drugs: the many people who will end up in overcrowded prisons and poorly-designed treatment centers (as is already happening) will likely remain addicted to drugs, or become addicts. There is always drug smuggling into prisons and many prisons are major drug distribution and consumption spots.

Even when those who surrendered are placed into so-called treatment centers, instead of outright prisons, large problems remain. Many who surrendered do not necessarily have a drug abuse problem as they surrendered preemptively to avoid being killed if they for whatever reason ended up on the watch list. Those who do have a drug addiction problem mostly do not receive adequate care. Treatment for drug addiction is highly underdeveloped and underprovided in the Philippines, and China’s rushing in to build larger treatment facilities is unlikely to resolve this problem. In China itself, many so-called treatment centers often amounted to de facto prisons or force-labor detention centers, with highly questionable methods of treatment and very high relapse rates.

As long as there is demand, supply and retailing will persist, simply taking another form. Indeed, there is a high chance that Duterte’s hunting down of low-level pushers (and those accused of being pushers) will significantly increase organized crime in the Philippines and intensify corruption. The dealers and traffickers who will remain on the streets will only be those who can either violently oppose law enforcement and vigilante groups or bribe their way to the highest positions of power. By eliminating low-level, mostly non-violent dealers, Duterte is paradoxically and counterproductively setting up a situation where more organized and powerful drug traffickers and distribution will emerge.

Related Books

November 1, 2017

November 24, 2009

Henry Aaron, James M. Lindsay, Pietro S. Nivola

July 29, 2003

Inducing police to engage in de facto shoot-to-kill policies is enormously corrosive of law enforcement, not to mention the rule of law. There is a high chance that the policy will more than ever institutionalize top-level corruption, as only powerful drug traffickers will be able to bribe their way into upper-levels of the Philippine law enforcement system, and the government will stay in business. Moreover, corrupt top-level cops and government officials tasked with such witch-hunts will have the perfect opportunity to direct law enforcement against their drug business rivals as well as political enemies, and themselves become the top drug capos. Unaccountable police officers officially induced to engage in extrajudicial killings easily succumb to engaging in all kinds of criminality, being uniquely privileged to take over criminal markets. Those who should protect public safety and the rule of law themselves become criminals.

Such corrosion of the law enforcement agencies is well under way in the Philippines as a result of President Duterte’s war on drugs. Corruption and the lack of accountability in the Philippine police l preceded Duterte’s presidency, but have become exacerbated since, with the war on drugs blatant violations of rule of law and basic legal and human rights principles a direct driver. The issue surfaced visibly and in a way that the government of the Philippines could not simply ignore in January 2017 when Philippine drug squad police officers kidnapped a South Korean businessman Jee Ick-joo and extorted his family for money. Jee was ultimately killed inside the police headquarters. President Duterte expressed outrage and for a month suspended the national police from participating in the war on drugs while some police purges took places. Rather than a serious effort to root out corruption, those purges served principally to tighten control over the police. The wrong-headed illegal policies of Duterte’s war on drugs were not examined or corrected. Nor were other accountability and rule of law practices reinforced. Thus when after a month the national police were was asked to resume their role in the war on the drugs, the perverted system slid back into the same human rights violations and other highly detrimental processes and outcomes.

WHAT COUNTERNARCOTICS POLICIES THE PHILIPPINES SHOULD ADOPT

The Philippines should adopt radically different approaches: The shoot-to-kill directives to police and calls for extrajudicial killings should stop immediately, as should dragnets against low-level pushers and users. If such orders are  issued, prosecutions of any new extrajudicial killings and investigations of encounter killings must follow. In the short term, the existence of pervasive culpability may prevent the adoption of any policy that would seek to investigate and prosecute police and government officials and members of neighborhood councils who have been involved in the state-sanctioned slaughter. If political leadership in the Philippines changes, however, standing up a truth commission will be paramount. In the meantime, however, all existing arrested drug suspects need to be given fair trials or released.

Law-enforcement and rule of law components of drug policy designs need to make reducing criminal violence and violent militancy among their highest objectives. The Philippines should build up real intelligence on the drug trafficking networks that President Duterte alleges exist in the Philippines and target their middle operational layers, rather than low-level dealers, as well as their corruption networks in the government and law enforcement. However, the latter must not be used to cover up eliminating rival politicians and independent political voices.

To deal with addiction, the Philippines should adopt enlightened harm-reduction measures, including methadone maintenance, safe-needle exchange, and access to effective treatment. No doubt, these are difficult and elusive for methamphetamines, the drug of choice in the Philippines. Meth addiction is very difficult to treat and is associated with high morbidity levels. Instead of turning his country into a lawless Wild East, President Duterte should make the Philippines the center of collaborative East Asian research on how to develop effective public health approaches to methamphetamine addiction.

IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY

It is imperative that the United States strongly and unequivocally condemns the war on drugs in the Philippines and deploys sanctions until state-sanctioned extrajudicial killings and other state-authorized rule of law violations are ended. The United States should adopt such a position even if President Duterte again threatens the U.S.-Philippines naval bases agreements meant to provide the Philippines and other countries with protection against China’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea. President Duterte’s pro-China preferences will not be moderated by the United States being cowed into condoning egregious violations of human rights. In fact, a healthy U.S.-Philippine long-term relationship will be undermined by U.S. silence on state-sanctioned murder.

However, the United States must recognize that drug use in the Philippines and East Asia more broadly constitute serious threats to society. Although internationally condemned for the war on drugs, President Duterte remains highly popular in the Philippines, with 80 percent of Filipinos still expressing “much trust” for him after a year of his war on drugs and 9,000 people dead. 19 Unlike in Latin America, throughout East Asia, drug use is highly disapproved of, with little empathy for users and only very weak support for drug policy reform. Throughout the region, as well as in the Philippines, tough-on-drugs approaches, despite their ineffective outcomes and human rights violations, often remain popular. Fostering an honest and complete public discussion about the pros and cons of various drug policy approaches is a necessary element in creating public demand for accountability of drug policy in the Philippines.

Equally important is to develop better public health approaches to dealing with methamphetamine addiction. It is devastating throughout East Asia as well as in the United States, though opiate abuse mortality rates now eclipse methamphetamine drug abuse problems. Meth addiction is very hard to treat and often results in severe morbidity. Yet harm reduction approaches have been predominately geared toward opiate and heroin addictions, with substitution treatments, such as methadone, not easily available for meth and other harm reduction approaches also not directly applicable.

What has been happening in the Philippines is tragic and unconscionable. But if the United States can at least take a leading role in developing harm reduction and effective treatment approaches toward methamphetamine abuse, its condemnation of unjustifiable and reprehensible policies, such as President Duterte’s war on drugs in the Philippines, will far more soundly resonate in East Asia, better stimulating local publics to demand accountability and respect for rule of law from their leaders.

• Neil Jerome Morales, “Philippines Blames IS-linked Abu Sayyaf for Bomb in Duterte’s Davao,” Reuters , September 2, 2016, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-blast-idUSKCN11824W?il=0.
• Rishi Iyengar, “The Killing Time: Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s War on Drugs,” Time , August 24, 2016, http://time.com/4462352/rodrigo-duterte-drug-war-drugs-philippines-killing/.
• Jim Gomez, “Philippine President-Elect Urges Public to Kill Drug Dealers,” The Associated Press, June 5, 2016, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/58fc2315d488426ca2512fc9fc8d6427/philippine-president-elect-urges-public-kill-drug-dealers.
• Manuel Mogato and Clare Baldwin, “Special Report: Police Describe Kill Rewards, Staged Crime Scenes in Duterte’s Drug War,” Reuters , April 18, 2017, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-duterte-police-specialrep-idUSKBN17K1F4.
• Clare Baldwin , Andrew R.C. Marshall and Damir Sagolj , “Police Rack Up an Almost Perfectly Deadly Record in Philippine Drug War,” Reuters , http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/philippines-duterte-police/.
• See, for example, Human Rights Watch, “Philippines: Police Deceit in ‘Drug War’ Killings,” March 2, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/03/02/philippines-police-deceit-drug-war-killings ; and Amnesty International, “Philippines: The Police’s Murderous War on the Poor,” https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/01/philippines-the-police-murderous-war-on-the-poor/.
• Reuters , April 18, 2017.
• Aurora Almendral, “The General Running Duterte’s Antidrug War,” The New York Times , June 2, 2017.
• “A Harvest of Lead,” The Economist , August 13, 2016, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21704793-rodrigo-duterte-living-up-his-promise-fight-crime-shooting-first-and-asking-questions.
• Reuters, April 18, 2017.
• Vanda Felbab-Brown and Harold Trinkunas, “UNGASS 2016 in Comparative Perspective: Improving the Prospects for Success,” The Brookings Institution, April 29, 2015, https://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/FelbabBrown-TrinkunasUNGASS-2016-final-2.pdf?la=en.
• See, for example, Paula Miraglia, “Drugs and Drug Trafficking in Brazil: Trends and Policies,” The Brookings Institution, April 29, 2015, https://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/Miraglia–Brazil-final.pdf?la=en .
• James Windle, “Drugs and Drug Policy in Thailand,” Improving Global Drug Policy: Comparative Perspectives and UNGASS 2016, The Brookings Institution, April 2015, https://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/WindleThailand-final.pdf?la=en .
• James Windle, “Drugs and Drug Policy in Vietnam,” Improving Global Drug Policy: Comparative Perspectives and UNGASS 2016, The Brookings Institution, April 2015, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/WindleVietnam-final.pdf.
• Aurora Almendral, “As H.I.V. Soars in the Philippines, Conservatives Kill School Condom Plan,” The New York Times , February 28, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/world/asia/as-hiv-soars-in-philippines-conservatives-kill-school-condom-plan.html?_r=0.
• Nicole Curato, “In the Philippines, All the President’s People,” The New York Times , May 31, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/opinion/philippines-rodrigo-duterte.html.

Foreign Policy

Southeast Asia

Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology

Isabel V. Sawhill, Kai Smith

July 30, 2024

August 27, 2021

March 26, 2019

Share this via Facebook Share this via X Share this via WhatsApp Share this via Email Other ways to share Share this via LinkedIn Share this via Reddit Share this via Telegram Share this via Printer

Download the full report in English

Summary and Recommendations

Buod at Rekomendasyon

“Our Happy Family Is Gone”

Impact of the “War on Drugs” on Children in the Philippines

Jennifer M. drew this using pencil and crayon as part of her therapy  for the psychological distress she suffered after witnessing the killing of her father by police officers inside their Quezon City home in December 2016. © 2016 Kiri Dalena for Human Rights Watch

Thousands of people in the Philippines have been killed since President Rodrigo Duterte launched his “war on drugs” on June 30, 2016, the day he took office. Among those who died have been dozens of children under age 18 who were either specifically targeted or were inadvertently shot during anti-drug raids, what authorities have called “collateral damage.” Philippine children’s rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) put the total number of child fatalities at 101 from July 2016 through December 2018, both targeted and killed as bystanders. More deaths of children have been reported in the media in 2019 and 2020.

More broadly, official figures from the Philippine National Police and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency put the number of “drug war” casualties at 5,601 deaths as of January 31, 2020. In virtually every case, police claimed they killed a drug seller or user during a raid after the suspect resisted arrest and fought back. The national Commission on Human Rights and domestic human rights groups believe many thousands more – estimated at more than 27,000 – have been killed by the police, agents of the police, or unidentified assailants.

The overwhelming majority of these killings have not been properly investigated. According to the Philippine Department of Justice in January 2019, just 76 deaths have led to investigations. Even then, only 33 resulted in court cases and 5 were pending before the Office of the Prosecutor, while the prosecutor dismissed half – 38 cases. At time of writing, only one case – the killing of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos by three police officers in August 2017, which happened to be captured on video – has resulted in a trial and conviction.

Human Rights Watch also investigated the killings of adults in which police showed little to no regard for the safety and welfare of children, often conducting raids in the middle of the night while the entire family was at home. In many raids, children witnessed the killing of a parent, or were present while their parent was dragged away and shot.                                             

The harmful consequences for children of Duterte’s anti-drug campaign go beyond the immediate violence of the raids. Many suffer psychological distress after witnessing the killing of a loved one. Some children have had to leave their homes and community, either going into hiding or relocating because they and their family members feared for their lives.

At school and in their own communities, some experienced bullying because of the stigma of alleged drug use by a now deceased parent. Human Rights Watch met one 5-year-old boy who developed aggressive and violent behavior after his father’s gruesome killing. A number of children have stopped going to school because they no longer had enough money for transportation, food, and school supplies.

The loss of a parent who is the main breadwinner can plunge an already impoverished family into even more extreme poverty. Many children are left with no choice but to work, and some end up homeless and living in the streets, further exposing themselves to danger, violence, and criminal activity.

The Philippine government, apart from its refusal to effectively and impartially investigate the killings and its policy of detaining children in conflict with the law, has done little to address the needs of children directly affected by the anti-drug campaign. The Department of Social Welfare and Development, the main government agency responsible for the welfare of children, does not have a specific program directly aimed at addressing the needs of children affected by the “drug war.” Whatever assistance the department gives children and families is derived from existing programs, such as cash assistance for burial expenses or its conditional cash transfer program.

Families have been wary about approaching the government for help because they consider the police and other government officials to be responsible for the loss they have suffered. This leaves the children and their families left with only programs supported by civic and nongovernmental groups, particularly those from the Roman Catholic Church and a few Protestant and ecumenical groups. In some communities where violence is frequent, parish priests and lay workers have been leading the effort to help by providing psycho-social (mental health) support, economic assistance, support for children to attend school, and help in finding and supporting livelihoods for affected families. But as the killings continue, such voluntary efforts have been overwhelmed and are insufficient to address the needs of affected children.

Human Rights Watch believes governments should ensure respect for human rights in their policies and practices on the use, possession, production, and distribution of drugs. We oppose the criminalization of the personal use of drugs and the possession of drugs for personal use. To deter, prevent, and remedy the harmful use of drugs, governments should rely on non-penal regulatory and public health approaches that do not violate human rights. 

Human Rights Watch calls on the Philippine government to end its abusive anti-drug campaign and investigate and prosecute those responsible for killings and other human rights violations. The UN Human Rights Council should establish an independent international investigative mechanism into extrajudicial killings and other violations committed in the context of the “war on drugs” since June 2016. The families of victims of unlawful killings by government officials and their agents should be promptly and fairly compensated for their loss. Government agencies should address the dire needs of children whose breadwinner has been killed, especially those living in impoverished communities across the Philippines where the killings typically take place, and ensure the government adopts measures to protect affected children from abuse.   

Methodology

This report is based primarily on in-person interviews that Human Rights Watch carried out between March 2018 and February 2020 in Manila, Caloocan City, Quezon City, Cebu City, General Santos City, and Quezon province. In all, we interviewed 49 people – 10 children; 23 parents, relatives, or guardians of those children; and 16 individuals from nongovernmental organizations and government offices – to obtain information on 23 deaths in which the victim of a “drug war” killing left behind children. Several NGOs assisted in identifying cases and tracking down the families of victims. Human Rights Watch focused on incidents in which a child dependent was left behind and benefited from the assistance of community organizations working with children.

When possible, Human Rights Watch conducted the interviews in a private and safe setting, without the presence of others. Several interviews with children were done in the presence of a parent or guardian. In five cases in which the interview subjects agreed in advance, the interviews were conducted in front of a Human Rights Watch video crew. Interviews were conducted mainly in Tagalog but also in Visayan and English. The interviewees were not compensated but Human Rights Watch paid travel and food expenses when, for security reasons, we interviewed them some distance from their homes.

Except in cases already well publicized, the names of children, parents, and guardians in this report have been changed to protect their privacy and prevent possible retaliation.

I. Background

Since taking office on June 30, 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte has consistently delivered on his campaign promise to kill drug users and dealers. [1] In the four years since his inauguration, police have killed 5,601 persons in what authorities called “legitimate anti-drug operations” during which the suspects allegedly fought back ( nanlaban ), forcing police officers to shoot them. [2] This official death toll from the Philippine National Police (PNP) does not, however, include the thousands more across the country killed by unidentified gunmen, which the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) estimated to be more than 27,000. [3]

Research by Human Rights Watch and others has found many of these killings were perpetrated by law enforcement personnel in civilian clothes or members of so-called death squads working with the police or local government officials. [4] In many cases, the police have planted evidence such as drugs and weapons on bodies to justify their “nanlaban” claims. [5] In other cases, the police allegedly have outsourced the killings to armed vigilante groups. [6]

While the daily number of killings has declined somewhat since the carnage of the first year of the campaign in 2016-2017, killings still occur on a frequent basis. [7] In the early stages of the campaign, killings were concentrated in the cities comprising the sprawling Metro Manila area, with its vast impoverished neighborhoods where the drug raids usually occur. However, more recently, the violence has expanded to adjacent provinces such as Laguna, Cavite, and Bulacan. [8] The killings have also worsened in other urban areas, particularly in the central Philippine province of Cebu. [9]

President Duterte has sanctioned [10] and encouraged [11] the killings. In speech after speech, Duterte has ordered the police to kill drug suspects, and even to plant evidence during raids. [12] He has promised the police cash rewards and promotions for killing drug suspects. [13] Officials who have followed his orders have later secured plum positions in government, among them Ronald dela Rosa, his first Philippine National Police chief whom Duterte strongly supported in his ultimately successful run for a Senate seat in May 2019. [14] Duterte also promised police officers impunity for rights abuses, stating he would protect them, and ultimately pardon them, if ever they are convicted for enforcing his anti-drug policies. [15]

There has been virtually no accountability for killings associated with the “drug war.” At time of writing, police officers implicated in the killings have been convicted in only one case. [16] According to the Department of Justice, only 33 cases out of the 76 it investigated in 2018 have resulted in charges filed against police officers. [17] The PNP claims it has disciplined hundreds of police officers, but this claim is misleading because most of those are administrative cases, not criminal, and many involve infractions that are not related to the anti-drug campaign. [18]

Police have not only failed to investigate these deaths in an independent and impartial manner, but in some instances have actively frustrated other efforts to gather information on the killings. The CHR has complained the PNP routinely refuses to provide copies of police documents so that it can investigate cases, [19] prompting the CHR to seek a dialogue with the PNP. [20] Litigants in criminal cases filed against police officers have likewise been turned away by the PNP, forcing them to seek intervention by the Supreme Court, which ordered the police to turn over tens of thousands of documents in a 2019 ruling. [21] The police eventually gave documents to the litigants, who called them “rubbish because most of it were cases not related to the ‘drug war.’” [22] Journalists have likewise complained that police have ignored their requests for official police documents of drug raids, which are supposed to be public records. [23]

The administration itself has resisted calls for accountability. President Duterte launched a vilification campaign from the very beginning of his presidency against those who criticized the “drug war,” including those from international agencies and foreign countries. [24] His government attacked then-United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein for criticizing this vilification of critics campaign. [25] Duterte threatened to literally slap Agnes Callamard, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, for commenting on the killings. [26] In March 2018, Duterte ordered the withdrawal of the country from the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court after the court’s Office of the Prosecutor announced that it would launch a preliminary examination of the complaints filed against Duterte. [27] In June 2019, the government launched a sustained disinformation campaign against UN Human Rights Council members countries that were considering whether to pass a resolution critical of the human rights situation in the Philippines. [28]

Domestic civil society organizations and human rights defenders have likewise been targeted with threats by President Duterte, police, and other public officials. [29] Critics of the government have been accused of supporting communist rebels, an allegation that can prove fatal in the Philippines because of military, police, and vigilante violence. [30] In some cases, the government has brought inflammatory charges against activist groups, alleging illegal possession of firearms, for example, in actions apparently designed to harass, intimidate, and ultimately silence them. [31] The government’s Securities and Exchange Commission issued a memorandum in November 2018 tightening regulations on NGOs who receive funding from foreign governments or entities, an attempt to obstruct funding to organizations critical of the Duterte administration. [32]

The administration has also targeted the political opposition. [33] In February 2017, police arrested on fabricated charges Senator Leila de Lima,  who, at time of writing, remains in detention at the police headquarters in Quezon City. [34] De Lima had earlier launched a Senate investigation into the anti-drug campaign and, as a consequence, was subjected to harassment by Duterte and his allies in Congress – including many misogynistic verbal attacks [35]  – before being detained. [36] Government prosecutors eventually brought non-bailable charges of collusion with drug syndicates against de Lima while she was secretary of justice. [37]

When she was chairperson of the CHR from 2008 to 2010, de Lima was the first – and so far the only – public official who investigated Duterte for the death squad killings in Davao City, where Duterte was mayor for more than two decades. [38] Duterte vowed to destroy de Lima as a result of that investigation, calling her an “immoral woman.” [39]

Other political opposition figures, such as Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, also face various retaliatory legal cases as a result of their critical stance against the administration. [40] At time of writing, Trillanes is facing incitement to sedition and kidnapping charges. [41]

Journalists and media outlets who have reported critically on the “war on drugs” have also faced harassment both on social media and from the government. The government’s prime target in the media has been the news website Rappler, which has frequently reported critically on the anti-drug campaign, including groundbreaking reports on the involvement of the police in the killings. [42] Rappler’s owners, editors, and journalists face numerous legal cases, and police have arrested its editor, Maria Ressa. [43] Ressa has also been targeted by a withering demonization campaign on social media. [44]

In July 2019, the government ramped up its campaign against critics of the violence, accusing members of the political opposition, human rights advocates, and Catholic bishops and priests of incitement to sedition, among other charges. [45] The inclusion of religious figures among those accused signifies the government’s increased hostility toward the Catholic Church, and to church leaders and priests who have become increasingly vocal in their opposition to the violence. [46] Much of the church’s criticism springs from the experiences of priests in communities as they go about their ministerial work. [47]

The vast majority of the killings have occurred in impoverished communities, prompting accusations that, more than anything else, the “drug war” is a war against the poor. [48] In many cases, the victim has been the breadwinner for a low-income family and their death drives the family even deeper into poverty. “These people are often the most marginalized members of our society and the ‘drug war’ violence has marginalized them even more,” said Father Danilo Pilario, dean of the School of Theology at Saint Vincent’s College in Quezon City, who also runs the Project Support for Orphans and Widows (Project SOW) that provides assistance to victims of the violence. [49]

Father Pilario and other community-based priests, as well as human rights defenders, children’s rights advocates, parents and guardians, and children themselves have spoken of the dire consequences for children of the killings. [50] These include psychological distress caused by witnessing the violence, economic hardships that follow loss of a breadwinner, dislocation from their homes and schools, and, when they do go to school, bullying and discrimination. [51]

The government has developed no specific programs to address these issues. A former top official from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the main government agency mandated to care for children, told Human Rights Watch there has never been a single cabinet meeting under Duterte in which the effects of the “war on drugs” on children was discussed. [52] The official said that while some of the department’s existing assistance for indigent families can be applicable to affected families, such as assistance with burial expenses, the government has no program specifically aimed at addressing the needs of these children. [53]

As a result, families of “drug war” victims either receive no assistance or must seek what they can from NGOs and other civic institutions. [54] Increasingly, families have flocked to parishes whose priests have put in place interventions to provide financial assistance, vocational and livelihood support, psycho-social services such as counselling, and a safe space for them to tell their stories and share experiences with others who are sympathetic and face similar situations. [55] However, the government’s recent aggressive moves against members of the clergy, including the filing of criminal cases against some of the very same priests who help these children, threaten to take away the little help these children and their families are getting.

II. Killings of Children

On the evening of August 16, 2017, officers from the PNP dragged a teenage boy through the dark, filthy alleys of an impoverished community in Caloocan City, one of the cities that comprise Metro Manila. His body was found moments later, slumped in a corner next to a pigsty. [56] The victim was Kian delos Santos, 17, a Grade 11 student who had wanted to be a police officer one day. According to witnesses, the boy had pleaded to his assailants – one of whom held him by the neck—to stop hurting him because he had a school exam the next day. [57] They ignored his pleas and shot him three times while he was kneeling. [58]

The police maintained that delos Santos was killed in a firefight, that he was the first to fire at the police and was shot dead in the ensuing shootout. [59] This claim – like similar police nanlaban claims in many other “drug war” cases that the individual killed had been fighting back – was later debunked by witness testimony. [60]

While a number of children had died during earlier drug raids, delos Santos’s killing a year into Duterte’s anti-drug campaign was unique because of the discovery of CCTV footage showing the police officers dragging the boy through an alley that led to the spot where his body was found. Later, encouraged by the surfacing of the CCTV footage, witnesses – delos Santos’ neighbors – started to come out to testify.

“If not for the CCTV footage, the truth about my nephew’s death may not have been known and there never would have been a case against the policemen,” Randy delos Santos told Human Rights Watch. [61] Delos Santos, 43, realized there was a government-installed CCTV camera near the site of the killing, in a neighborhood called Barangay 160 in Caloocan City. He immediately asked village officials for a copy of the footage and, according to him, gave a copy to ABS-CBN, the country’s largest broadcast network. [62] He said police officers later asked village officials to delete the footage but were told that the boy’s family already had it. [63]

“What my neighbors told me about what they saw was exactly what was shown on the CCTV footage,” Delos Santos said. “It was like watching a movie being replayed.” [64]

“Kian was the sweetest and kindest boy,” his uncle said. “He was never in trouble and was never into drugs, contrary to what the police alleged.” The worst offense he had committed in school, he said, was cutting classes once. He thought that the raiding police team “used an informant during the raid and pointed at the wrong person.” [65]

More than a year later, on November 29, 2018, a Caloocan court found three police officers – Arnel Oares, Jeremias Pereda, and Jerwin Cruz – guilty of murder and sentenced them to a maximum of 40 years in prison without eligibility for parole. It was the first ever and so far, the only, criminal conviction of police officers for misconduct in the “war on drugs.” [66]

A number of the children killed had been targeted during drug raids like Kian delos Santos, but most have died simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time: they lived in the mainly impoverished communities police have typically raided in their anti-drug operations. [67] According to statistics from the Children’s Legal Rights and Development Center, nongovernmental groups that track the violence, 101 children were killed from the start of the campaign in July 2016 up through the end of 2018. [68] Several children have been killed from the beginning of 2019 up to 2020. [69] Government officials, including President Duterte, have dismissed the killing of these children as “collateral damage,” as if the anti-drug campaign were an actual armed conflict. [70]

“Drug war” killings continue to occur frequently. On the afternoon of January 27, 2020, Ronjhay Furio, an 8-year-old in Grade 3, was out in the street in Santa Ana, a Manila district to buy isaw, his favorite barbecued chicken snack, according to his relatives. [71] Four gunmen in civilian clothes and motorcycle helmets arrived riding two motorcycles about 200 meters from the boy’s house. One gunman fired a .45 caliber handgun at a group of village officials. The apparent target, councilor Roberto Cudal, 52, and another man were wounded; one bullet fatally struck Ronjhay in the abdomen across the street. “He was waiting for his food when the gunmen on motorcycles came,” said a relative. [72]

Human rights advocates helping the family of Ronjhay believe that this shooting was linked to the anti-drug campaign. But even if that was not the case, Human Rights Watch’s investigation showed how such killings can devastate a family. A relative spoke about how he was very gentle and kind to his parents and other siblings. He had already displayed a sense of responsibility around the house. After helping an uncle fix their jeepney (mini-bus) that day, he had become hungry and so fatefully decided to cross the street to buy some barbecued food. [73]

III. Psychological Distress

Children who have witnessed violence against their loved ones are among those seriously harmed by the “drug war.” [74] Human Rights Watch documented several cases in which children saw the killing of their family member or were in the house where the killing occurred. The effects on them have been profound.

Jennifer M.

Jennifer M., from Payatas, in Quezon City, was 12 years old  when her father was killed by police officers in December 2016. [75] Police, some in uniform and some in civilian clothes, entered their home and ordered all the children outside. They couldn’t pry Jennifer away from her father; she later said she was hugging him tight so that “they don’t harm him.” One of the officers finally managed to wrestle her away from her father and flung her to the ground outside. Shots rang out immediately, and seconds later, Jennifer saw her father dead on the floor. [76] Jennifer said she has nightmares since the killing, her hands often shake, she is easily startled by loud sounds, and she has become withdrawn and has difficulties eating. [77]

She said: “I was confused because I didn't understand why. Why my papa? Of all the people outside, why did they pick my father? I was angry at the policemen because my father was begging for mercy, but they didn't listen to him. That's why I was so angry.”

When asked about the killings that had become common in her community, Jennifer replied: “I can't explain it because with so many being killed here in Payatas, it's like your mind gets muddled. How else to talk about it? What goes through your mind when you remember what happened? It's like your mind is in disarray.”

Children of Renato A.

The children of Renato A., a scavenger killed in December 2016, in Mandaluyong City, has also experienced enduring psychological distress. Robert A., Renato’s eldest child, who was 15 at the time of the shooting, recalled the night his father was killed as he attended the wake of an aunt who had been shot three days earlier:

We were out to buy peanuts. My cousin and I saw four men riding two motorcycles without plate numbers, their faces covered, wearing jackets. I tried to chase them, I tried to get ahead of them. I did everything I could to reach my father first, but it was too late. I saw my father being shot. [78]

Robert said his younger brother John A., who was 13 at the time, witnessed the shooting and was wounded in the leg. Robert said of his brother:

John was more affected by my father’s death because ever since my father died, I don’t see him happy anymore. If I see him smile, it’s forced. He’s still looking for our father because he was my father’s favorite. He easily gets angry now and he lost trust in people. [79]

Karla A., the youngest child who was 10 at the time, also saw the killing, cowering in fear beneath her aunt’s coffin as the gunman fired at her father a few feet away. In tears, she told Human Rights Watch: “I was there when it happened, when my papa was shot. I saw everything, how my papa was shot. … Our happy family is gone. We don’t have anyone to call father now. We want to be with him, but we can’t anymore.” [80]

Their mother, Andrea A., said Karla was “always in a daze” after the killing:

“Sometimes, before we went to sleep, we would talk about her father, the happy things they did. Sometimes we talk about those and sometimes we would just cry. I would just tell them to go to sleep but the next day they were all still in a daze.” [81]

Children who did not directly witness the deaths of their parents also suffered. [82] Kyle R. was 5 years old when his father, Alvin R., a 39-year-old driver, turned up dead in November 2016. Unidentified assailants had wrapped his head had in packaging tape and stabbed him 19 times before dumping his body on an overpass in Tondo, an impoverished district in Manila. Kyle’s mother, Zeny R., tried to shield the boy from any news about what had happened to her husband, but Kyle learned about it from his friends. One time, Zeny said, Kyle saw his father’s picture being flashed on the TV news.

Zeny said that the boy’s demeanor has changed dramatically since then. He started behaving extremely aggressively and using foul words. During a visit in February 2019, Human Rights Watch saw Kyle pick up a skateboard and hit his mother repeatedly with it as he bounced about the living room shouting, “Putang ina mo! Putang ina mo!” – Tagalog for “your mother is a whore” – and flashing his middle finger. One time, she said, he threatened to kill a friend and wrap him with packaging tape. [83]

A crying Zeny told Human Rights Watch:

I don’t know what’s happening. I don’t know how this happened…. He misses his father a lot and he takes it out on me.

I fear [what will happen] when he grows up [because] he becomes so violent…. He might turn out like the other kids who have gone astray or might be jailed. That's what I fear.

Children of Julian R.

The six young children of Julian R., 22, who was killed by motorcycle-riding gunmen in June 2017, in Batasan, Quezon City, also had difficulty adjusting to his death. “They watch news every day and they see news about killings,” Julian’s mother, Julieta R., said. [84] “It is not easy to forget it.”

Children of Hamed U.

The children of Hamed U., 29, a carpenter in General Santos City, on the southern island of Mindanao, were so upset by his death by the police in March 2018, that they asked their grandfather to demolish a part of their house that had been his room. The children, according to their grandfather Abdul U., always became sad each time they saw the room, so he had it torn down. [85]

Psycho-social Programs Offered by NGOs and the Catholic Church

Social workers and experts consulted by Human Rights Watch believe the violence many of these children have experienced has created a mental health challenge for the Philippines. [86] However, the government has adopted no specific programs for children harmed by the “drug war” to address that challenge. None of the children or parents whom Human Rights Watch interviewed had ever seen social workers from the DSWD. The burden then falls on NGOs, like children’s rights groups, or Catholic parishes to provide psycho-social programs, such as counselling.

In Payatas, Quezon City, the parish’s Project SOW has specifically included counseling as key part of its work. Father Michael Sandaga, the priest of the Ina ng Lupang Pangako parish in Payatas who helped run the program, said 35 children ages 5 or older were enrolled in the program, which meets two Saturdays each month:

The psychological aspect of the program is being taken care by psychologists, among them the priest in charge for this program, a graduate of psychology. So, he is the one taking care of all the modules and then also assessments. And then for the spiritual program, we have our Bible sharing and the personal reflections of the parents. [87]

Father Sandaga said that, based on his observations since the program started in 2016, “it was always tragic for the children.” He recounted initial encounters with boys who had turned violent because of what happened to their parents, always quarreling and fighting with other kids. [88] The girls, he said, were very shy and are scared of strangers, including priests. Some of the children, he said, tended to isolate themselves, refusing to interact with other children. These, he said, were the “manifestation of the violence that they saw.”

IV. Bullying and Stigmatization

Several days after her father was killed during a police raid in December 2016, Jennifer M., whose case is detailed above (see Section III), was interviewed by a television network about what happened. The news report identified the girl, 12 at the time, and showed her face. Her account was impactful because, by then, the Duterte’s “drug war” had only been in effect a few months, with killings happening on a daily basis. The TV report, however, meant trouble for Jennifer. She told Human Rights Watch:

I went to school after [it was shown] and my classmate told me I was a show-off. I was embarrassed. Then the teachers were also asking why I was interviewed. Of course, I didn't know what to tell them because I'm embarrassed to tell them what had happened. I tried to brush it aside. Then one day, one my classmates asked why was my father subjected to tokhang . [89] Maybe my father was using illegal drugs, he said. I said no he didn't. Then he asked me to tell him what happened. I didn't want to. He said it must be true. He was bullying me by then. He said my father was an addict. I ignored him. But the other children told my siblings that my father was an addict, that's why he was killed. [90]

Jennifer told her mother, Malou M., about what happened but she did not make much of it at first. Then finally, the month after the killing, Jennifer decided to drop out of school. Malou was disappointed but recognized that her daughter was going through a rough time. She recalled:

They were judging her and saying a lot of things about her father. Then she told me, “Ma, I don't want to go to school anymore.” I asked her, “Why is that?” She told me what was happening to her in school. So, I said, “All right, if you don't want to go to school now, then don’t. There's still next year.” It was okay for me because I wasn't there, so I didn’t know how to help her. [91]

Siblings of Jasper F.

One of the siblings of Jasper F., a 15-year-old boy killed in Bagong Silang, Quezon City, in December 2016, also faced harassment by classmates in school. He dropped out of school as a result. [92] The boy, who was in fifth grade at the time of his brother’s killing, suffered taunting by friends, his grandmother, Aida F., told Human Rights Watch. “It’s a good thing your brother died,” one friend told him one day. [93]

Children of Luciano F.

Maila F., 13, the daughter of Luciano F., a 43-year-old drug user in Payatas, Quezon City, suffered bullying after her father was killed in June 2017. “She was being harassed and taunted all the time in school because her father was killed, because he was a user,” her grandmother, Josefa F,. said. [94] “She and her young brother were crying all the time.” Soon thereafter, Maila decided to stop going to school.

Children of Lee-Ann L.

Lee-Ann L., a mother of three children whose husband was killed in March 2017, said her two daughters had been bullied in their Quezon City school, prompting her to confront the mother of one of the bullies. Although her children managed to continue schooling in the same school, it had not been easy, she said. “They are now afraid to go to school or go home. I now have to fetch them every time,” Lee-Ann said. [95]

Severe Impacts of Bullying

Father Sandaga said he encountered many cases of bullying that forced children to drop out of school. It’s part of the stigmatization that comes with being identified as a drug user or, worse, targeted by the police. “So, a child doesn’t come to school anymore because he was being bullied and was being told that his father was a drug user. He was killed because he was an addict. So the child was being humiliated,” he said. “In this community, when you lose someone, when a member of your family is killed in a drug raid, no one comes to your house for the wake. No one goes to the wake because there was a stigma on the family. Usually, wakes here would go on for more a week, sometimes two weeks, but not anymore because nobody comes.” [96]

This bullying and stigmatization has had severe impacts on families, Father Sandaga said. [97] One family was forced to leave Payatas and go back to Bohol province, in the central Philippines, because they couldn’t withstand the fear and the taunting. [98] In another case, a mother who was allegedly on a police “drug watch” list was forced to leave her children behind in the care of their grandparents. [99] “Families are also separated from each other because they needed to move out one member of the family,” Father Sandaga said.

V. Deepening Poverty

The killing of a parent or guardian typically has significant financial consequences for those left behind, especially because most victims have been from impoverished communities, and were often the family’s main or sole breadwinner. Economic impacts of this loss include inability to pay for food, school supplies, and public transport to school. The new dire economic circumstances of the family have compelled some of the children to work to help make ends meet. Other children have had to leave the family to go live with relatives who could take better care of them. And some of the children have been forced by these new circumstances to stop going to school altogether.

One evening in March 2017, Jonathan L., 35, a bus driver who drove 24-hour shifts, was waiting in a street in Quezon City for another driver to deliver the jeepney, or minibus, that he was going to drive the next day. Two gunmen on motorcycles and wearing balaclavas sidled up to him. One of them shot him point-blank, killing him on the spot. Jonathan left behind a wife and three children – two in high school, one in elementary school. Driving the jeepney had been his main source of income. [100]

As with many “drug war” victims, Jonathan had been the family’s main breadwinner. His wife, Lee-Ann L., had stopped working to take care of the children. Jonathan’s death forced Lee-Ann to move the family to live with her in-laws, which unsettled her because one of her husband’s brothers was known to be a drug user. “But I had no choice but to move in with them,” Lee-Ann told Human Rights Watch. [101]

Lee-Ann’s in-laws were also poor, so she went looking for work, finally finding a job in the kitchen staff at a school canteen. Even with the job, Lee-Ann had difficulty making ends meet. “While the kids remained in school, they no longer had the usual support that they received from their father. I have not been able to pay their school fees,” Lee-Ann said. Although public education is free in the Philippines, students and pupils still need to pay expenses like transportation and class projects.

Other families of victims had similar stories. Malou M., the wife of Benigno M. who was shot dead in Payatas, Quezon City, in December 2016, said she and her family had been driven deeper into poverty after Benigno’s death:

It's hard because you don't know how you're going to start, how you're going to fend for your children, how you're going to send them to school, and how you’re going to pay for their daily expenses and their meals. There are times they can't go to school because they don't have school allowance. We lost our tap water because we can't pay the water bill, and electricity and many more things. [102]

Some surviving parents manage to get assistance from NGOs who help victims while others seek help from their parishes. Malou was able to find work at the Project SOW in Quezon City, where she worked as a tailor after her husband died. Even then, she said, the income was hardly adequate:

It’s really not enough because it's hard to budget 250 pesos (about US$5) a day. Sometimes, I won't even earn that much in a day if you cannot make the quota of 250 pieces daily, in which case you only get paid 150 pesos. But how about the children's school allowance? They're four, all attending school. How about the food? They often just make do with eggs. Sometimes, they don't have food when I leave them at home. [103]

All of the victim’s families interviewed by Human Rights Watch suffered economic difficulty as a result of the death of their loved one.

Family of Jasper S.

Jasper S., 37, was killed in September 2017, when two masked men on a motorcycle shot him in broad daylight in Mabuhay, a suburb of General Santos City, on his way home from a volleyball game with friends. His father, Ben S., said one of the men shot him twice. “He was not into drugs, he was not in the drug watch list,” Ben said. “We do not know why he was killed.” [104]

The death of Jasper, who worked at a computer store and was supporting his six nephews and nieces, left his family economically devastated. “[His death] is a huge loss to us emotionally, economically,” Ben said, who supports his children and grandchildren by selling snacks in front of their home.

Family of Renato A.

The family of Renato A., a scavenger murdered in December 2016 in Mandaluyong City, has faced extreme difficulties since his death. All three of his children – ages 13, 10, and 1 at the time of his killing – stopped going to school and, since their mother remarried, live in the streets of Mandaluyong, taking odd jobs, such as watching parked cars and teaching hip-hop dance in order to survive. On some days, they sleep in the homes of friends and cousins, but they mostly spend their nights at the back of a local supermarket, sleeping on mats of cardboard and hammocks tied underneath a storage building.

“We couldn’t afford it so we decided to stop going to school,” said Robert A., the eldest of Renato’s children. [105] Robert said their most significant expenses were the public transportation fare to and from school, which can be as little as 15 pesos ($0.30), and lunch, typically 50 pesos ($1) per day. To support his siblings, Robert tried to work as a garbage collector but found the job too taxing on his health. Now 19, he teaches hip-hop dance to teenagers in Mandaluyong City but is barely able to support the needs of his siblings. “We make do with my salary so that my siblings and I can eat three times a day,” he said, adding:

I had to work harder when my father died. I became a father to my siblings because I don’t want to see them suffer… so I’m doing everything I can. I force myself to work even if I don’t want to. I force myself for me, for my siblings. [106]

We sleep near Marketplace beside the stall. We lay cartons around 9 p.m. at the side of the stall. We sleep there until morning. And then when we wake up, we transfer to the parking lot. We spend the night there. [107]

Children of Lorenzo M.

Melanie M. was 12 when her father, Lorenzo M., a 38-year-old worker at a canning factory in General Santos City, was shot dead by the police in July 2017. After Lorenzo’s death, Melanie and her two other siblings were forced to stop schooling because money ran dry – they had relied solely on Lorenzo’s income because their mother had no job at the time of the killing. To support her mother, who sells peanuts and washes clothes for a living, Melanie also started selling boiled peanuts in the streets of General Santos, often well into the evening. [108]

Children of Antonio S.

The five young children of Antonio S., a 45-year-old small business owner in Bagong Silang, an impoverished community in Quezon City, have suffered from psychological distress and extreme poverty since his killing by the police in August 2017, with the children often skipping meals. Their mother, Anita S., has had difficulty finding work or income because she’s preoccupied with taking care of her children and has had no one to entrust them to. [109]

Family of Sixto M.

Sixto M., 26, from Payatas, Quezon City, used to regularly buy hypertension medicines for his father, Democrito M. Since Sixto was killed in 2017, Democrito has had trouble acquiring the medicines because he lacks the money to purchase them. Sixto’s mother, Ambrosia M., now takes care of Sixto’s children, whom he had supported when he was employed as a construction worker. Since Ambrosia herself does not have a regular income, she was forced to ask one of her relatives to adopt one of the children. The separation involved sending the child to live in a province outside of Manila. [110]

Family of Felixberto D.

For a wife and mother like Filomena D., it has been particularly difficult because she has six young children at home and had depended entirely on the earnings of her husband, Felixberto D., a 48-year-old seller of pillows and beddings in Labugon village, Cebu City. He was shot dead in the presence of his children by the police during a raid on June 27, 2018. Filomena said:

They came almost at midnight, when we were asleep. People in civilian clothes accompanied by police officers with long firearms. I was in the living room, the children and Felixberto were upstairs. They took him and asked about another person, Junjun, my eldest child. My husband told them Junjun was our son and that for them to take him instead of him [Junjun]. He went on his knees and pleaded but he was shot three times in the chest and three more times in the back…. How do we restart our lives now? [111]

Community-Based Support Systems

These difficulties suffered by families of victims are a reality that supporters like Father Danilo Pilario have had to grapple with since the killings began. “The first need that we have been responding to is economic,” he said.

It’s a need that Father Pilario’s Project SOW tries to meet mainly through the livelihood center it established in Payatas. The center not only supports the children of victims but also provides livelihood to mothers and relatives of victims, many of whom work as tailors at the center just across the street from the parish church in the community. The mostly women workers make bags and other household items such as potholders that they sell. Workers like Malou typically earn 250 pesos (about $5) a day. The income is inadequate, but earning money is not the only mission of the center, which also provides psycho-social services to children affected by the violence. Other parishes in many parts of Metro Manila have similar projects.

VI. In-depth Personal Stories

Children of benigno m. [112].

In a small, dilapidated house in Payatas, near Quezon City’s mountain of garbage, Jennifer M. stared longingly at the blue couch that had been her father’s favorite spot. Her father, Benigno M., was on the couch when police shot him dead during a drug sweep of the neighborhood in December 2016. The police claimed Benigno was a drug dealer and resisted arrest.

Jennifer has a different version. She said about seven men in civilian clothes barged into their small home that day, looking for Benigno. The men ordered everybody out. But Jennifer clung to her father, hugging him as he sat on the sofa, and held up his work ID for the police to see.

“ He was told to lie face down, but he held his ID up behind him. All the while, one of the men had a gun to his head,” Jennifer recalled. Benigno kept begging. “Sir, if I committed a crime, please have mercy, please don't kill me. If you want, you can just detain me. Because of my poor children, they are seven. What happens to them, who will take care of them?” a crying Benigno told the men, according to Jennifer’s mother Belinda M. [113] Jennifer said she tried to shield her father by hugging him and covering him with her small body.

One of the men – “the big one,” she said – grabbed Jennifer, who was 12 at the time, and threw her to the floor just outside the door of the living room. One of her siblings caught her, breaking her fall onto the dirty concrete floor. The men ordered everyone but Benigno to leave the house; on her way out, Jennifer saw her father continue to beg for his life. Moments later, when Jennifer and all the others were in the small alley outside the house, three gunshots rang out.

Uniformed police officers arrived minutes later; the men in civilian clothes were still inside Jennifer’s home. When the medics came, Jennifer strained to look inside and saw blood all over the floor, her father now lying face up beside the couch. “That’s when I saw the gun beside his hand,” Jennifer said. She said her father did not have a gun, that she never saw one in their home. Police say they shot him because he fought back. They claim they found a sachet of shabu , Filipino slang for methamphetamine or crystal meth, on Benigno ’s body.

Witnessing what happened to her father was traumatic enough for Jennifer and her family. But the consequence of his death only added to their suffering. Benigno worked in a junk shop in another district of Manila and was the family breadwinner. He was only home the day he was killed because it was the birthday of another daughter.

Since Benigno’s death, there have been days the children have had nothing to eat. They rely mainly on the generosity of their grandmother, who agreed to take care of them. Jennifer’s mother was in jail for a drug-related case at the time of the killing but has since reunited with her children. After a TV station interviewed Jennifer, exposing her identity in the process, classmates began bullying her in school, ridiculing her for her father’s alleged drug use, which she denied.

Jennifer still grapples with the trauma of her father’s death. There were days when the grief was so unbearable, she didn’t know what to do, she said. She became withdrawn, not just because of the bullying but also because she just wanted to keep her head down. [114] She finds comfort in the company of her siblings, staying mostly inside their ramshackle home, their giggles – and tears – drowned out by the noise of a malfunctioning electric fan.

Every now and then, the family takes a minute to pray at the image of the Holy Family tacked above the couch. There are days when Jennifer just sits all day on the couch that was punctured by one of the bullets that took her father from her. She hugs the couch, smelling the frayed and faded seat cover, imagining the man who had sat in it, remembering the father she once had.

“I am confused because I still don’t understand why. Why my Papa? Of all the people here, why did they pick my father?” Jennifer said. “I am so angry.”

During these bouts of confusion and anger, Jennifer finds refuge in doodling and drawing scenes of her family, kittens, and sad girls on her notepad or on the plywood walls of her home. But she has never been able to finish her drawings. “It's because something is missing in the drawing,” she said. “It's incomplete.”

Child of Alvin R. [115]

“Putang ina mo! Putang ina mo! Putang ina mo!”

Kyle R. was shouting as he bounced around the cramped living room of his family’s home in Delpan, Tondo – one of the poorest, most crowded and crime-prone districts of Manila –  when we visited his home in February 2018. He jabbed his middle finger in the air, shouting as he jumped around, oblivious to the perplexed reactions of the people in the room.

He picked up a skateboard and hit his mother, Zeny R., with it twice in the arm. “Putang ina mo!” he shouted. That is Tagalog for “Your mother is a whore.” [116]

Kyle’s behavior is deeply disturbing, in part because he is only 5 years old. While it might not be unusual for children his age to sometimes use foul language or act out among friends, his mother found something profoundly unsettling about the intensity of Kyle’s aggressiveness. “I don’t know what’s happening,” Zeny said, shaking her head and close to tears. “I don’t know how this happened.”

Zeny has not taken Kyle to a therapist because she cannot afford the expense. The nannies she has been able to hire so she could leave the house and go to work typically have not lasted long because of Kyle’s aggressiveness.

During a visit by Human Rights Watch in February 2019, the latest nanny, a 50-something man, displayed a remarkable calmness toward Kyle. Almost cheerfully, he bathed Kyle, changed his clothes, and helped him into his school uniform – even as Kyle grabbed a knife and chased him with it.

The presence of strangers may have emboldened Kyle to behave more aggressively, but Zeny said this was not the first time. Sometime last year, Kyle was playing with friends when it suddenly turned ugly – he threatened to kill one of his playmates, telling him he would wrap him with packaging tape.

In November 2016, Kyle’s father, Alvin R., a 39-year-old driver, disappeared. He was found dead two days later, on the Delpan overpass not far from their home. He’d been stabbed 19 times. “I’m a drug pusher. Don’t emulate me,” read a handwritten sign in Tagalog placed beside the body. Alvin's head was wrapped with packaging tape.

Alvin’s horrific death turned Zeny’s world upside down. Because he had been the breadwinner, Zeny was forced to look for a job. When she found one, she started spending less time with Kyle. And when she entered into a relationship with her current boyfriend, Kyle became even more aggressive and violent. “He's always saying that he's going to kill my partner now because maybe he's jealous because sometimes I don't have time for him anymore,” Zeny said. She fears that Kyle would remain violent into adulthood. “I want him to leave this place because he might grow up like the other kids who went astray or ended up in jail.”

The community Zeny and Kyle lived in Delpan is similar to the urban communities where many “drug war” victims lived, which is to say impoverished areas with high rates of violent crime. Zeny and her husband would fight constantly because Alvin , according to her, liked to “stay outside” and hang out with friends. “His life was really outside. Sometimes when his kid was asleep, he would sneak out. So, when he comes home, I'm mad. “Where did you go this time?’ Confrontations like that,” she said. Confrontations that Kyle would see. One time, Kyle confronted Zeny about her nagging. “You said you wished daddy would die,” the child told her.

Alvin’ s death affected Zeny’s ability to hold her family together. “I kind of punished myself when he was gone. I was drinking every day. To this day. My coworkers know that, and they ask me why since they thought I’d moved on already.”

But moving on is a challenge seeing how Kyle seemed to grow more violent each day, Zeny said. “I'm going to kill you. Knife! Give me the knife!” the boy screamed at Zeny once. [117] It’s a behavior that made it even more difficult for Zeny to take care of him. “He misses his father a lot and he takes it out on me,” she said.

Children of Renato A. [118]

The four men wearing balaclavas arrived at the funeral wake on two motorcycles. Moments later, shots rang out, sparking panic among the crowd of mourners, who fled or dove for cover. The gunmen’s apparent target, Renato A., was shot 10 times and died at the scene. His then-13-year-old son, John A., was hit in the leg; his daughter, Karla A. who was 10 at the time, cowered under a table but wasn’t physically injured in the attack. The eldest son, 15-year-old Robert A., who was right behind one of the gunmen as he fired into the crowd, also managed to escape without injury.

The wake was for Renato’s sister-in-law, Veneracion A., 39, who had been gunned down three days earlier while having dinner in front of a convenience store in an impoverished Manila neighborhood. The assailant walked up and shot her in the head in the evening of December 16, 2016. An alleged drug user whose name was on the authorities’ drug watch list, Veneracion had feared she might be a target of the government’s anti-drug campaign. [119]

Two years after the murder of their father, Renato’s children eke out an existence on the streets of Mandaluyong City in Metro Manila, abandoned by their mother, out of school, and dependent on meager wages from menial jobs and the generosity of extended family to get by.

Human Rights Watch spent time with Renato’s children and their friends and cousins one day in February 2019. They behaved like they felt at home in the streets of Mandaluyong – and, in a way, they are. Since their family’s home was demolished by the government years before, allegedly because it encroached on private property, they had been spending more time in the streets. They were familiar faces to neighbors and shop owners, and even to policemen and neighborhood watchmen.

As Karla and Robert walked around Mandaluyong that day looking for their brother John, chatting up friends and acquaintances, high-fiving jeepney drivers and street vendors, it was clear they seemed comfortable living in the bustle of the city.

When Human Rights Watch spoke to Karla, she was still upset about the time she got feverish one night that month and was all by herself in a cousin’s house. John and Robert were nowhere to be found; they had spent the night with their friends out in the streets. That night was the loneliest she felt since her father’s death, she said.

“My brothers and I were always together,” said Karla, now 12. “We were always complete. Since her father died, “a big change happened with my family,” she said, now sobbing. “I just want us to be together.” [120]

Her father’s murder shattered her family. Their mother, Andrea A., has since remarried, and practically abandoned the children, who refused to live with her because, they told Human Rights Watch, they hate their mother’s new husband. Andrea told us her decision to remarry was mainly driven by her inability to support herself, and this seems to have bred resentment among her children.

Since the killing, all three children have stopped going to school. They enrolled for a few months at one point, but eventually gave up because they were homeless. Robert found menial work with the municipal government as a trash collector but left it because he found it too taxing. These days, he earns money by teaching hip-hop to teenagers in Kalentong. John has become withdrawn since his father’s death and refuses to socialize even among friends. “He easily gets angry and he has lost trust in people. Especially when he learned that we know the man who had my father killed,” Robert said.

But Robert is confident John can take care of himself, a view Andrea shares. “They are boys, so they are okay,” she told Human Rights Watch. [121] But both worry about Karla. Andrea wanted to take Karla with her to Taytay, a town north of Manila, where the girl could live with her and her new husband. But Karla refused, afraid her mother would just turn her into the housekeeper for a friend of Andrea’s husband.

The three siblings spend their days in Kalentong, their nights in the houses of friends and cousins, and their afternoons in the parking lot behind Marketplace mall. There, they hang hammocks between delivery vans, taking naps, waiting for their friends who also live in the streets, and spending hours just chatting, gossiping with delivery drivers, and horsing around. Aren’t they afraid the men who killed their father will come back for them? “If they wanted us dead, we would have been dead a long time ago,” Robert said.

While life in Kalentong has not been easy, especially for Karla, the three have no plans to leave. Here, Robert said, “we have friends, we have each other.”

Children of Kristina D. and Diana D.

Kristina D., 27, and her sister, Diana D., 26, were very close siblings, almost like best friends. They shared many things, among them that they worked at the same job at the same beer house and restaurant in General Santos City. But most importantly, they shared a responsibility for their respective children. Both were not married but had children in past relationships; Kristina had two children, aged eight and ten, while Diana has one, aged seven. All of them lived in one hut made of bamboo on the outskirts of a city in the southern Philippines, and the children were cared for by their mother, Carmen D., when the sisters were at work.

One night in August 2017, two men arrived on a motorcycle, entered the restaurant where the sisters were working, sat down, and ordered beer. Not long after they took swigs of beer, one of the men drew a gun and aimed it at Diana, who was attending to another customer a few tables away. Kristina saw what was happening, lunged at the gunman, who fired four times and hit Kristina instead: twice in the chest, once in the knee and once in the arm. [122] The gunman kept firing even as Kristina fell to the floor, hitting Diana twice: once in the face, another in the spine. Kristina died on the spot; Diana survived but is now paralyzed from the waist down. The gunmen managed to escape on their motorcycle.

Diana did not want to go into details of why she was targeted, but she said it might have something to do with a previous side gig she did providing information to the local police about drug dealing in the city. But she was not sure whether the police or the drug syndicates were behind the attack.

When Human Rights Watch visited her on May 21, 2018, Diana was inside their hut, the cheerful Hello Kitty posters that adorned the room doing nothing to dispel the sense of helplessness inside. Dangling beneath the bed made of bamboo and coconut wood was a bag of urine from a catheter, its tube snaking up to Diana as she sat on a four-inch thick foam slab. Carmen, her 49-year-old mother, was the more emotional of the two as she narrated what had become of her grandchildren, all of whom were still in elementary school.

One of Kristina’s children now lives with his grandparents on his father’s side, far away from General Santos City. Carmen has been taking care of the other two on top of making sure that Diana’s needs are met – bathing her, inserting her catheter, and providing daily care. Despite Carmen’s best efforts, things have been extremely difficult, not least because Kristina and Diana had been the breadwinners of their extended family. As Carmen lamented: “[The children] have stopped going to school. Nobody could take proper care of them.” [123]

“We’re like beggars now, asking for help from everybody,” Diana said. But she despairs for her child, her nephew, and her niece the most. “I pity our children. What will become of them now?” she said. “All I can do as I sit here all day, in pain, is cry and pray.”

Children of Lorenzo M. [124]

A month after her father was killed, Melanie M. started going out in the streets of General Santos City, in the southern Philippines, to sell boiled peanuts. It’s a decidedly unusual – and risky – task for a small 12-year-old girl but this has become Melanie’s routine. She sets out at 9 o’clock in the morning and tries to return home by sundown, but often ends up returning well into the evening. “I go around the plaza, pleading with people to buy my peanuts,” she said.

She sometimes is accompanied her mother in selling the snack but often she is on her own, navigating the wide streets and busy highways of the city, particularly near the plaza where the traffic is the busiest. It’s hard work, Melanie said, but she hoped things would get better. “I hope to stop selling peanuts during class days and just do it during the weekends,” she said. “I intend to go back to school.”

Melanie stopped going to school after her father, Lorenzo M., a 38-year-old worker at a canning factory, was shot dead by the police in July 2017. Lorenzo’s wife, Marilyn M., said the police officers who raided her in-laws’ home in an impoverished community called Silway claimed they shot him because he fought back. [125] Melanie, who was present during the raid, rejects the police claim. [126]

Since Lorenzo’s death, his family has suffered. Not only Melanie, but also her younger brother, Kenneth M., 9, stopped going to the public elementary school. She was in Grade 4 while Kenneth was in Grade 1 at the time of their father’s death. The youngest child, Richard M., 4, recently fell ill with asthma. The mother’s earnings from selling peanuts and washing other peoples’ clothes were simply not enough.

Prior to dropping out, Melanie and Kenneth would go to school without lunch money and their teachers would take pity on them and feed them. But that arrangement did not last long and, soon after, both children stopped attending classes. Marilyn noted that other families in her community received the modest 4Ps, or conditional cash transfer program benefits, from the DSWD, but they did not. [127] She did not bother to ask why, except to say that she was ashamed and scared to ask for help from government.

Children of Hamed U. [128]

Inside the compound owned by Abdul U., a 64-year-old tricycle driver, is a small area no larger than three square meters that looks cleaner than the rest of the property, three homes made of unfinished hollow blocks and tin roofs. “That used to be my son’s room,” Abdul said, pointing a finger at the cemented floor. His son, Hamed U., 29, died during a police raid of the compound in the outskirts of General Santos City in March 2018.

Police officers in camouflage uniforms without nameplates arrived at the house shortly before 2 a.m., when everybody was asleep, took hold of Hamed, and ordered him to go out of the room. They did not show an arrest or search warrant. “They were carrying Armalite [military assault] rifles, pointing them at my son,” Abdul said. Moments later, three shots rang out; two of the bullets hit Hamed while he was seated in the next room on a wooden bench. Abdul pointed to the bullet holes at the back of the bench as he narrated what happened.

Hamed’s children were sleeping in the same room with their father when the police invaded and yanked their father into the next room and killed him. Hamed’s wife was not there because she was working in Saudi Arabia as a domestic worker at the time. “ Ama , please help me! They are going to kill me!” Hamed pleaded to his father, according to a cousin who witnessed the raid.

Hamed, a carpenter who police alleged was a drug dealer, left behind three children. Moner U., the eldest was 9 years old and a Grade 3 pupil at the time. His grandfather said he was traumatized by what happened to his father: “He would just sit and stare at my son’s picture all the time.”

When we spoke to him days after the shooting, Abdul said they had not yet figured out what to do with Hamed’s children. “They live in fear. We live in fear,” Abdul said. The fear was such that the family decided not to pursue a case against the police. “We can’t do anything,” he said.

But Abdul did do what he could. When his grandchildren started to complain that they could not bear looking at the room in the house where Hamed and his children used to stay, he had it demolished.

VII. Government Response

The Philippine government has failed to assist the children of those killed in its abusive “war on drugs.” Beyond the illegality of the killings themselves, the government has violated the fundamental rights of the children of victims.

International human rights law, to which the Philippines is party, places obligations on governments to protect children at risk. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights calls for the “widest possible protection and assistance” to the family and dependent children. [129] Moreover, “children and young persons should be protected from economic and social exploitation.” [130] The Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out a range of rights that governments must afford children. [131]

While the Philippine government has asserted that families of individuals who have died in anti-drug operations can avail themselves of programs of the DSWD – such as payment for medical and burial expenses – it doesn’t have specific programs addressing the needs of such families. [132] A former senior DSWD official told Human Rights Watch that there was no separate or specific program or plan for children orphaned in drug raids. [133] This official said that as of May 2019, the impact and effect of the “drug war” violence on children had not been raised in any Cabinet meeting. [134]

Early on, the department announced that existing programs would meet the needs of these families, but no specific programs have been created, and Human Rights Watch’s research indicates that their special needs remain unaddressed. [135]

Human Rights Watch sent letters (see Appendix) in January 2020 to the DSWD, as well as the Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC), the government agency that coordinates all efforts to protect children, and the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC), asking about the existence of specific programs for children of the “war on drugs.” We received no response from the CWC or JJWC. The DSWD responded to our inquiry on February 20, 2020, requesting more time to reply, to which Human Rights Watch replied affirmatively on March 6, 2020. However, after that, Human Rights Watch received no further response.

Other agencies that could help victims’ families with targeted programming – such as the Department of Health – have expressed support for the anti-drug campaign. When asked about psycho-social help for family members of people who have been killed, Paulyn Jean Ubial, the Health Secretary from 2016 to 2017, said: “Why is it a public health issue? [Is it] contagious? Lifestyle-related? In the first place, is that a disease?” [136]

Even if there were programs, government agencies would need to address the deep wariness – if not outright fear – that many families and children of victims feel about approaching the government for help. [137] Clergy and children’s rights advocates with whom Human Rights Watch spoke to said that these families have been severely stigmatized and often live in fear, so that they cannot be expected to seek support from the very entity that they feel is responsible for their plight.

VIII. Recommendations

To the government of the philippines.

• Issue a presidential proclamation officially ending the “war on drugs.”
• Investigate and prosecute alleged perpetrators, including law enforcement personnel, credibly implicated in extrajudicial killings and other abuses committed during the Duterte government’s “war on drugs.”
• Promptly and fairly compensate the families of victims of unlawful killings by government officials and their agents.
• Fully cooperate with the Commission on Human Rights’ investigation of such killings, including by providing requested information on the anti-drug campaign generally and specific cases.
• Fully cooperate with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which was directed by the UN Human Rights Council in a July 2019 resolution to prepare a report on the human rights situation in the Philippines.
• Provide material assistance and targeted financial support programs to parents, appointed relatives, or legal guardians and any relevant agency responsible for the welfare of a child adversely affected by the anti-drug campaign to ensure children remain in school.
• Protect adversely affected children from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral, or social development.
• Gather information and data about the children and families affected by the anti-drug campaign, ensuring confidentiality and protection against retaliation.
• Form and provide resources for a multi-agency initiative (government, civil society, academe, faith-based organizations, and NGOs) to develop, plan, and implement programs for assistance specifically to children of “drug war” victims.
• Ensure that the department’s conditional cash transfers (4Ps benefits) reach the families of victims, and actively monitor implementation of the program to prevent any discrimination against those families.
• Ensure that all children, including those adversely affected by the anti-drug campaign, enjoy their right to free and compulsory primary education as guaranteed under the Philippines Constitution and international human rights law. Take immediate measures to ensure that no child is ever denied their right to education, including secondary education, due to school fees or related costs of education.
• Enforce anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies, notably with respect to children adversely affected by the anti-drug campaign, inform students how they can confidentially report incidents of bullying, and specify measures to hold accountable students found responsible for bullying.
• Ensure school officials and teachers are trained and equipped to handle cases of bullying among students, and ensure school administrators ensure all staff and students abide by the government’s anti-bullying policy, and recognize that all children should be protected from bullying and harassment based on their economic circumstances or on the basis of the status or activities of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members
• Assist the Department of Social Welfare and Development in providing mental and psycho-social health services to children of families affected by the anti-drug campaign.
• Create a partnership and coordinate with private mental health professionals and academics to ensure that adversely affected children and their families are provided adequate mental health care and support.

To the Philippine Commission on Human Rights

• Investigate the deaths of all children killed in the “war on drugs.” Publicize the results of those investigations and make specific recommendations for accountability in all cases where there is sufficient evidence for such a determination.
• Urge relevant government agencies, such as the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Department of Education, to enforce existing laws and policies for the protection of children.

To the United Nations Country Team and UN Bodies

• Strongly advocate with the Philippines government to end government policies supporting the “war on drugs.” Call on the government to hold perpetrators of violence against children and their families accountable for rights abuses.
• The UN Human Rights Council should establish an independent international investigative mechanism into extrajudicial killings and other violations committed in the context of the “war on drugs” since June 2016.
• The UN Country Team in the Philippines should speak out publicly about the plight of adversely affected children and their families.
• UNICEF should make the children of “drug war” victims a priority in their programs and interventions, particularly on the issues of psychological distress and livelihoods. It should support a multi-agency initiative, to be led by the Department of Social Welfare and Development, to provide such intervention.
• Provide political, technical, and financial support for the Commission on Human Rights to investigate human rights violations in the “drug war.”  

To Bilateral and Multilateral Donors

• Support the creation of a multi-agency initiative that will provide specific assistance to the children affected by the anti-drug campaign.
• Consult with Philippines government agencies and independent civil society and community groups on the design of timely and effective assistance programs to benefit children adversely affected by the anti-drug campaign.
• Provide technical and financial support for assistance programs designed to support adversely affected children.
• Publicly and privately urge the government ensure support for adversely affected children and families, such as through disbursement of conditional cash transfers.

Acknowledgments

This report was researched and written by Carlos H. Conde, researcher in the Asia division. It was reviewed by Michael Bochenek, senior counsel, and Bede Sheppard, deputy director, in the Children’s Rights Division, and edited by Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director. James Ross, legal and policy director, and Joseph Saunders, deputy program director, provided legal and program review, respectively. Production assistance was provided by Racqueal Legerwood, Asia coordinator; Travis Carr, Publications coordinator; and Fitzroy Hepkins, administrative manager.

Human Rights Watch would like to thank these groups and individuals for their assistance in the research and preparation of this report, as well as the video that is accompanying it: Kiri Dalena, Bahay Tuluyan, Children’s Legal Rights and Development Center, Project Support for Orphans and Widows, Network Against Killings in the Philippines, iDefend, Arnold Janssen Kalinga Center, and Resbak.

And to the parents, relatives, guardians, friends, and children of the victims of the “drug war,” we extend our heartfelt gratitude for courageously sharing your stories with us.

On page 17 of the report, the age of John A. was corrected to be 13, not 11, at the time of the incident.

Related Content

Philippines: lasting harm to children from ‘drug war’.

UN Human Rights Council Should Promote Justice for Killings

• Philippines
• Children's Rights

Protecting Rights, Saving Lives

Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in close to 100 countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice

Annals of Global Health

• Download PDF (English) XML (English)
• Alt. Display

Expert Consensus Documents, Recommendations, and White Papers

The manila declaration on the drug problem in the philippines.

• Nymia Simbulan
• Leonardo Estacio
• Carissa Dioquino-Maligaso
• Teodoro Herbosa
• Mellissa Withers

When Philippine President Rodrigo R. Duterte assumed office in 2016, his government launched an unprecedented campaign against illegal drugs. The drug problem in the Philippines has primarily been viewed as an issue of law enforcement and criminality, and the government has focused on implementing a policy of criminalization and punishment. The escalation of human rights violations has caught the attention of groups in the Philippines as well as the international community. The Global Health Program of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU), a non-profit network of 50 universities in the Pacific Rim, held its 2017 annual conference in Manila. A special half-day workshop was held on illicit drug abuse in the Philippines which convened 167 participants from 10 economies and 21 disciplines. The goal of the workshop was to collaboratively develop a policy statement describing the best way to address the drug problem in the Philippines, taking into consideration a public health and human rights approach to the issue. The policy statement is presented here.

When Philippine President Rodrigo R. Duterte assumed office on June 30, 2016, his government launched an unprecedented campaign against illegal drugs. He promised to solve the illegal drug problem in the country, which, according to him, was wreaking havoc on the lives of many Filipino families and destroying the future of the Filipino youth. He declared a “war on drugs” targeting users, peddlers, producers and suppliers, and called for the Philippine criminal justice system to put an end to the drug menace [ 1 ].

According to the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) (the government agency mandated to formulate policies on illegal drugs in the Philippines), there are 1.8 million current drug users in the Philippines, and 4.8 million Filipinos report having used illegal drugs at least once in their lives [ 2 ]. More than three-quarters of drug users are adults (91%), males (87%), and have reached high school (80%). More than two-thirds (67%) are employed [ 2 ]. The most commonly used drug in the Philippines is a variant of methamphetamine called shabu or “poor man’s cocaine.” According to a 2012 United Nations report, the Philippines had the highest rate of methamphetamine abuse among countries in East Asia; about 2.2% of Filipinos between the ages 16–64 years were methamphetamines users.

The drug problem in the Philippines has primarily been viewed as an issue of law enforcement and criminality, and the government has focused on implementing a policy of criminalization and punishment. This is evidenced by the fact that since the start of the “war on drugs,” the Duterte government has utilized punitive measures and has mobilized the Philippine National Police (PNP) and local government units nationwide. With orders from the President, law enforcement agents have engaged in extensive door-to-door operations. One such operation in Manila in August 2017 aimed to “shock and awe” drug dealers and resulted in the killing of 32 people by police in one night [ 3 ].

On the basis of mere suspicion of drug use and/or drug dealing, and criminal record, police forces have arrested, detained, and even killed men, women and children in the course of these operations. Male urban poor residents in Metro Manila and other key cities of the country have been especially targeted [ 4 ]. During the first six months of the Duterte Presidency (July 2016–January 2017), the PNP conducted 43,593 operations that covered 5.6 million houses, resulting in the arrest of 53,025 “drug personalities,” and a reported 1,189,462 persons “surrendering” to authorities, including 79,349 drug dealers and 1,110,113 drug users [ 5 ]. Government figures show that during the first six months of Duterte’s presidency, more than 7,000 individuals accused of drug dealing or drug use were killed in the Philippines, both from legitimate police and vigilante-style operations. Almost 2,555, or a little over a third of people suspected to be involved in drugs, have been killed in gun battles with police in anti-drug operations [ 5 , 6 ]. Community activists estimate that the death toll has now reached 13,000 [ 7 ]. The killings by police are widely believed to be staged in order to qualify for the cash rewards offered to policeman for killing suspected drug dealers. Apart from the killings, the recorded number of “surrenderees” resulting in mass incarceration has overwhelmed the Philippine penal system, which does not have sufficient facilities to cope with the population upsurge. Consequently, detainees have to stay in overcrowded, unhygienic conditions unfit for humans [ 8 ].

The escalation of human rights violations, particularly the increase in killings, both state-perpetrated and vigilante-style, has caught the attention of various groups and sectors in society including the international community. Both police officers and community members have reported fear of being targeted if they fail to support the state-sanctioned killings [ 9 ]. After widespread protests by human rights groups, Duterte called for police to shoot human rights activists who are “obstructing justice.” Human Rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have said that Duterte’s instigation of unlawful police violence and the incitement of vigilante killings may amount to crimes against humanity, violating international law [ 10 , 11 ]. The European Union found that human rights have deteriorated significantly since Duterte assumed power, saying “The Philippine government needs to ensure that the fight against drug crimes is conducted within the law, including the right to due process and safeguarding of the basic human rights of citizens of the Philippines, including the right to life, and that it respects the proportionality principle [ 12 ].” Despite the fact that, in October 2017, Duterte ordered the police to end all operations in the war on drugs, doubts remain as to whether the state-sanctioned killings will stop [ 13 ]. Duterte assigned the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) to be the sole anti-drug enforcement agency.

Duterte’s war on drugs is morally and legally unjustifiable and has created large-scale human rights violations; and is also counterproductive in addressing the drug problem. International human rights groups and even the United Nations have acknowledged that the country’s drug problem cannot be resolved using a punitive approach, and the imposition of criminal sanctions and that drug users should not be viewed and treated as criminals [ 14 ]. Those critical of the government’s policy towards the illegal drug problem have emphasized that the drug issue should be viewed as a public health problem using a rights-based approach (RBA). This was affirmed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon on the 2015 International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illegal Trafficking when he stated, “…We should increase the focus on public health, prevention, treatment and care, as well as on economic, social and cultural strategies [ 15 ].” The United Nations Human Rights Council released a joint statement in September 2017, which states that the human rights situation in the Philippines continued to cause serious concern. The Council urged the government of the Philippines to “take all necessary measures to bring these killings to an end and cooperate with the international community to pursue appropriate investigations into these incidents, in keeping with the universal principles of democratic accountability and the rule of law [ 16 ].” In October 2017, the Philippines Dangerous Drug Board (DDB) released a new proposal for an anti-drug approach that protects the life of the people. The declaration includes an implicit recognition of the public health aspect of illegal drug use, “which recognizes that the drug problem as both social and psychological [ 16 ].”

Workshop on Illicit Drug Abuse in the Philippines

The Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) is a non-profit network of 50 leading research universities in the Pacific Rim region, representing 16 economies, 120,000 faculty members and approximately two million students. Launched in 2007, the APRU Global Health Program (GHP) includes approximately 1,000 faculty, students, and researchers who are actively engaged in global health work. The main objective of the GHP is to advance global health research, education and training in the Pacific Rim, as APRU member institutions respond to global and regional health challenges. Each year, about 300 APRU GHP members gather at the annual global health conference, which is hosted by a rotating member university. In 2017, the University of the Philippines in Manila hosted the conference and included a special half-day workshop on illicit drug abuse in the Philippines.

Held on the first day of the annual APRU GHP conference, the workshop convened 167 university professors, students, university administrators, government officials, and employees of non-governmental organizations (NGO), from 21 disciplines, including anthropology, Asian studies, communication, dentistry, development, education, environmental health, ethics, international relations, law, library and information science, medicine, nutrition, nursing, occupational health, pharmaceutical science, physical therapy, political science, psychology, public health, and women’s studies. The participants came from 10 economies: Australia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand, and the US. The special workshop was intended to provide a venue for health professionals and workers, academics, researchers, students, health rights advocates, and policy makers to: 1) give an overview on the character and state of the drug problem in the Philippines, including the social and public health implications of the problem and the approaches being used by the government in the Philippines; 2) learn from the experiences of other countries in the handling of the drug and substance abuse problem; and 3) identify appropriate methods and strategies, and the role of the health sector in addressing the problem in the country. The overall goal of the workshop was to collaboratively develop a policy statement describing the best way to address this problem in a matnner that could be disseminated to all the participants and key policymakers both in the Philippines, as well as globally.

The workshop included presentations from three speakers and was moderated by Dr. Carissa Paz Dioquino-Maligaso, head of the National Poison Management and Control Center in the Philippines. The first speaker was Dr. Benjamin P. Reyes, Undersecretary of the Philippine Dangerous Drugs Board, who spoke about “the State of the Philippine Drug and Substance Abuse Problem in the Philippines.” The second speaker was Dr. Joselito Pascual, a medical specialist from the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, at the University of the Philippines General Hospital in Manila. His talk was titled “Psychotropic Drugs and Mental Health.” The final speaker was Patrick Loius B. Angeles, a Policy and Research Officer of the NoBox Transitions Foundation, whose talk was titled “Approaches to Addressing the Drug and Substance Abuse Problem: Learning from the Experiences of Other Countries.” Based on the presentations, a draft of the Manila Declaration on the Drug Problem in the Philippines was drafted by the co-authors of this paper. The statement was then sent to the workshop participants for review and comments. The comments were reviewed and incorporated into the final version, which is presented below.

Declaration

“Manila Statement on the Drug Problem in the Philippines”

Gathering in this workshop with a common issue and concern – the drug problem in the Philippines and its consequences and how it can be addressed and solved in the best way possible;

Recognizing that the drug problem in the Philippines is a complex and multi-faceted problem that includes not only criminal justice issues but also public health issues and with various approaches that can be used in order to solve such;

We call for drug control policies and strategies that incorporate evidence-based, socially acceptable, cost-effective, and rights-based approaches that are designed to minimize, if not to eliminate, the adverse health, psychological, social, economic and criminal justice consequences of drug abuse towards the goal of attaining a society that is free from crime and drug and substance abuse;

Recognizing, further, that drug dependency and co-dependency, as consequences of drug abuse, are mental and behavioral health problems, and that in some areas in the Philippines injecting drug use comorbidities such as the spread of HIV and AIDS are also apparent, and that current prevention and treatment interventions are not quite adequate to prevent mental disorders, HIV/AIDS and other co-morbid diseases among people who use drugs;

Affirming that the primacy of the sanctity/value of human life and the value of human dignity, social protection of the victims of drug abuse and illegal drugs trade must be our primary concern;

And that all health, psycho-social, socio-economic and rights-related interventions leading to the reduction or elimination of the adverse health, economic and social consequences of drug abuse and other related co-morbidities such as HIV/AIDS should be considered in all plans and actions toward the control, prevention and treatment of drug and substance abuse;

As a community of health professionals, experts, academics, researchers, students and health advocates, we call on the Philippine government to address the root causes of the illegal drug problem in the Philippines utilizing the aforementioned affirmations . We assert that the drug problem in the country is but a symptom of deeper structural ills rooted in social inequality and injustice, lack of economic and social opportunities, and powerlessness among the Filipino people. Genuine solutions to the drug problem will only be realized with the fulfillment and enjoyment of human rights, allowing them to live in dignity deserving of human beings. As members of educational, scientific and health institutions of the country, being rich and valuable sources of human, material and technological resources, we affirm our commitment to contribute to solving this social ill that the Philippine government has considered to be a major obstacle in the attainment of national development.

The statement of insights and affirmations on the drug problem in the Philippines is a declaration that is readily applicable to other countries in Asia where approaches to the problem of drug abuse are largely harsh, violent and punitive.

As a community of scholars, health professionals, academics, and researchers, we reiterate our conviction that the drug problem in the Philippines is multi-dimensional in character and deeply rooted in the structural causes of poverty, inequality and powerlessness of the Filipino people. Contrary to the government’s position of treating the issues as a problem of criminality and lawlessness, the drug problem must be addressed using a holistic and rights-based approach, requiring the mobilization and involvement of all stakeholders. This is the message and the challenge which we, as members of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities, want to relay to the leaders, policymakers, healthcare professionals, and human rights advocates in the region; we must all work together to protect and promote health and well being of all populations in our region.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Xu M. Human Rights and Duterte’s War on Drugs. Council on Foreign Relations ; 16 December, 2016. https://www.cfr.org/interview/human-rights-and-dutertes-war-drugs . Accessed December 20, 2017.  

Gavilan J. Duterte’s War on Drugs: The first 6 months. Rappler ; 2016. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/rich-media/rodrigo-duterte-war-on-drugs-2016 . Accessed January 18, 2018.  

Holmes O. Human rights group slams Philippines president Duterte’s threat to kill them. The Guardian ; 17 August, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/17/human-rights-watch-philippines-president-duterte-threat . Accessed January 18, 2018.  

Almendral A. On patrol with police as Philippines battles drugs. New York Times ; 2016. 21 December 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/world/asia/on-patrol-with-police-as-philippines-wages-war-on-drugs.html . Accessed January 18, 2018.  

Bueza M. In Numbers: The Philippines’ ‘war on drugs.’ Rappler ; 13 September 2017. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/145814-numbers-statistics-philippines-war-drugs . Accessed January 18, 2018.  

Mogato M and Baldwin C. Special Report: Police Describe Kill Rewards, Staged Crime Scenes in Duterte’s Drug War. Reuters ; 18 April, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-duterte-police-specialrep-idUSKBN17K1F4 . Accessed January 18, 2018.  

Al Jazeera. Thousands demand end to killings in Duterte’s drug war; 21 August, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/thousands-demand-killings-duterte-drug-war-170821124440845.html Published 2017. Accessed January 18, 2018.  

Worley W. Harrowing photos from inside Filipino jail show reality of Rodrigo Duterte’s brutal war on drugs. The Independent ; 30 July, 2016. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/filipino-philippines-prison-jail-presidentrodrigo-duterte-war-on-drugs-a7164006.html . Accessed January 18, 2018.  

Baldwin C, Marshall ARC and Sagolj D. Police Rack Up an Almost Perfectly Deadly Record in Philippine Drug War. Reuters ; 5 December, 2016. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/philippines-duterte-police/ . Accessed January 20, 2018.  

Amnesty International. Philippines: The police’s murderous war on the poor; 31 January, 2017. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/01/philippines-the-police-murderous-war-on-the-poor/ . Accessed January 18,2018.  

Human Rights Watch. Philippines: Duterte threatens human rights community; 17 August, 2017. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/08/17/philippines-duterte-threatens-human-rights-community . Accessed January 18, 2018.  

Andadolu News Agency. EU: Human rights worsened with Duterte’s drug war. Al Jazeera ; 24 October, 2017. www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/eu-human-rights-worsened-duterte-drug-war-171024064212027.html . Accessed January 18, 2018.  

Holmes O. Rodrigo Duterte pulls Philippine police out of brutal war on drugs. Reuters ; 2017b. 11 October, 2018 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/12/philippines-rodrigo-duterte-police-war-drugs . Accessed January 18, 2018.  

International Drug Policy Consortium. A Public Health Approach to Drug Use in Asia; 2016. https://fileserver.idpc.net/library/Drug-decriminalisation-in-Asia_ENGLISH-FINAL.pdf . Accessed April 5, 2018.  

United Nations Secretary-General. Secretary-General’s message on International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking; 26 June, 2015. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2015-06-26/secretary-generals-message-international-day-against-drug-abuse-and . Accessed January 18, 2018.  

Kine P. Philippine Drug Board Urges New Focus To Drug Campaign. Human Rights Watch ; 30 October, 2017. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/30/philippine-drug-board-urges-new-focus-drug-campaign . Accessed January 18, 2018.  

Essay on Drugs In The Philippines

Students are often asked to write an essay on Drugs In The Philippines in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Drugs In The Philippines

Introduction to drug issues in the philippines.

In the Philippines, illegal drugs are a big problem. Many people, including the young, get caught in the trap of using drugs. This leads to health problems, crime, and even death.

Types of Drugs Used

The most common drugs in the Philippines are shabu (methamphetamine), marijuana, and ecstasy. These drugs are dangerous and can change the way a person thinks and acts.

Government Actions

The government fights hard against drugs. They make rules, arrest people who sell drugs, and try to help those who are using drugs to stop.

Community Efforts

Local groups and schools teach kids about the dangers of drugs. They want to prevent drug use by giving information and support to everyone.

250 Words Essay on Drugs In The Philippines

The drug problem in the philippines.

The Philippines, like many countries, faces a big challenge with illegal drugs. These drugs harm people’s health and cause crime and violence to go up. The most common drugs in the Philippines are methamphetamine, known locally as shabu, and marijuana.

Effects on Society

Drugs can destroy families and communities. People who use drugs can lose their jobs, get sick, or act violently. This creates fear and sadness in neighborhoods. Children can be hurt when their parents use drugs or when there is violence in their area.

Government Action

The government of the Philippines has been very strict in stopping drug use and selling. They have police and other groups working hard to catch people who break the drug laws. The government’s actions are sometimes seen as too harsh, with reports of people being hurt or killed without a fair trial.

Education and Rehabilitation

It is important to teach kids and adults about the dangers of drugs. Schools and community groups try to help people understand why they should stay away from drugs. For those who are already using drugs, getting help to stop is important. Rehabilitation centers are places where people can get support to overcome addiction.

The problem with drugs in the Philippines is serious. It affects health, safety, and families. By working together, teaching people about the risks, and helping those in need, the country can fight against this issue. It is a tough battle, but one that can make the future brighter for everyone.

500 Words Essay on Drugs In The Philippines

The problem of illegal drugs in the philippines, effects on health and families.

When people take illegal drugs, it can harm their health. They may get sick, feel weak, or have trouble thinking clearly. It’s not just the person using drugs who suffers. Their families can also be hurt by their actions. For example, when parents use drugs, they might not be able to take good care of their children. This can lead to children feeling alone or not having enough food or a safe place to live.

Crime and Violence

Drugs can also lead to more crime and violence. People might steal money to buy drugs. Sometimes, groups that sell drugs fight with each other. This can make neighborhoods unsafe. People might be scared to go outside or let their kids play in the park.

The Government’s Response

Education and awareness.

Teaching young people about the dangers of drugs is very important. Schools and community groups talk to students about why they should stay away from drugs. They also teach them what to do if they are offered drugs. Knowing the risks can help young people make good choices.

Communities are coming together to fight against drugs. Neighbors watch out for each other and report any drug activity to the police. There are also places where people who are addicted to drugs can get help. These centers give them support and advice on how to live without drugs.

The Road Ahead

By working as a team, Filipinos can hope to see a future where drugs do not harm their communities. It will be a future where people are healthy, where neighborhoods are safe, and where children can grow up without the fear of drugs. This is a goal worth working for, and it starts with each person saying no to drugs and yes to a better life.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Foreign Affairs
• CFR Education
• Newsletters

Climate Change

Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland December 5, 2023 Renewing America

• Defense & Security
• Diplomacy & International Institutions
• Energy & Environment

Human Rights

• Politics & Government
• Social Issues

Myanmar’s Troubled History

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland January 31, 2022

• Europe & Eurasia
• Global Commons
• Middle East & North Africa
• Sub-Saharan Africa

How Tobacco Laws Could Help Close the Racial Gap on Cancer

Interactive by Olivia Angelino, Thomas J. Bollyky , Elle Ruggiero and Isabella Turilli February 1, 2023 Global Health Program

• Backgrounders
• Special Projects

United States

Reagan: His Life and Legend

Book by Max Boot September 10, 2024

• Centers & Programs
• Books & Reports
• Independent Task Force Program
• Fellowships

Oil and Petroleum Products

Academic Webinar: The Geopolitics of Oil

Webinar with Carolyn Kissane and Irina A. Faskianos April 12, 2023

• Students and Educators
• State & Local Officials
• Religion Leaders
• Local Journalists

NATO's Future: Enlarged and More European?

Virtual Event with Emma M. Ashford, Michael R. Carpenter, Camille Grand, Thomas Wright, Liana Fix and Charles A. Kupchan June 25, 2024 Europe Program

• Lectureship Series
• Webinars & Conference Calls
• Member Login

Human Rights and Duterte’s War on Drugs

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs has led to thousands of extrajudicial killings, raising human rights concerns, says expert John Gershman in this interview.

Interview by Michelle Xu , Interviewer John Gershman , Interviewee

December 16, 2016 3:56 pm (EST)

Since becoming president of the Philippines in June 2016, Rodrigo Duterte has launched a war on drugs that has resulted in the extrajudicial deaths of thousands of alleged drug dealers and users across the country. The Philippine president sees drug dealing and addiction as “major obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress,” says John Gershman, an expert on Philippine politics. The drug war is a cornerstone of Duterte’s domestic policy and represents the extension of policies he’d implemented earlier in his political career as the mayor of the city of Davao. In December 2016, the United States withheld poverty aid to the Philippines after declaring concern over Duterte’s war on drugs.

How did the Philippines’ war on drugs start?  

When Rodrigo Duterte campaigned for president, he claimed that drug dealing and drug addiction were major obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress. He promised a large-scale crackdown on dealers and addicts, similar to the crackdown that he engaged in when he was mayor of Davao, one of the Philippines’ largest cities on the southern island of Mindanao. When Duterte became president in June, he encouraged the public to “go ahead and kill” drug addicts. His rhetoric has been widely understood as an endorsement of extrajudicial killings, as it has created conditions for people to feel that it’s appropriate to kill drug users and dealers. What have followed seem to be vigilante attacks against alleged or suspected drug dealers and drug addicts. The police are engaged in large-scale sweeps. The Philippine National Police also revealed a list of high-level political officials and other influential people who were allegedly involved in the drug trade.

“When Rodrigo Duterte campaigned for president, he claimed that drug dealing and drug addiction were major obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress.”

Philippines

Rodrigo Duterte

Drug Policy

The dominant drug in the Philippines is a variant of methamphetamine called shabu. According to a 2012 United Nations report , among all the countries in East Asia, the Philippines had the highest rate of methamphetamine abuse. Estimates showed that about 2.2 percent of Filipinos between the ages of sixteen and sixty-four were using methamphetamines, and that methamphetamines and marijuana were the primary drugs of choice. In 2015, the national drug enforcement agency reported that one fifth of the barangays, the smallest administrative division in the Philippines, had evidence of drug use, drug trafficking, or drug manufacturing; in Manila, the capital, 92 percent of the barangays had yielded such evidence.

How would you describe Duterte’s leadership as the mayor of Davao?

After the collapse of the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship, there were high levels of crime in Davao and Duterte cracked down on crime associated with drugs and criminality more generally. There was early criticism of his time as mayor by Philippine and international human rights groups because of his de facto endorsement of extrajudicial killings, under the auspices of the “Davao Death Squad.”

Duterte was also successful at negotiating with the Philippine Communist Party. He was seen broadly as sympathetic to their concerns about poverty, inequality, and housing, and pursued a reasonably robust anti-poverty agenda while he was mayor. He was also interested in public health issues, launching the first legislation against public smoking in the Philippines, which he has claimed he will launch nationally.

What have been the outcomes of the drug war?

By early December , nearly 6,000 people had been killed: about 2,100 have died in police operations and the remainder in what are called “deaths under investigation,” which is shorthand for vigilante killings. There are also claims that half a million to seven hundred thousand people have surrendered themselves to the police. More than 40,000 people have been arrested.

Daily News Brief

A summary of global news developments with cfr analysis delivered to your inbox each morning.  weekdays., think global health.

A curation of original analyses, data visualizations, and commentaries, examining the debates and efforts to improve health worldwide.  Weekly.

Although human rights organizations and political leaders have spoken out against the crackdown, Duterte has been relatively successful at not having the legislature engaged in any serious oversight of or investigation into this war. Philippine Senator Leila de Lima, former chairperson of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights and a former secretary of justice under the previous administration, had condemned the war on drugs and held hearings on human rights violations associated with these extrajudicial killings. However, in August, Duterte alleged that he had evidence of de Lima having an affair with her driver, who had been using drugs and collecting drug protection money when de Lima was the justice secretary. De Lima was later removed from her position chairing the investigative committee in a 16-4 vote by elected members of the Senate committee.

What is the public reaction to the drug war?

The war on drugs has received a high level of popular support from across the class spectrum in the Philippines. The most recent nationwide survey on presidential performance and trust ratings conducted from September 25 to October 1 by Pulse Asia Research showed that Duterte’s approval rating was around 86 percent. Even through some people are concerned about these deaths, they support him as a president for his position on other issues. For example, he has a relatively progressive economic agenda, with a focus on economic inequality.

Duterte is also supporting a range of anti-poverty programs and policies. The most recent World Bank quarterly report speaks positively about Duterte’s economic plans. The fact that he wants to work on issues of social inequality and economic inequality makes people not perceive the drug war as a war on the poor.

How is Duterte succeeding in carrying out this war on drugs?

The Philippine judicial system is very slow and perceived as corrupt, enabling Duterte to act proactively and address the issue of drugs in a non-constructive way with widespread violations of human rights. Moreover, in the face of a corrupt, elite-dominated political system and a slow, ineffective, and equally corrupt judicial system, people are willing to tolerate this politician who promised something and is now delivering.

“Drug dealers and drug addicts are a stigmatized group, and stigmatized groups always have difficulty gaining political support for the defense of their rights.”

There are no trials, so there is no evidence that the people being killed are in fact drug dealers or drug addicts. [This situation] shows the weakness of human rights institutions and discourse in the face of a popular and skilled populist leader. It is different from college students being arrested under the Marcos regime or activists being targeted under the first Aquino administration, when popular outcry was aroused. Drug dealers and drug addicts are a stigmatized group, and stigmatized groups always have difficulty gaining political support for the defense of their rights.

How has the United States reacted to the drug war and why is Duterte challenging U.S.-Philippines relations?

It’s never been a genuine partnership. It’s always been a relationship dominated by U.S. interests. Growing up in the 1960s, Duterte lived through a period when the United States firmly supported a regime that was even more brutal than this particular regime and was willing to not criticize that particular government. He noticed that the United States was willing to overlook human rights violations when these violations served their geopolitical interests. He was unhappy about the double standards. [Editor’s Note: The Obama administration has expressed concern over reports of extrajudicial killings and encouraged Manila to abide by its international human rights obligations.] For the first time, the United States is facing someone who is willing to challenge this historically imbalanced relationship. It is unclear what might happen to the relationship under the administration of Donald J. Trump, but initial indications are that it may not focus on human rights in the Philippines. President-Elect Trump has reportedly endorsed the Philippine president’s effort, allegedly saying that the country is going about the drug war "the right way," according to Duterte .

The interview has been edited and condensed.

Explore More on Philippines

President Marcos Jr. Meets With President Biden—But the U.S. Position in Southeast Asia is Increasingly Shaky

Blog Post by Joshua Kurlantzick May 2, 2023 Asia Unbound

Marcos Jr. Tries to Escape Duterte’s Legacy, But Can He Be Trusted?

Blog Post by Joshua Kurlantzick November 22, 2022 Asia Unbound

Why Democracy in Southeast Asia Will Worsen in 2023

Blog Post by Joshua Kurlantzick September 9, 2022 Asia Unbound

Top Stories on CFR

Ukraine’s Attack on Kursk, With Liana Fix

Podcast with James M. Lindsay and Liana Fix August 27, 2024 The President’s Inbox

The IMF’s Latest External Sector Report Misses the Mark

Blog Post by Brad W. Setser August 26, 2024 Follow the Money

Democratic Republic of Congo

DRC-Rwanda Talks Underway, But Lasting Peace Remains Elusive

Blog Post by Michelle Gavin August 20, 2024 Africa in Transition

• Share full article

The Wrong Way to Fight a Drug War

The Philippines has undertaken a brutal battle against “shabu,” or crystal methamphetamine. But the government needs to go after another target entirely.

The body of a man killed in a shootout with police in 2016 in Manila. According to the police, sachets containing a substance believed to be the drug, shabu were found in the killed man’s pockets. Credit... Daniel Berehulak for The New York Times

Supported by

By Miguel Syjuco

Mr. Syjuco is a Filipino novelist and a contributing opinion writer.

• Aug. 8, 2018

If you’ve tried shabu, you’ll understand its allure. Taking it begins with ritual — folding foil into a chute, rolling paper towel into a wick and heating the gleaming crystal into running liquid trailing vapor. Inhaling it feels unbelievably clean, as if your body and mind are scrubbed of all weight. It was so good I tried it only once.

Shabu, or crystal methamphetamine, manipulates the reward pathways of the brain, flooding it with dopamine. As with other addictive drugs, repetition hinders the brain’s transmitters and receptors, pushing users to seek replenishment artificially. A fraction of users get stuck in that cycle, leading to antisocial behaviors or even criminality. Even kicking that drug can lead to dependency on other substances, increasing the likelihood of relapse. This is why it is addiction — not just shabu — that is at the heart of a public health crisis in the Philippines.

Rodrigo Duterte, speaking to Filipinos’ alarm about widespread shabu use, was elected president in June 2016 on his promise to solve the country’s drug problem. But his government’s strategy, based on fear and law enforcement, is misguided. Since he began his presidency, on average 33 people have been killed per day — more than 4,500 suspected drug users — by police , with more than 23,500 more deaths under investigation. The vast majority comes from the poor, who cannot afford private rehabilitation programs.

This drug war has been dramatic, but its effectiveness is dubious . Even official numbers remain hard to come by. Last year, the president fired the head of the government’s Dangerous Drugs Board for standing by the agency’s statistic of 1.8 million Filipinos who used drugs once within a year. That contradicted the president’s own estimate, which fluctuates between 3 million and 4 million full-fledged addicts.

Despite voicing good intentions, Mr. Duterte’s insistence on prioritizing a punitive, rather than rehabilitative, approach to addiction is proving shortsighted. Fear alone is unsustainable.

“Among all the presidents I’ve known, Duterte’s the only one who’s taken the drug problem seriously,” said Rechi Cristobal, a specialist I spoke with who has spent years as a counselor training health workers. Yet in tackling addiction, Mr. Duterte’s tactics may be harming more than helping. “It’s scared everyone to the point that instead of seeking help, they’ve just gone underground.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement

The Manila Declaration on the Drug Problem in the Philippines

• Annals of Global Health 85(1)

• University of the Philippines Manila
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• University of the Philippines

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Rowalt Alibudbud

• Kevin Anthony Sison

• Alexander Smith

• Frank Jay T. Estrebello
• Darius Jhon C. Sanchez
• Vincent B. Aleria
• Diana Rose L. Pendon
• Qiaoying Geng
• J COMMUNITY PSYCHOL
• Camille Therese C. Yusay
• Arvie Paraon-Bueno
• Alrien F. Dausan

• Maria Veronica Eulogio
• Jennifer Deoduco-Mercado
• Dennise Mari Malinao
• Andadolu News Agency
• A Almendral
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

DRUG ADDICTION IN THE PHILIPPINES

My apologies. This is not an abstract but a note. I made this rough draft when I was in high school so it is really messy and it lacks citation. My bad. It's been what? A couple of years since I put it here. Citations for this paper: 1. I got the R.A. from the talk I had with my teacher. I just researched it on the Official Gazette of the Philippines to confirm it. 2. I read a lot of news about drugs that time hence, I didn't know who to cite since it came all from different news in t.v., health teachers, etc. Note: This was my homework when I was still a second year? or third year? I don't really remember.

Related Papers

Bernardo Zabala Jr

The study was a picture of ex-drug dependents on their lifestyles, the effects of illegal drugs to their family, health, and community. It utilized the qualitative research with 30 respondents. Prior consent was established before the conduct of the study. The study locale is at Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, Philippines. Survey questionnaire and interview are the instruments used in data gathering. The result showed that respondents, before they had been into illegal drugs, they have quality time for their family, sustain their needs, give moral support, guide, and respect to all the members of the family. When they were hooked into illegal drugs they lost confidence, always alone, aloof, moody, financial obligation is not given, and lack of time. After rehabilitation, the trust is hardly gain back, sustain again the needs, regain the moral support, guide their family, and regain respect is given to all the members of the family.

anjo bernardo

franz maunahan

Drug abuse among the youth is a widespread problem in many countries including the Philippines. Thus, this study was conducted to determine the root causes of drug abuse among students in colleges as an avenue in looking for possible solutions. Mere law enforcement activities will be ineffective in curbing the prevalent drug abuse if its root causes will not be properly addressed. With this, there is a need to know the causes of drug abuse as a framework in realigning the prevention and rehabilitation programs to ensure its effectiveness. Survey instruments and interview were employed as techniques in gathering data. The respondents includes the law enforcement agencies handling drug related cases such as the police and drug enforcers. College faculty and staff whose function is related in handling cases of students were also included. The result of this study revealed that the top ten causes of drug abuse among students in colleges are peer influence, lack of attention from parents, serious problems in the family, lack of guidance from parents, weak foundation on moral values, suffering frustrations, absence of school anti-drug abuse council, lack of drug abuse prevention activities, means to temporarily forget problems, and lack of concern from faculty and staff.

maria bautista

Indian journal of psychiatry

A Adityanjee

Annals of Global Health

Mellissa Withers

kalaiyarasi subramaniam

Harri Santoso

Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology

Kay Bunagan

This article documents the development of a community-based drug intervention for low- to mild-risk drug users who surrendered as part of the Philippine government's anti-drug campaign. It highlights the importance of developing evidence-informed drug recovery interventions that are appropriate to the Asian culture and to developing economies. Interviews and consultations with users and community stakeholders reveal the need for an intervention that would improve the drug recovery skills and life skills of users. Evidence-based interventions were adapted using McKleroy and colleagues’ (2006) Map of Adaptation Process (MAP) framework. The resulting intervention reflected the country's collectivist culture, relational values, propensity for indirect and non-verbal communication, and interdependent self-construal. The use of small groups, interactive and creative methodologies, and the incorporation of music and prayer also recognised the importance of these in the Philippine c...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Advanced Research in Social Sciences and Humanities

Md. Manjur Hossain Patoari

Jerbert Briola

Maria Scannapieco

Austin Publishing group

Austin Publishing Group , Mohammad Taghi Sheykhi

Kachinga Sichimata

Substance Abuse Disorders

Nicolas Clark , Vladimir Poznyak

Christopher Hallam

BADAR UDDIN UMAR

Journal of Nursing Ufpe on Line Jnuol Doi 10 5205 01012007

Giovana Gomes

Torture Journal

Takayuki Harada

Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy

Indri Susilowati

International Journal of Drug Policy

Annette Verster

syeda farhana sarfaraz

Mariel Padilla

Journal of Drug Issues

Richard Dembo

IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal

IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal ( IIMRJ) , Kerwin Paul Gonzales

Editor International Journal of Clinical and Biomedical Resaerch (IJCBR)

Mohamad Hussain Habil

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Morality politics: Drug use and the Catholic Church in the Philippines

This article traces the trajectory of the Catholic Church’s discourses on drug use in the Philippines since the first time a statement was made in the 1970s. By drawing on official statements by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), it argues that shifts in emphasis have taken place through the years: the destruction of the youth , attack on human dignity , and then social moral decay . Collectively, they emanate from an institutional concern for peace and order. But they also reflect the moral panic around drug use that has been around for decades, which, on several occasions, Filipino politicians, including President Duterte, have mobilized as a populist trope. In this way, the article historicizes the Catholic Church’s official statements and frames them in terms of morality politics through which values and corresponding behavior are defined by an influential institution on behalf of society whose morality it deems is in decline. The article ends by reflecting on the recent statements by the CBCP that invoke compassion and redemption.

1 Introduction

In its wake, more than 5,000 have been killed in Duterte’s war on drugs in the Philippines. [1] Police operations, which supposedly involve only the arrest and rehabilitation of drug users, have left many killed in their own homes. The work of the Ateneo Policy Center shows that most of the victims were men working as construction workers, garbage collectors, and tricycle drivers in urban poor neighborhoods. [2] In effect, the campaign has been a war on the poor that has attracted global attention for its human rights violations. According to some legal experts, these violations already constitute crimes against humanity. [3] Yet the Philippine government claims that it has been successful in clearing thousands of local villages of illegal drugs.

Implicated in the campaign are leaders of the Catholic Church in the country. Across all levels of the Catholic hierarchy, many have resisted the war on drugs in public. Not surprisingly, the government has not been sympathetic in response. In fact, four bishops have been accused of sedition. [4] But in spite of these accusations, and even death threats, these clergy have confessed their fidelity to their calling as “God’s shepherds,” even asserting that “we will not be discouraged.” [5]

And yet the response of Catholic leaders to the war on drugs has also been fragmented. While certain bishops have resisted the campaign, other influential ones have been remarkably silent. [6] Moreover, there are priests and other religious leaders who actively support the war on drugs on the premise that it is divinely ordained. [7] Direct encounters with victims of the war on drugs and theological predispositions are potential explanations for differing viewpoints among religious leaders and their respective congregations. [8]

There is, however, a wider and more dynamic backdrop to the Catholic Church’s attitudes toward drug abuse in the Philippines. Its resistance, for one, is not a recent development and has taken on different nuances over time. As the rest of this article will demonstrate, the Church’s attitudes to substance abuse have emphasized different concerns over time. From the 1970s to the present, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has repeatedly tackled drug use, mentioning the topic no less than 20 times and devoting two pastoral letters to it. From these official statements, what can we learn about the moral discourses about drug use in the Philippines? And conversely, what can we learn about the (evolving) place of the Church in Philippine politics in this discourse?

This article traces the trajectory of the Catholic Church’s discourses on drug use in the Philippines since the first time a statement was made in the 1970s. By drawing on official statements by the CBCP, this article argues that shifts in emphasis have taken place through the years: the destruction of the youth , attack on human dignity , and then social moral decay . Collectively, they emanate from an institutional concern for peace and order. But they also reflect the moral panic around drug use that has been around for decades, which, on several occasions, Filipino politicians, including President Duterte, have mobilized as a populist trope. In this way, the article historicizes the Catholic Church’s official statements and frames them in terms of morality politics through which values and corresponding behavior are defined by an influential institution on behalf of society whose morality it deems is in decline. The moral valence of these statements lies in the sociopolitical contexts in which they are proclaimed. It also lies in the authority of what Howard Becker long ago referred to as moral entrepreneurs who identify on behalf of society its social evils and their solutions. [9] In Philippine society, the most influential among them are religious leaders and their allies in policy making. The influence of these actors is undeniable, especially when it comes to morally controversial matters such as the use of contraceptives and gender equality. [10] This is why morality politics at its core is the politics of sin. [11] The article ends by reflecting on recent statements by the CBCP that draw on compassion and redemption. Although seminal, this theme potentially pushes for a view of drug policy guided by human dignity. [12]

Our study draws on the pastoral letters and statements released by the CBCP. Doing so allows us to identify the shifts and historicize them in relation to the social and political contexts of drug wars in the Philippines (and elsewhere). It also problematizes the role of the Church in politics. This approach is inspired by Francisco’s critical work on official church documents that assert the Christian identity of the Filipino nation. [13] To this end, we gathered all references to drugs and analyzed their content. The first reference to illegal drugs appeared in 1971. From that time to the present, we were able to collect a total of 304 pastoral statements. The ensuing discussion puts forward themes we have identified over time. We then relate them to contemporary developments by relying on news articles about drugs, drug-related laws, and policy formulations.

2 Drug use and morality politics

Around the world, drug abuse, alongside abortion, same-sex marriage, and the death penalty, is one of the most emotionally charged policy concerns. It attracts attention from a diverse group of experts including psychologists, educators, medical doctors, and public health professionals. In this article, we focus our attention on religion because arguably the most vocal reaction comes from it, which is expected, given that at the heart of the debates is a validation of what is right and wrong. [14] In other words, without denying the influence of other social institutions like education, religion plays a crucial role in defining the morality of drug use. One reason is that religious beliefs “affect the ways in which people understand drug use and abuse, what they think should be done about it, and whether they themselves use illicit drugs.” [15] Among psychologists, for example, extensive scholarly work has been done on the protective function of religious belief and practice against drug use. [16] Research also shows that religious activities, depending on culture, are helpful in treatment and rehabilitation. [17]

But beyond the individual, religion is invested in defining and defending its moral worldviews in society. Drug abuse and the way the state confronts it are moral concerns that attract reactions from religious leaders. Debates happen in different countries, although it is in the Global South where they are more contentious because of the polarizing influence of religious institutions in policy making. [18] For example, how religious leaders approach the morality of drugs and drug abuse largely shape whether they would push for libertarian, medical, or criminal interventions. [19] Libertarian policies are less restrictive as they favor regulation and taxation, while medical ones focus on therapy. Criminal policies are restrictive, giving emphasis on incapacitation and deterrence.

Among religious leaders, a common attitude toward drugs and drug abuse is outright rejection. Based on their work in Brazil, Lopes and Costa argue that religious leaders magnify the moral panic derived from legal and medical prohibitions against illegal drugs. [20] Their Evangelical and Pentecostal informants, for example, readily equate drug use with sin and the influence of evil spirits. Inspired by their religious convictions, these religious leaders have set up interventions providing treatment, rehabilitation, and pastoral guidance. By contrast, the work of Cornelio and Medina on religious leaders in the Philippines reveals a different set of responses. [21] While many of the religious leaders they interviewed also invoked sin and evil in their statements about drug use, their pastoral response varied. Convinced that drug dependency was irreversible, some pastors dismissed any ministry with them. Others, however, have taken on a law enforcement role by partnering with local policy officers to identify drug users in the community. Regardless of the differences, these Filipino religious leaders, like their Brazilian counterparts, echoed the state-sanctioned assertion that drug users are criminals. They are, in other words, elements that ruin peace and order in the neighborhood. In this sense, religion has played a role in intensifying moral panic and the overall public support for anticriminality. [22]

Such role demonstrates the ability of religion to turn “the drug question into both a public issue and a religious one.” [23] In the name of peace and order, religious institutions become at once extensions and validations of the state. This is because religion, especially dominant ones in a given society, has the ability to ideologically reframe the struggle for social order as a holy war for the nation. Christian nationalism in the United States is an example of how conservative Christianity has sacralized racist policies against immigrants and drug dependents. [24]

Scholars have thus called for the judicious role of religious actors in defining the common good. [25] Patrick Riordan, an Irish Jesuit, offers a way forward for thinking about the killings that accompany the contemporary war on drugs in the Philippines. [26] Using the principles of the common good, a government’s options must be weighed against the state of justice and the gravity of drug abuse and criminality in the country. In his view, while there may be contextual reasons that might excuse the use of force in the campaign against drug users, they do not justify these actions.

But other priests and scholars would disagree with this position. For Alexander Lucie-Smith, a Catholic priest, the only viable option is to end the War on Drugs altogether. In an essay that challenges Pope Francis himself, Lucie-Smith ( 2013 ) calls instead for the legalization, regulation, and taxation of drugs on the grounds that these substances are already available anyway and that the war on drugs has failed “to stop anyone who wants drugs accessing them.” [27] Using income generated from tax, education, and treatment, instead of criminalization, are in the long run more effective in the Latin American context. This disagreement between Pope Francis and Fr Lucie-Smith exemplifies the fundamental differences between the former’s theology of the people and the latter’s liberation theology. [28] While both are concerned about people’s situation, they have different moral readings of social issues, which ultimately inform how drug abuse is to be addressed as a policy matter. In his various statements, Pope Francis has recognized the need for both tough laws and social programs, so that drug dependents may become functional members of society. By contrast, Fr Lucie-Smith calls for an end to the criminalization of drug use altogether.

This scholarly overview thus far demonstrates the complex relationship between religion and drug use. One reason is that religion provides the institutional and moral resources in weighing the acceptability of policies in view of the common good. This is why scholars, for example, have called on citizens to listen to and learn from other religious views in pursuit of a “just society.” [29] This process, however, is difficult, emotionally charged, and consequential. Religious leaders and the institutions they represent constitute a segment of society that maneuvers to influence policy, legislation, or government action for the sake of their values (or nonnegotiable principles). This conviction is what separates morality policies from nonmorality policies. How drug abuse must be characterized and addressed based on fundamental religious notions of right and wrong is an example of a “morality policy.” [30] In this light, to win morality policies involves morality politics, which refers to the political struggle in which values, instead of scarce resources, are redistributed in society. Put differently, morality politics is about the “politics of sin,” whose ultimate objective is the legislation of moral acceptability. [31] While religious actors are deeply invested in this political struggle, other institutions especially psychology and the medical field can also challenge moral assumptions.

Its consequences on social and public life are evident. For one, morality politics tends to disregard evidence-based research. In his theory of morality politics, Meier contends that morality policies are “poorly designed” because of the “lack of expertise and analysis.” [32] At the same time, he argues that morality policies tend to only increase the cost of committing the “sin”, as it were, without regard for inelastic demand on the part of certain segments in society. Drug dependence is an example. Furthermore, morality politics creates a division, at least at a discursive level, between a desirable group and an undesirable other in a society. The discursive distinction between drug dependents and law-abiding members of society is an example. Although Kusaka uses it in a different manner, we take inspiration from his work on “moral politics” in the Philippines. In his landmark text, the struggle between the middle class and the lower classes is based on education and decency. This “moral politics” is about the hegemonic struggle to engender class-based divisions between “good” and “evil”. [33] Building on this work, we propose to also consider how moral resources found in religion affirm these divisions (with respect to drugs, in particular).

How exactly does it happen? In a contentious manner, religious entities steer the process of moralization through which “preferences are converted into values, both in individual lives and at the level of culture.” [34] It is this process of moralization that this study interrogates by taking note of the shifts that have taken place over time as far as the Catholic Church is concerned in relation to drug abuse in the Philippines. Through its official documents read across all parishes in the country, the Catholic Church serves as an influential agent of moralization in society. [35] It is through these statements that it engages in morality politics. If there is one observation that becomes clear from these documents, it is that the official view of the Catholic Church on substance abuse was never static.

First, these transitions challenge the assumption about morality politics that it is devoid of technocratic or rational thought upon which evidence-based policy making rests. [36] Hence, while our study suggests that the Catholic Church has been partly responsible for framing drug use in the Philippines as a perilous moral issue, more recent developments demonstrate that it is capable of reorienting the drug discourse in ways that recognize dignity by rejecting the hardline stance of the state. [37]

Second, we show how religious entities are moral entrepreneurs deeply involved in demarcating the line between good forces and the evil opponents in relation to drug use. [38] Foregrounding the role of religion is how we are advancing Kusaka’s work on moral politics. [39] Specifically, social demarcations are not only between civil society groups, classes, and the political parties or figures that have their loyalties. As the succeeding sections will spell out, the war on drugs in the Philippines has drawn a line between drug users and their victims. [40] Religious leaders are effective moral agents who reinforce stigma against specific groups such as drug users. This is why states find it advantageous if they could coopt religious leaders to lend their moral credibility to antidrug campaigns. [41]

3 Catholic discourses on drug use in the Philippines

In what follows, we draw on pastoral statements released by the CBCP on drug use in the Philippines. We collected every pastoral statement from the 1970s to the present and culled any background information related to these matters. In analyzing these documents, we were guided by the following questions: How did the Catholic Church frame the drug situation in the Philippines? And what interventions did they propose, if any? We argue that three themes progressively emerged over time: the destruction of the youth , attack on human dignity , and then social moral decay . While the chronological boundaries of this progression are not precise, we can nonetheless locate them in periods with specific political contexts.

3.1 The destruction of the youth (early 1970s)

Based on our review of all publicly available pastoral letters since the CBCP’s inception in the 1940s, the first references to drugs were in the year 1971. [42] In a letter dated February 20, 1971, and prefaced by a warning that “we live in critical times,” the bishops discussed the “urgent problems of our nation,” numbering among them a concern among young people. In a subtle rebuke of the rising activism at the time, the bishops “sympathize with their impatient zeal for change but we ask them to be at all times responsible in their reforming activism.” They went on to describe drugs as an “evil” alongside pornography:

The interests of students these days are not all centered, unfortunately, on redressing the ills of society. Drug addiction is on the rise. So are filthy movies and pornography. These are evils that erode most insidiously, the moral fiber of our people. Do we – and our students especially – see them in this light?

In another letter dated July 8, 1971, the bishops reiterated their concern about the “most grievous social and political problems that affect our whole country in these stormy times of widespread unrest and contestations.” Although the bishops referenced the political crisis, they highlighted the primacy of “salvation of souls” among their apostolic concerns, and thus they lament the “decline of the interior life.” Alongside the “the cult of permissiveness, the creeping poison of pornography in movies, magazines and the other media of social communication,” the bishops once again denounced drug addiction, linking it to spiritual corruption:

We also note with grief the rampant addiction to drugs especially among our youth. We shudder to think of the consequences of this evil which can destroy not only physical life but above all the moral and spiritual.

These themes would find a more forceful elaboration early the following year, when the bishops released a pastoral letter entitled “Statement on Drug Abuse.” Dated January 29, 1972, the letter began by repeating an expression of grief over the “rapid spread among our youth of the use of narcotics,” before proceeding with a discussion on drugs. On marijuana, for instance, the bishops claimed:

There are those who regard marijuana as a “mild hallucinogen,” a “relatively mild intoxicant with short-lived effects,” “no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol.” These statements were “countered by reports of permanent brain damage among long term users in countries where there is no ban”[…] We are in the tropics. Drugs from plants raised during the dry season in the fields surely can be more potent than those produced by well-watered plants in pots or in the fields during the wet season.

The statement ascribed the highest culpability on the drug producers and traffickers. They were considered “saboteurs of the country” for destroying the lives of young people who have become “mental and physical wrecks” beyond redemption:

Because of the effects of drugs on our youth, planters of marijuana, producers of other hallucinogenic drugs, dealers of the same and those who smuggle them into the country should be considered as saboteurs of the country, worse than traitors. For a betrayed country with a citizenry healthy and strong in mind and body can easily recover dignity and honor. But a country whose youths are mental and physical wrecks will be hopelessly doomed to ignominy unredeemable until, if that is possible, a new and strong breed will rise up from the ruins. These are the worst saboteurs and are worthy of the highest punishments. For they destroy the youth, the hope of the land.

Noticeable here is the conflation between youth and the image of the country whose future was being undermined by drug abuse. To read this conflation is not surprising because the Catholic claim to the nation is evident in many of the writings of bishops in the Philippines. [43] The irony, however, was that young people themselves became the target of the Church’s criticism because of their activism. Indeed the 1970s was a pivotal period for youth activism. Writing in the late 1960s, the anthropologist F. Landa Jocano observed that the “youth in the Philippines are becoming to be restive,” as evidenced by the widely reported student protests of the time. [44] The bishops’ statement conflates anticolonial activism with drug use. In their eyes, the youth of the 1970s were very much accountable for succumbing to the Western lifestyle that celebrated hedonism, without realizing the destruction it inflicted on themselves. The youth, who ought to be redeemed from drug use, were also the adversary.

And we cannot consider as patriots, even activists sponsoring truly good and just causes, if through curiosity and defiance against the Establishment they break the narcotic laws and thus prepare themselves for a slavery worse than the colonialism and tyranny they clamor and demonstrate against. But we cannot understand our youth who abhor anything which smacks of colonial mentality yet imitate their counterparts across the ocean who have initiated this vice besides the growing, not grooming of their hair. But the fact is they do use drugs. They ought likewise to detest them, if they are to be consistent. Let us save the country’s dignity and honor even against their injudicious will.

3.2 Attack on human dignity (late 1990s)

From then until the 1980s, drug use as an issue hibernated in the bishops’ consciousness. Throughout the rest of the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos (1973–1986), the CBCP issued 46 pastoral letters without any reference to drugs. During the time of Corazon Aquino (1986–1992) who took over from Marcos after the EDSA Revolution, 28 pastoral letters were issued but none ever mentioned drugs. Likely, this interlude was influenced by the lack of political attention to substance abuse. [45] Instead, the state turned its attention on other hot button issues like the death penalty and reproductive health. Condom use was heavily resisted, for example.

In the late 1990s, however, drugs would again resurface in the episcopal discourse. While the youth remained in the discussions, drug use would be framed as part of a broader argument: they are an affront to human life and dignity. In “A Pastoral Letter on the Drug Crisis” dated July 10, 1997, the bishops began their statement as follows:

Today never has our country been menaced so dangerously and seriously by a health and moral crisis since AIDS exploded into our national consciousness. And the name of the crisis is Drugs, dangerous illegal, addictive drugs[…] Already more than 1.5 million Filipinos are users of illegal drugs. The youth are especially hard hit. They are the greatest number of drug users. Among them are more than 350,000 high school students, at the most impressionable period of their lives, threatened by an addiction the horrendous consequences of which they seem to ignore – until life itself is endangered.

The pastoral letter would once again highlight concern for young people. It referenced the newly amended Catechism for Filipino Catholics, which included the following passage among the “particular offenses against life”:

Perhaps the most widespread abuse in our country against physical well-being are the common “vices” of alcohol and drug abuse, and to a less intensive degree, smoking. Medical studies have proven the serious injury in terms of physical harm and addiction, and psychological and social difficulties and dependence, which these vices can cause. The quality of life – and sometimes life itself – of both the users and their family and close friends suffers greatly. More culpable still are drug dealers and pushers who, for the sake of money, care nothing about drawing others, especially innocent youth, into addictive dependency that ruins their very lives.

The statement concluded by calling on stronger legislative and executive action. This was how the Church hierarchy made its position clear on using the law as crime deterrence, a theme that echoed justifications for the death penalty.

Lawmakers should re-examine our present laws and see if they actually embolden rather than deter criminals; stiffer laws with stiffer penalties should be enacted[…] We urge government authorities and courts of justice to faithfully and zealously perform their task of promoting law and order and eradicating this scourge of drugs.

The seriousness of drug use took on a more serious tone in separate statements a year later. In a statement released on January 31, drug abuse was listed as a predisposing factor for incest and rape. And in “Pastoral Exhortation on the 1998 Elections,” “drug menace” was among the social problems that caused the deterioration of peace and order in the country. Taken together, these statements were written to uphold human dignity. Drug use was a threat. The caveat, however, was that to respond to the threat, the Church hierarchy adopted a criminal view of drug use, which could only be addressed in terms of crime deterrence.

3.3 Social moral decay (2015–2016)

In the course of our analysis, we observed that drug use once again disappeared from Church statements during the presidencies of Joseph Estrada (1998–2001), Gloria Arroyo (2001–2010), and Benigno Aquino III (2010–2016). Only four brief references to drugs during Arroyo’s administration appeared in pastoral statements, and none when Estrada was the president. This is an interesting finding, given that both administrations embarked on their respective antidrug campaigns. Meanwhile, during the time of Aquino, only one statement, written in 2014, specifically mentioned drug use. It repeated what was said in the 1990s that “the use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense.” How does one explain this considerable silence of the Church on drug use? We propose that the answer lies once again in the policies that defined these administrations. The death penalty took center stage during the time of Estrada, only to be prohibited by Arroyo later on. Talks about the Reproductive Health Bill began in the late 1990s but became full-blown in the time of Aquino when it was passed into law despite the Church’s vigorous opposition. [46]

The relative silence on drug-related issues would once again be interrupted with a statement devoted to “addiction, freedom, and disciplines” released on July 13, 2015. That it came out as Aquino’s term drew to a close and the campaign for a new president commenced is very telling. Although Duterte had not formalized his candidacy at this time, talks about his potential run did abound. [47] The Catholic Church reiterated its concern over the proliferation of illegal drugs:

Certainly, one of the most pernicious forms of “colonization” has to do with the traffic in drugs and their use. Not too long ago, media was abuzz with reports of a new party fix: “liquid meth”, it is apparently called, patronized, peddled and consumed by the wealthy, both the adults and the young. But the poor, too, fall prey to this habit, through shabu, known as the “poor man’s cocaine.” It is less expensive than cocaine but still it is something the poor certainly could not afford. Shabu is also daringly ubiquitous, oftentimes peddled openly in parks, bars, and street corners.

Echoing their statements in the past, the bishops called on stronger measures from the government. The statement called for “Proactive Socio-Civic Pastoral Guidance” for migrants and their families, but as regards drugs, the bishops’ call was largely punitive, albeit clearly not to the extent of calling for the killing of addicts:

While the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines reiterates that the Church is against the death penalty, it calls for resoluteness from the police and law-enforcement agencies to prevent the trafficking of drugs; to apprehend those involved in the trafficking of drugs; to dismantle the syndicates and cartels involved in the drug trade, and to make sure that the drugs they seize are not recycled and brought back to the underground market. We call for the relentless prosecution of those responsible for trafficking in drugs and for those who traffic persons to be their drug mules.

A month later, the bishops released the “Pastoral Guidance on the Compassionate Use of Cannabis.” They reiterated the Church’s basic teaching on drugs: “The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life.” The statement went on to argue that their use, “except on strictly therapeutic grounds, was a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs were scandalous practices. They constituted direct cooperation with evil, since they encouraged people to practices gravely contrary to moral law.”

Some of these themes at this point are already familiar. Church leaders have articulated in the previous decades the concern for the youth, the culpability of drug traffickers, and the need to have stronger laws to deter crime. But perhaps what is noticeably different here is the social concern for those affected by drug abuse. The poor and the young were considered vulnerable to the proliferation of illegal drugs. A final reference to drugs on February 10, 2016 included it among the vices that can “damage the family”.

4 Morality politics and the Catholic Church

We argue that a consistent theme runs through the official documents discussed above. While the themes may have changed over the years, the concern has been consistently about a general moral decline that affects the youth, the poor, and the family. In effect, drug abuse places the future of the nation at stake. But it also needs to be emphasized that it was only during certain moments did this concern manifest in the CBCP’s public pronouncements. We have identified three such moments: the period before Martial Law (1971–1972) and the campaign periods that led to the election of two populist leaders: Joseph Estrada (1997–98) and Rodrigo Duterte (2015–16). How do we make sense of the upsurge in those particular periods?

One clue lies in the fact that those moments were associated with heightened moral panics around drugs. [48] Determining the extent of moral panic among people is difficult but media coverage is indicative. This is because media coverage allows for the circulation of intensified emotional responses on moral issues. In the 1970s, newspapers evoked the dangers of drugs, which found personification in the Chinese drug lord Lim Seng. His execution was a televised public spectacle. [49] Historian Ambeth Ocampo notes how newspaper writers at the time reported the execution in these terms:

Death by musketry! This was the price exacted by society at 6 a.m. yesterday from drug manufacturer-merchant Lim Seng, alias Gan Suo So, at the KDR Range in Fort Bonifacio, Rizal. It could have been a costly price, but is the “living death” of more than 350,000 dope addicts not by itself a costly debt to society? [50]

Furthermore, in the weeks leading up to the release of the 1997 pastoral letter, drugs figured in news articles as well, suggesting the existence of another round of moral panic around drug use. On July 7, 1997, for instance, Manila Standard cited a congressman as saying that “widespread drug abuse among employees[…] increases the likelihood of random workplace violence.” In the same issue, a policeman was tagged as a “drug lord protector.” The next day, it was reported that Muslim rebels took drugs before battle and that the Boy Scouts were joining the “antidrug drive.” More recently, the concern over illegal drugs came as the eventual winner Rodrigo Duterte highlighted in his campaign the issue of drug addiction. He claimed that “it is destroying the country.” Duterte’s campaign rhetoric turned the proliferation of illegal drugs into a national concern. [51]

Arguably, a generalized moral panic around drugs has been around since the 1970s. As the anthropologist Michael Tan pointed out, a “daily morality play” cast “addicts” as deviants through film, radio, newspaper, and other media. [52] In 1972, the film Kill the Pushers was released, depicting the dangers of drug use and valorizing those who go after pushers. The film, which won the FAMAS Award for Best Picture in 1972, was the first of many to involve the negative consequences of drugs as a major part of the plot. [53] However, the moments we have identified here were also politically loaded as illegal drugs figured in the realpolitik of the time. In 1971, it was Ferdinand Marcos who sought to paint a picture of a country under attack. In 1997, Joseph Estrada tapped then Manila mayor and presidential aspirant Alfredo Lim to lead a controversial campaign that involved spray-painting the houses of suspected drug personalities. In 2015, it was Davao mayor and eventual president Rodrigo Duterte who would revive the drug discourse.

What validates our observation is that during the years in which the Catholic Church did not make any statement about drugs, other issues were at play for religious leaders. [54] The Church in effect has a reactionary preoccupation with matters of national concern. In the early 1990s, for instance, the major debate in the country was birth control, and this was also reflected in the pastoral letters. When the nascent Ramos administration attempted to popularize artificial means of birth control in 1993, the Church devoted an entire letter dated July 13, 1993, denouncing the “subtle attack on human life is the erosion of esteem for it under the guise of good.” [55] During the Benigno Aquino administration – another hiatus in the CBCP’s mention of drugs – the Church was preoccupied with opposing the passage of the Reproductive Health Law. Their stance was likewise reflected in their pastoral letters during this period.

We do not wish to make claims of causality or overstate the influence of bishops in government policy. What we propose instead is that the CBCP through its statements during these periods has contributed to the moral panic over drug use, given its institutional influence as a moral entrepreneur. Specifically, Church leaders placed a spotlight on drug use as a social and moral problem. For one, they underscored the need for stronger (and even relentless) measures to address the proliferation of illegal drugs. But at the same time, their statements did not only echo political and public concern over drug abuse. They provided the religious justification for the moral disgust toward illegal drugs. Just 2 months after the 1972 statement on drug abuse was released by the CBCP, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (RA 6425) was passed. It imposed the death penalty for drug-related offenses, presaging the declaration of Martial Law and the execution of Lim Seng. Over time, the Church’s statements reflected, if not reinforced, the long-standing repulsion Filipinos now have toward drug use and criminality as a whole. Indeed the association between public opinion and drug policy is well-documented. [56] The satisfaction for Duterte’s “relentless” war on drugs is indicative. A public poll by social weather stations (SWS) in 2019 reveals that 73% of Filipinos believe that the number of drug users has decreased since the war on drugs began in 2016. [57] This sense of security underpins the impression that the antidrug campaign has succeeded.

It is in this sense that the CBCP’s statements must be read in the light of morality politics. We revisit two important points about morality politics and then relate them to the situation of the Catholic Church in the Philippines. The first, as we have pointed out above, is that morality politics is the struggle to define what is acceptable and not for society. Morality politics involves state policies and interventions that are underpinned by a moral worldview. [58] Thus, morality politics is ultimately the politics of sin or transgression. [59] The role of moral entrepreneurs, as we have discussed above, is crucial in defining on behalf of society its evils, usually in the form of undesirable behavior, beliefs, and even groups. This leads us to the second point. Morality politics is not just about actions sanctioned by law and the state. Ultimately, morality politics is a discursive act that creates divisions within a society between a moral group and its adversary. We find helpful Wataru Kusaka’s work on party divisions in the Philippines in understanding how democratic players deploy moral discourses about righteousness to distinguish themselves from the corrupt. [60] The unintended consequence is that adversarial factions, usually class-based, become highly polarized that it becomes difficult to find common ground. [61]

What we have done in the previous section is to show that the Catholic Church has played a significant role as a moral entrepreneur that, while outside politics, remains influential in articulating religious and moral discourses about drug use and its effect on the youth, the poor, the family, and society as a whole. For a religious society like the Philippines, the Catholic Church is influential insofar as it draws on its teaching to shape much of the moral worldviews of many Filipinos. While the moral gravitas of the Catholic Church is increasingly open to question, especially in such areas as contraceptives and divorce, it remains to be a compelling voice on other matters such as gender equality, marriage, and in the case of this article, drug use. [62]

What accounts for its enduring influence in society? We reflect on the following conditions to show that the CBCP’s statements about drug use were shaped not only by the moments in which they were written. Ultimately, they reflect the CBCP’s institutional self-understanding in relation to Philippine society.

The first is that the Catholic Church is an institution that defends conservative values surrounding sexual propriety, heteronormativity, and the family in the country. The Catholic Church may have been instrumental in reclaiming democracy especially in the post-Marcos period, but it does not uphold liberal values concerning these matters. [63] In fact, when Pope Francis himself visited the Philippines in 2015, he reminded his audience to resist “ideological colonization that tries to destroy the family,” referring to contraception and same-sex marriage. [64] That Church bishops have over the years framed drug use as an affront to the family in keeping with this line of thinking. It also matters that Filipinos have by and large heteronormative attitudes when it comes to marriage and the family. [65]

The second is the Church’s claim over the Philippines as a Christian nation. This explains why even if the emphasis has changed over the decades, the Catholic Church’s statements on drug use are ultimately about the sanctity of the Philippine nation. For example, they have argued repeatedly that the youth have to be protected because they are the future of the nation. Another example is the view the proliferation of drugs is a menace that needs to be arrested through the law. Taking all of these together, the concern about moral decay is about the family, the poor, and once again, the youth, whose morality are in effect being sacrificed. In view of this moral concern, to render drug use as an enemy of the soul of the nation is a compelling narrative that resonates with the fundamental basis for the popular support for the war on drugs itself: that moral citizens need to be redeemed from “immoral others.” [66] Moral power lies in religious discourse, a point that echoes observations made by scholars of religion and drug use in Latin America. [67]

The view that the Philippines is a Christian nation is of course not new. In fact, this discourse is what makes the Catholic Church a hegemonic moral entrepreneur in the Philippines. Francisco has documented the many statements written by the CBCP to assert that Filipinos are the people of God. [68] This is the case even if religious behavior has been changing over time. Among the youth, notions of religiosity and spirituality are changing in ways that question the moral authority of the Catholic Church. [69] At the same time, even if there are now other religious groups that challenge the political dominance of the Catholic Church, statements made by the Catholic hierarchy are still widely read in parishes and local communities around the country. [70]

5 Conclusion: toward compassion and redemption

This article has been concerned with the historical writings of the Catholic Church on illegal drugs in the Philippines. From the 1970s up until 2016, the statements reflected a deep concern for the welfare of the youth, the poor, and the family. Church bishops framed the proliferation of illegal drugs not only as a result of the influence of Western culture. They also related it to corruption and moral decay, both of which attack human dignity and endanger the future of the nation. As we have discussed above, much of the discourse reflects the recurrent moral panic about illegal drugs.

We end this article by providing tentative reflections on some of the very recent writings by the CBCP. We find that a shift is taking place. These writings are still emerging, given that the antidrug campaign has not yet ended. At the same time, there are no indications that the public wants it ended. After initial silence on the subject (for which they were criticized), the bishops issued a statement on September 14, 2016. By this time – over 100 days since Duterte took office and announced a relentless drug war – thousands of killings have been reported in the media. The statement begins with an invocation of Jeremiah 31:13: “In Ramah is heard the sound of sobbing, bitter weeping! Rachel mourns for her children, she refuses to be consoled for her children – they are no more!”

The above statement downplays its specific concern over drugs by referring to violence in general terms, implying the clergy’s reticence over confronting the popular government amid mounting calls for accountability:

We mourn with you at the deaths that we have seen in our communities. Violent senseless deaths in the hands of our brother Cain, unnecessary deaths by sickness and accidents, deaths from a terror bombing in Davao, deaths of babies caused by their own mothers, deaths because of police encounters, deaths from extra judicial killings – indeed every death is cause for mourning because in the death of every man or woman, in the untimely death of every child or infant, a part of us dies.

Significantly, however, the letter includes the language of compassion in relation to drug users. We note that this is the first time that the word “love” is mentioned in the same breath as “addiction” in any of CBCP’s statements about drugs:

Our hearts reach out in love and compassion to our sons and daughters suffering from drug dependence and addiction. Drug addicts are children of God equal in dignity with the sober ones. Drug addicts are sick brethren in need of healing deserving of new life. They are patients begging for recovery. They may have behaved as scum and rubbish but the saving of love of Jesus Christ is first and foremost for them. No man or woman is ever so unworthy of God’s love.

Succeeding pastoral letters are more explicit in expressing concern over the killings. In early 2017, the bishops rejected the war on drugs for its impact on left-behind families: “The situation of the families of those killed is also cause for concern. Their lives have only become worse.” The same pastoral letter tackles the situation of justice in the communities. For the bishops, “many are killed not because of drugs” and “those who kill them are not brought to account.”

The tone then shifts by August 2017, during which the deaths of several teenagers in Metro Manila have been widely reported in the media. CBCP turns its attention to the law enforcers themselves: “In the name of God, stop the killings! May the justice of God come upon those responsible for the killings!” Without referring to Duterte, the bishops use the very words of the president himself to challenge the prevailing worldview: “When we label members of our society because of the offenses they commit – or that we impute rightly or wrongly against them – as ‘unsalvageable’, ‘irremediable’, ‘hopelessly perverse’, or ‘irreparably damaged’, then it becomes all the easier for us to consent to their elimination if not to participate outright in their murder.” Apart from calling for an end to the violence, the statements are asking for compassion and understanding. The bishops believe that drug users themselves deserve redemption. They are also concerned about the plight of affected families whose poverty is worsened by the murder of their breadwinners.

What is intriguing about this shift toward compassion and understanding is that it is no longer consistent with the moral decay evident in the CBCP’s previous statements. In our view, it is a reflexive response to the violence of the drug war and its lack of evidence. [71] It also calls into question the drug campaign’s victimization of the poor. There is, of course, a difficult irony here. That the CBCP now calls for compassion no longer carries political gravitas. One reason is that to allay the moral panic that the Catholic Church itself reinforced up until 2016 is not going to be an easy task. The other reason is that the state itself has now transformed the moral panic into a moral warfare against what Duterte himself describes as the enemies of the state. Thus, the security of the nation, for many people, now demands that violence is necessary. Compassion, in effect, is too weak a response. This is the result of the politics of anxiety that sociologist Nicole Curato has documented in her own writings about Duterte’s rhetoric. [72] At the same time, a different morality is now at play even for other influential religious leaders themselves. Other important studies have repeatedly justified the war on drugs as a righteous intervention sanctified by God for the renewal of the Philippine society. [73]

In light of the above shifts in their discourse, where do the Catholic bishops fit in contemporary drug policy debates? In terms of their perceptions of drug use, they seem to align with the view shared by most political actors that drugs are evil, disagreeing only with the government on how to deal with its proliferation and arguing for a more compassionate response. By contrast, harm reduction advocates in the country are pushing for a view of drugs as neutral and context-dependent substances. They believe that much of drug use is nonproblematic. [74]

One indelible change, however, is the theme of redemption. While the bishops used to invoke the language of hopelessness – “mental and physical wrecks will be hopelessly doomed to ignominy unredeemable” – they now object to the president’s view of people who use drugs as “beyond redemption.” Articulating what should be obvious for the Catholic Church is significant, especially in the light of the principles of human dignity and the common good. [75] Such a shift suggests, at the very least, that the bishops’ views on the matter are not dogmatic and constantly evolving. The shift is promising insofar as it creates a different pathway for the public to discuss the inadequacies of the war on drugs. Whether or not these statements are effective in bringing back human dignity into policy making remains to be seen.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Vincen Gregory Yu for his editorial assistance and APCASO for supporting this publication.

Affatato, Paolo. “Duterte and the God – Avenger.” 2017. Accessed October 10. https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2017/08/05/news/duterte-and-the-god-avenger-1.34431668 Search in Google Scholar

Bautista, Julius. “Church and State in the Philippines: Tackling Life Issues in a ‘Culture of Death’.” SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 25:1 (2010), 29–53. 10.1355/SJ25-1B Search in Google Scholar

Becker, Howard. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: The Free Press, 1963. Search in Google Scholar

Buchhandler-Raphael, Michal. “Drugs, Dignity and Danger: Human Dignity as a Constitutional Constraint to Limit Overcriminalization.” Tennessee Law Review 80 (2013), 291–345. 10.2139/ssrn.2128943 Search in Google Scholar

Cartagenas, Aloysius. “Religion and Politics in the Philippines: The Public Role of the Roman Catholic Church in the Democratization of the Filipino Polity.” Political Theology 11:6 (2010), 846–72. 10.1558/poth.v11i6.846 . Search in Google Scholar

Cornelio, Jayeel. “Religious Freedom in the Philippines: From Legalities to Lived Experience.” The Review of Faith and International Affairs 11 (2013), 36–45. 10.1080/15570274.2013.808036 Search in Google Scholar

Cornelio, Jayeel. “Young people and Golden Rule Catholicism in the Philippines.” In Christianity in the Modern World: Changes and Controversies, edited by Giselle Vincett, and E. Obinna, 11–36. Farnham: Ashgate, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

Cornelio, Jayeel. Being Catholic in the contemporary Philippines: Young people reinterpreting religion. London and New York: Routledge, 2016. 10.4324/9781315753720 Search in Google Scholar

Cornelio, Jayeel. “The Philippines.” In Edinburgh Companions to Global Christianity: Christianity in East and South-East Asia, edited by Kenneth Ross, Francis Alvarez, and Todd M. Johnson, 242–253. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020a. 10.1515/9781474451628-025 Search in Google Scholar

Cornelio, Jayeel. “Claiming the Nation: Theological Nationalism in the Philippines.” In What Does Theology Do, Actually? Observing Theology and the Transcultural, edited by Matthew Robinson, and Inja Inders. Leipzig: EVA, 2020b. Search in Google Scholar

Cornelio, Jayeel, and Dagle, Robbin. “Weaponising Religious Freedom: Same-Sex Marriage and Gender Equality in the Philippines.” Religion & Human Rights 14:2 (2019), 65–94. 10.1163/18710328-13021146 Search in Google Scholar

Cornelio, Jayeel, and Marañon, Ia. “A ‘Righteous Intervention’: Megachurch Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines.” International Journal of Asian Christianity 2 (2019), 211–30. 10.1163/25424246-00202005 Search in Google Scholar

Cornelio, Jayeel, and Medina, Erron. “Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines.” Politics, Religion & Ideology 20:2 (2019), 151–69. 10.1080/21567689.2019.1617135 Search in Google Scholar

Courtwright, David. “Morality, religion, and drug use.” In Morality and health, edited by Allan Brandt, and Paul Rozin, 231–50. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. Search in Google Scholar

Curato, Nicole. “Politics of Anxiety, Politics of Hope: Penal Populism and Duterte’s Rise to Power.” Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 35:3 (2016), 91–109. 10.1177/186810341603500305 Search in Google Scholar

Drug Archive Philippines. “The Drug Killings: Who, What, Where, When, How?.” 2019. Accessed October 15. https://drugarchive.ph/post/26-the-drug-killings-who-what-where-when-how-master Search in Google Scholar

Esmaquel II, Paterno. “Why Filipinos believe Duterte was ‘appointed by God’.” 2019. Accessed October 10. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/234115-why-filipinos-believe-duterte-appointed-by-god Search in Google Scholar

Francisco, Jose Mario. “People of God, People of the Nation: Official Catholic Discourse on Nation and Nationalism.” Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints 62:3–4 (2014), 341–76. 10.1353/phs.2014.0028 Search in Google Scholar

Gallagher, Adrian, Raffle, Euan, and Maulana, Zain. “Failing to Fulfil the Responsibility to Protect: The War on Drugs As Crimes Against Humanity in the Philippines.” The Pacific Review 30 (2020), 247–77. 10.1080/09512748.2019.1567575 Search in Google Scholar

Hechanova, Ma Regina M., Alianan, Arsenio S., Calleja, Mendiola T., Melgar, Isabel E., Acosta, Avegale, Villasanta, Angelique, Bunagan, Kay, Yusay, Camille, Ang, Angelica, Flores, Jane, Canoy, Nico, Espina, Ervina, Gomez, Gayle A., Hinckley, Elena Samonte, Tuliao, Antover P., and Cue, Miriam P. “The Development of a Community-Based Drug Intervention for Filipino Drug Users.” Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology 12 (2018), 1–10. 10.1017/prp.2017.23 Search in Google Scholar

Holmes, Ronald. “The Dark Side of Electoralism: Opinion Polls and Voting in the 2016 Philippine Presidential Election.” Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 35:3 (2016), 15–38. 10.1177/186810341603500302 Search in Google Scholar

Jocano, F. Landa. “Youth in a Changing Society: A Case Study from the Philippines.” Youth & Society 1 (1969), 73–89. 10.1177/0044118X6900100105 Search in Google Scholar

Kusaka, Wataru. “Bandit grabbed the state: Duterte’s moral politics.” Philippine Sociological Review 65 (2017), 49–75. Search in Google Scholar

Kusaka, Wataru. Moral politics in the Philippines: Inequality, democracy, and the urban poor. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2019. Search in Google Scholar

LaFont, Cristina. “Religion and the Public Sphere: What are the Deliberative Obligations of Democratic Citizenship?” Philosophy and Social Criticism 35:1–2 (2009), 127–150. 10.1177/0191453708098758 Search in Google Scholar

Lasco, Gideon. “Drugs and Drug Wars as Populist Tropes: Illustrative Examples and Implications for Drug Policy.” International Journal of Drug Policy 77 (2020), 102668. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102668 Search in Google Scholar

Leviste, Enrique Niño. “In the Name of Fathers, in Defense of Mothers: Hegemony, Resistance, and the Catholic Church on the Philippine Population Policy.” Philippine Sociological Review 64:1 (2016), 5–44. Search in Google Scholar

Lopes, Orivaldo, and Costa, Janaina. “Drugs and Religion: Contributions to the Debate on the Science–Religion Interface.” Religions 9:4 (2018), 1–13. 10.3390/rel9040136 Search in Google Scholar

Lucie-Smith, Alexander. “I disagree with Pope Francis: the War on Drugs should be ended.” 2013. Accessed November 08. https://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/07/26/i-disagree-with-pope-francis-the-war-on-drugs-should-be-ended/. Search in Google Scholar

Macairan, Evelyn. “Bishops on sedition: Truth shall set us free.” 2019. Accessed October 10. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/09/09/1950252/bishops-sedition-truth-shall-set-us-free. Search in Google Scholar

Meier, Kenneth. “Drugs, Sex, Rock, and Roll: A Theory of Morality Politics.” Policy Studies Journal 27:4 (1999), 681–95. 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1999.tb01996.x Search in Google Scholar

Meier, Kenneth. The Politics of Sin: Drugs, Alcohol and Public Policy. London and New York: Routledge, 2016. 10.4324/9781315287294 Search in Google Scholar

Miceli, Melinda. “Morality Politics vs Identity Politics: Framing Processes and Competition Among Christian Right and Gay Social Movement Organizations.” Sociological Forum 20 (2005), 589–612. 10.1007/s11206-005-9059-y Search in Google Scholar

Mooney, Christopher. “The Politics of Morality Policy: Symposium Editor’s Introduction.” Policy Studies Journal 27:4 (1999), 675–80. 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1999.tb01995.x Search in Google Scholar

Mott, Margaret MacLeish. “Love the Prisoner, Ban the Substance: Pope Francis and the War on Drugs.” In Pope Francis as a Global Actor: Where Politics and Theology Meet, edited by Alynna Lyon, Christine Gustafson, and Paul Christopher Manuel, 81–95. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. 10.1007/978-3-319-71377-9_5 Search in Google Scholar

Ocampo, Ambeth. “Lim Seng remembered.” 2016. Accessed April 09, 2020. https://opinion.inquirer.net/95625/lim-seng-remembered Search in Google Scholar

Panti, Llanesca. “SWS: 73% of Pinoys believe drug users have decreased since Duterte took office in 2016.” 2020. Accessed Mar 05. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/721979/sws-73-of-pinoys-believe-drug-users-have-decreased-since-duterte-took-office-in-2016/story/ Search in Google Scholar

Pew Research. “What’s morally acceptable? It depends on where in the world you live.” 2014. Accessed November 07. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/15/whats-morally-acceptable-it-depends-on-where-in-the-world-you-live/ Search in Google Scholar

Philippine Information Agency. “#RealNumbersPH.” 2019. Accessed October 14. http://pdea.gov.ph/2-uncategorised/279-realnumbersph. Search in Google Scholar

Raffin, Anne, and Jayeel Cornelio. “The Catholic Church and Education as Sources of Institutional Panic in the Philippines.” Asian Journal of Social Science 37 (2009), 778–98. 10.1163/156848409X12474536440627 Search in Google Scholar

Riordan, Patrick. Philippine Common Goods: The Good Life for All. Davao: Ateneo de Davao University Publication Office, 2016. Search in Google Scholar

Robbins, Jeffrey, and Crockett, Clayton. “Introduction: Doing Theology in the Age of Trump.” In Doing Theology in the Age of Trump: A Critical Report on Christian Nationalism, edited by Jeffrey Robbins, and Clayton Crockett, xi–xviii. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2018. Search in Google Scholar

Rocca, Francis. “Pope urges Filipino families: Dream, resist ‘ideological colonization’.” 2015. Accessed November 07. https://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2015/pope-urges-filipino-families-dream-resist-ideological-colonization.cfm Search in Google Scholar

Rozin, Paul. “The Process of Moralization.” Psychological Science 10:3 (1999), 218–21. 10.1111/1467-9280.00139 Search in Google Scholar

Rufo, Aries. “PODCAST: The 3 Cs in Duterte's presidential campaign.” 2015. Accessed December 8. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/videos-podcasts/90321-podcast-duterte-presidential-campaign Search in Google Scholar

Sanchez, Zila Van der Meer, De Oliveira, Lúcio Garcia, and Nappo, Solange Aparecida. “Religiosity as a Protective Factor Against the Use of Drugs.” Substance Use & Misuse 43:10 (2009), 1476–86. 10.1080/10826080802183288 Search in Google Scholar

Sandel, Michael. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010. 10.1037/e597132010-001 Search in Google Scholar

Simangan, Dahlia. “Is the Philippine ‘War on Drugs’ an Act of Genocide?” Journal of Genocide Research 20:1 (2018), 68–89. 10.1080/14623528.2017.1379939 Search in Google Scholar

Tan, Michael L. “The Construction of ‘Drug Abuse’ in the Philippines: The Case of Cough Preparations.” Philippine Sociological Review 43:1 (1995), 17–42. Search in Google Scholar

Tan, Eugene K. B. “Keeping God in Place: The Management of Religion in Singapore.” In Religious diversity in Singapore, edited by Ah Eng Lai, 55–82. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Institute of Policy Studies, 2008. Search in Google Scholar

Willis, Adam. “The Catholic rebels resisting the Philippines’ deadly war on drugs.” 2019. Accessed October 10. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/18/philippines-rodrigo-duterte-war-on-drugs-catholic-church Search in Google Scholar

Youngblood, Robert. Marcos Against the Church: Economic Development and Political Repression in the Philippines. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1990. Search in Google Scholar

© 2020 Jayeel Cornelio and Gideon Lasco, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.