N
527
Whether former President Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs was "worth it" is highly contested, with viewpoints sharply divided between public safety claims and devastating human rights costs. The evaluation generally depends on how one weighs these contrasting outcomes.
Arguments in Favor
Perceived Public Safety: Many supporters credit the campaign with reducing street-level crime, improving public order, and instilling a sense of fear that deterred drug use and petty criminality.
Rehabilitation Efforts: Alongside law enforcement, the administration expanded public access to drug rehabilitation programs, opening several large-scale facilities to treat surrenderers.
High Public Approval: The initiative enjoyed widespread domestic popularity during its active implementation, reflecting a public desire for decisive action against the drug trade.
Arguments Against
Massive Loss of Life: The campaign resulted in the deaths of thousands of individuals—with official police figures exceeding 6,000 and human rights organizations estimating up to 30,000 fatalities. Many of these were extrajudicial killings or were classified as deaths under investigation.
Disproportionate Impact on the Poor: The poorest communities were hit the hardest, with many victims killed in urban slums with little to no due process.
Rule of Law Concerns: Critics, including the , argue that the campaign fostered a culture of impunity, with police frequently falsifying evidence to justify unlawful killings.
International Repercussions: The brutality of the anti-drug campaign led to international condemnation and an ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which confirmed charges of crimes against humanity against Duterte in 2026.
Ultimately, for victims' families and human rights advocates, the high cost in human lives and the erosion of legal processes mean it was not worth it. Conversely, for many citizens who prioritized immediate peace and order, the perceived benefits made the campaign a necessary intervention.
Arguments in Favor
Perceived Public Safety: Many supporters credit the campaign with reducing street-level crime, improving public order, and instilling a sense of fear that deterred drug use and petty criminality.
Rehabilitation Efforts: Alongside law enforcement, the administration expanded public access to drug rehabilitation programs, opening several large-scale facilities to treat surrenderers.
High Public Approval: The initiative enjoyed widespread domestic popularity during its active implementation, reflecting a public desire for decisive action against the drug trade.
Arguments Against
Massive Loss of Life: The campaign resulted in the deaths of thousands of individuals—with official police figures exceeding 6,000 and human rights organizations estimating up to 30,000 fatalities. Many of these were extrajudicial killings or were classified as deaths under investigation.
Disproportionate Impact on the Poor: The poorest communities were hit the hardest, with many victims killed in urban slums with little to no due process.
Rule of Law Concerns: Critics, including the , argue that the campaign fostered a culture of impunity, with police frequently falsifying evidence to justify unlawful killings.
International Repercussions: The brutality of the anti-drug campaign led to international condemnation and an ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which confirmed charges of crimes against humanity against Duterte in 2026.
Ultimately, for victims' families and human rights advocates, the high cost in human lives and the erosion of legal processes mean it was not worth it. Conversely, for many citizens who prioritized immediate peace and order, the perceived benefits made the campaign a necessary intervention.