Filipinos deeply conflicted on Duterte’s drug war

Former supporters of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war, holding pictures of their sons who they said were killed in police drug war operations. (AFP)
Updated 14 October 2018
Follow

Filipinos deeply conflicted on Duterte’s drug war

  • Police say they have killed 4,854 alleged drug users or dealers in self-defense, while rights groups estimate the true toll is at least triple that
  • The International Criminal Court has launched a preliminary examination into the killings

MANILA: Jailed drug user Bitoy Paras perks up when describing his support for Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s deadly war on narcotics, an unlikely fan of a campaign that has left Filipinos deeply conflicted.
“Duterte talks tough, saying he will get rid of addicts... I am happy he’s doing that,” he told AFP at Manila’s main jail, which is packed with drug suspects.
“But I feel uneasy about the killings,” said the 22-year-old rickshaw driver, whose real name cannot be used due to prison policy.
Paras’s seemingly paradoxical backing echoes that of millions of Filipinos, who polls say support the crackdown but not the thousands of slayings that are central to it.
Duterte’s drug war — his signature initiative — helped bring him to power in mid-2016, promising to rid society of narcotics by any means necessary.
Since then, police say they have killed 4,854 alleged drug users or dealers in self-defense, while rights groups estimate the true toll is at least triple that.
According to the latest survey by pollster SWS, the campaign still has the backing of 78 percent of Filipinos, a figure undented in over a year.
Drug war proponents regularly point to these statistics as proof that the internationally-condemned crackdown is the will of the people.
But those same polls show near unanimous agreement — 96 percent — among the nation in opposition to the killing, saying the suspects should be taken alive.
Experts say Duterte’s campaign has tapped into genuine popular outrage over disorder, crime and dysfunction in a developing nation with millions of poor people and a turbulent political past.
“It’s not like they’re turning a blind eye (to the killing) but they’re really worried about the drug problem,” said Steven Rood, a fellow-in-residence at pollster SWS.
“It has been a problem for a long time and finally the president of the Philippines is doing something about it,” he added, describing how many Filipinos view the narcotics issue.
But for the family of Duterte voter Katherine Bautista, that belief was suddenly turned on its head by tragedy last year.
Bautista supported the crackdown until her stepson John Jezreel David was shot dead in what police said was an anti-drug operation even as she insisted her son was not a drug user.
“I was even saying that the tears of families (of those killed) seemed fake. But when it happened to us, I felt the pain they were feeling,” Bautista told AFP.
“If it doesn’t happen to your family, you won’t wake up to the truth,” she added.
A significant strand in the opposition to the killings is the fear a loved could be slain just by being in the wrong place, not necessarily because of involvement in drugs.
“People feel very afraid that their families or their relatives might be placed in a situation where they could be the targets,” Randy David, a sociologist and newspaper columnist in Manila, told AFP.
“But how can you possibly disagree or not lend support for a campaign to rid this country of illegal drugs?,” David added, saying the lethal methods were what prompted questions.
There has been broader condemnation of the crackdown, at home and abroad.
Rare protests were held in the Philippines last year following the deaths of teenagers, while outrage over alleged abuses has prompted Duterte to twice remove police from the frontlines of the campaign — only to reinstate them, and promise to pardon officers convicted of murder.
The International Criminal Court has launched a preliminary examination into the killings, while rights groups say Duterte may be overseeing a crime against humanity.
Meanwhile, Duterte hammers the menace posed by drugs in near daily speeches in which he has described addicts as “not human.”
Analysts say the president uses clear and repeated messaging in an effort to buttress backing for his campaign.
“The way (the message) is delivered is that there is a very big threat, so first there’s the production of massive fear,” said Ateneo de Manila University psychology professor Cristina Montiel.
“Then (comes) the salvific message that this program or this leader is here to save you,” she added. “That’s how popular support is produced.”
As the campaign continues, the death toll is well over Amnesty International’s count of 3,240 people killed during the nine years of martial law rule under dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the country’s darkest chapter since World War II.
Duterte recently addressed the thorny issue of the killings, delivering what critics called a clear admission they are suspect.
“What are my sins? Did I steal money? Even just one peso? Did I prosecute somebody I sent to jail?” he asked in a September speech. “My only sin is extrajudicial killings.”


Tug of war: how US presidents battle Congress for military powers

Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

Tug of war: how US presidents battle Congress for military powers

  • The last official declaration of war by Congress was as far back as World War II

WASHINGTON, United States: Donald Trump’s unleashing of operation “Epic Fury” against Iran has once more underscored the long and bitter struggle between US presidents and Congress over who has the power to decide on foreign military action.
In his video address announcing “major combat” with the Islamic republic, Trump didn’t once mention any authorization or consultation with the US House of Representatives or Senate.
In doing so he sidelined not only Democrats, who called for an urgent war powers vote, but also his own Republican party as he asserts his dominance over a largely cowed legislature.
A US official said Secretary of State Marco Rubio had called top congressional leaders known as the “Gang of Eight” to give them a heads up on the Iran attack — adding that one was unreachable.
Rubio also “laid out the situation” and consulted with the same leaders on Tuesday in an hour-long briefing, the US official said.
According to the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war.
But at the same time the founding document of the United States first signed in 1787 says that the president is the “commander in chief” of the military, a definition that US leaders have in recent years taken very broadly.
The last official declaration of war by Congress was as far back as World War II.
There was no such proclamation during the unpopular Vietnam War, and it was then that Congress sought to reassert its powers.
In 1973 it adopted the War Powers Resolution, passed over Richard Nixon’s veto, to become the only lasting limit on unilateral presidential military action abroad.
The act allows the president to carry out a limited military intervention to respond to an urgent situation created by an attack against the United States.
In his video address on Saturday, Trump evoked an “imminent” threat to justify strikes against Iran.

- Sixty days -

Yet under this law, the president must still inform Congress within 48 hours.
It also says that if the president deploys US troops for a military action for more than 60 days, the head of state must then obtain the authorization of Congress for continued action.
That falls short of an official declaration of war.
The US Congress notably authorized the use of force in such a way after the September 11, 2011 attacks on the United States by Al-Qaeda. Presidents have used it over the past two decades for not only the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan but a series of operations in several countries linked to the “War on Terror.”
Trump is far from the first US president to launch military operations without going through Congress.
Democrat Bill Clinton launched US air strikes against Kosovo in 1999 as part of a NATO campaign, despite the lack of a green light from skeptical lawmakers.
Barack Obama did the same for airstrikes in Libya in 2011.
Trump followed their example in his first term in 2018 when he launched airstrikes in Syria along with Britain and France.
But since his return to power the 79-year-old has sought to push presidential power to its limits, and that includes in the military sphere.
Trump has ordered strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in Latin America without consulting Congress, and in June 2025 struck Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Perhaps the most controversial act was when he ordered the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro in a lightning military raid on January 3.
Republicans however managed to knock down moves by Democrats for a rare war powers resolution that would have curbed his authority over Venezuela operations.
Trump has meanwhile sought to extend his powers over the home front. Democrats have slammed the Republican for deploying the National Guard in several US cities in what he calls a crackdown on crime and immigration.