THE International Criminal Court (ICC) has released the charge sheet identifying alleged co-perpetrators linked to former president Rodrigo Duterte’s crimes against humanity from 2011 to 2019. Those identified include Senators Ronald de la Rosa and Bong Go, as well as former PNP chiefs Oscar Albayalde, Camilo Cascolan and Vicente Danao Jr; former Justice secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II; former National Bureau of Investigation director Dante Gierran; and former Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency director Isidro Lapeña. The ICC prosecution accuses the former president of having created an organized structure of police officials and civilian hitmen responsible for at least 76 murders of alleged criminals. According to the charges, this criminal conspiracy began as early as Davao City, where Duterte served as mayor since the 1980s. The blueprint of the campaign against illegal drugs became nationwide upon Duterte’s election as president in 2016. The nagging issue is why most Filipinos did not protest or resist such systematic extrajudicial killings against civilians. These were allegedly carried out through a network of policemen and hitmen, collectively known as the Davao Death Squad (DDS). Today, we reflect on why the nation fell silent during the assassinations of drug suspects, and even applauded the neutralization of “high-value targets” such as Leyte town mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr. and Ozamiz City mayor Reynaldo Parojinog Sr. Did Filipinos implicitly support Duterte’s death squads when they elected him as president and in doing so, legitimized his state-sanctioned killings? Self-confessed DDS hitman, Edgar Matobato, detailed how his group summarily executed criminals under Duterte’s watch, that spiraled into abuses like raping young women.
It is difficult to decipher the Filipino psyche when it comes to violently suppressing criminal activities. Although respect for civil liberties and human rights is inscribed in the Constitution and other laws, many appeared in favor of stamping out criminals from society with an iron fist, even at the cost of due process. The war on illegal drugs was seen by some as an extension of earlier campaigns against banditry, brigandage and other heinous crimes. Filipinos often seek immediate justice and retribution against highly publicized criminal acts. In the case of drug-related killings, many Filipinos were satisfied that Duterte had the political will to launch a relentless campaign against illegal drug dealers and even users. He framed illegal drugs as an existential threat to the nation, and a significant segment of the population supported him despite reports of innocent people being caught in the crossfire. Amnesty International claimed that 6,000 were killed in police operations, while some human rights groups estimated the number to be as high as 30,000. Albert Bandura’s “social cognitive theory” may help us understand the impunity of Duterte’s violent campaign against illegal drug dealers and users. Bandura believed that individuals with high moral disengagement can commit or tolerate the most reprehensible acts against others by reframing them in ways that downplay their moral gravity. Duterte justified the deaths as serving a higher purpose — preserving peace, public order and national security of his people. Among police officials who implemented Duterte’s instructions, the concept of “displacement of responsibility” may have operated, where they unburdened their accountability over the murders to their superiors rather than owning up to their actions. On one hand, the “diffusion of responsibility” reduced the hitmen’s personal agency over the assassinations by spreading the blame across many conspirators and powerful figures behind the scenes. For them, they are merely cogs in a bureaucratic structure, describing their roles as routinary in nature.
Worse of all, many Filipinos who accepted how these tragic events unfolded manifested a form of dehumanization — stripping victims of any positive qualities or redemption. By attributing blame entirely on alleged drug dealers and peddlers, it became easier for them to ignore and remain silent amid the carnage and senseless deaths — no different from ordinary Germans who learned the genocide of Jews. Such moral disengagement happened gradually over time, as Filipinos, consciously or unconsciously, enabled Duterte and his cohorts to carry out the bloody war on illegal drugs. His senators were elected, his police officials were promoted to top posts, and his alleged DDS groups were even glorified as moral avengers. In the end, some Filipinos continue to ignore the ICC reports of summary executions of their fellow countrymen. Despite their Catholicism, the moral disengagement from Duterte’s crimes eased the weight of their own guilt in the thousands of deaths that transpired during his rule. “These addicts deserve it,” as they proclaimed.
Now, the nation faces an inconvenient truth. If justice is selective and human rights are conditional, then the rule of law and democratic institutions are plainly illusory. A Philippine society that tolerated such mass executions loses its own moral compass and accepts their own banality of evil.