Despite revelations from Former Police Colonel Royina Garma that the Philippine police were systematically transformed into "killing machines" under President Duterte's directive, proponents of the drug war, such as Senator Bong Go, argue that it was a success. Their justification hinges on claims that crime rates dropped, neighborhoods became safer, and drug users were driven into hiding. Duterte's supporters also contend that they approved of extrajudicial killings, believing that peace and order justified the brutal means. To them, the killings were a necessary price to pay for the peace—"the peace of the dead," as some would call it.
But was the drug war truly a success? Its apparent resurgence following Duterte’s departure from office raises critical questions. Did the drug war's cessation lead to a spike in crime, proving its previous effectiveness, or were there more compelling reasons for the resurgence of drug use—ones tied to the war's failure itself?
The failure of Duterte's drug war can be attributed to two main reasons, aside from the illegitimate procedures used. First, the application of "crime displacement theory" explains why suppression efforts like the drug war do not eliminate crime; rather, they shift it in various ways.
1. Geographic displacement occurs when crime is transferred to areas with less aggressive policing. Since the drug war was not uniformly implemented, with certain hotspots (e.g., Bagong Silang, Caloocan) experiencing a more aggressive crackdown than others, drug users could simply move to less-policed areas. Doon sila nagtago.
2. Product displacement is another effect. The Duterte administration focused primarily on curbing the use of methamphetamine (locally known as "shabu"), but users may have turned to alternative drugs like marijuana or ecstasy. Some research suggests that many users also shifted to alcohol—an equally significant contributor to violent behavior, according to studies on substance abuse. Habang mainit ang shabu, alak na muna.
3. Temporal displacement refers to the cyclical nature of crime. In the Philippines, government efforts often fade over time, a phenomenon known as "ningas cogon"—the tendency for initiatives to lose momentum. Even at the tail-end of the drug war, the enthusiasm with which it began was not sustained toward its conclusion, allowing drug users to "lay low" and wait for the crackdown to subside. As a result, the drug trade inevitably resurged when enforcement waned. Habang mainit sa pulis, tago muna.
These three types of displacement underscore that the drug problem was not eradicated but merely suppressed temporarily. The resurgence of drug use is a consequence of this superficial suppression, as the root causes of drug use and dealing were left unaddressed.
Understanding the Root Causes
The multifaceted causes of drug use and dealing in the Philippines reveal why the drug war was bound to fail. First, there is the economic factor. Many drug dealers are low-income workers—tricycle and jeepney drivers, for example—who sell drugs on the side to supplement their income. An empirical study revealed that poverty and limited employment opportunities were significant drivers behind the involvement of poor Filipinos in the drug trade. This economic motive is intertwined with the broader issue of structural poverty in the country.
Second, drug use is often functionally tied to work. Many people, particularly those working in demanding jobs like call centers or as taxi drivers, use drugs to stay awake during long shifts. Based on my interviews with PDLs and criminal justice actors, a notable percentage of Filipino drug users reported using substances as stimulants for prolonged work hours. This functional use underscores the importance of addressing work conditions and labor exploitation, rather than merely targeting drug consumption.
Third, social factors contribute to drug use, especially among the youth. Peer influence, unsupervised free time, and recreational use during social events are driving forces for young Filipinos. Studies have shown that lack of parental supervision and the rise of “barkada” (peer group) culture play crucial roles in drug experimentation. The National Youth Commission has repeatedly highlighted the vulnerability of young people to peer pressure in the context of drug use.
A Failure to Address Root Causes
The Duterte drug war focused solely on punitive measures—extrajudicial killings of drug users and dealers. However, the failure to address these underlying social, economic, and labor-related causes renders any superficial victory short-lived. Even if drug users and dealers were killed, new ones would emerge to take their place, driven by the same unresolved conditions. The metaphor of mowing tall grasses captures this phenomenon: you may clear the field temporarily, but without removing the roots, the grass will grow back.
Senator Bong Go and other Duterte supporters argue that we need to continue the drug war to preserve its so-called gains. However, empirical evidence shows that punitive drug wars do not lead to long-term reductions in drug use. In a 2018 review by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), countries that implemented strict, punitive drug policies saw little lasting impact on drug-related crime. Instead, countries that shifted toward addressing the social and economic causes of drug use, such as Portugal’s decriminalization and public health-focused model, experienced more sustainable declines in drug consumption and addiction rates.
In the case of the Philippines, the war on drugs has already shown signs of failure, not because it wasn't brutal enough, but because it never targeted the roots of the problem. Ultimately, any solution to the drug crisis must go beyond the use of force and address the economic, social, and psychological reasons people turn to drugs. Without this shift, the cycle of crime and drug use will continue—merely waiting for another crackdown to recede before it re-emerges.
Duterte's war on drugs, far from being a success, reveals the futility of solving deeply rooted societal problems through violence alone. The solution must be comprehensive, focusing on education, rehabilitation, employment opportunities, and social welfare. Otherwise, as history has already shown, the peace of the dead is no peace at all.
Comments