ICC upholds accountability for Duterte’s drug war killings amid systemic impunity in Philippines

Indigenous Lumad communities in the Philippines have long resisted state militarisation tied to anti-drug campaigns, framing the drug war as a continuation of colonial violence against their lands and livelihoods. Their justice systems prioritise communal accountability over punitive measures, offering an alternative to the ICC’s adversarial model. However, these perspectives are systematically excluded from international legal discourse, which privileges Western juridical frameworks over indigenous epistemologies.

The Philippines’ drug war echoes historical patterns of state violence, from Spanish colonial-era policing to US-backed counterinsurgency operations in the 20th century, where 'public safety' justified extrajudicial killings. The ICC’s intervention is not unprecedented; similar cases in Latin America (e.g., Guatemala, Colombia) show how international courts struggle to address structural impunity when elite networks remain intact. This case also parallels the Marcos dictatorship’s use of 'drug war' rhetoric to suppress dissent, revealing a cyclical pattern of authoritarian governance.

Across Southeast Asia, 'war on drugs' narratives are used to justify state violence, from Thailand’s 2017-2019 crackdown to Indonesia’s extrajudicial killings in the 1980s. In Myanmar, the military has similarly framed drug eradication as a pretext for ethnic cleansing, while in Cambodia, Hun Sen’s regime used anti-drug rhetoric to target political opponents. These parallels suggest a regional pattern where drug policies are weaponised to consolidate power, often with tacit support from global actors.

Research from the University of the Philippines and Ateneo de Manila University shows that Duterte’s drug war disproportionately targeted impoverished urban communities, with 82% of victims coming from the lowest socioeconomic quintile. Epidemiological studies link punitive drug policies to increased HIV transmission and overdose deaths, contradicting the narrative that such campaigns improve public health. The ICC’s reliance on legal frameworks, however, often overlooks the public health and socioeconomic data that could contextualise the drug trade’s root causes.

Filipino artists like Kidlat Tahimik and Lualhati Bautista have long used creative expression to critique state violence, framing the drug war as a symptom of deeper cultural and spiritual decay. The concept of 'loob' (inner self) in Filipino spirituality challenges the materialist logic of the drug war, suggesting that systemic healing requires addressing collective trauma. However, these artistic and spiritual critiques are marginalised in mainstream discourse, which prioritises legalistic solutions over holistic transformation.

If the ICC’s case proceeds, it risks becoming a symbolic gesture unless accompanied by structural reforms, such as dismantling the Philippine National Police’s counterinsurgency units tied to extrajudicial killings. Alternative models, like truth and reconciliation commissions (e.g., South Africa’s post-apartheid process), could address the drug war’s legacy more comprehensively. Future scenarios must also account for the rise of digital authoritarianism, where social media is weaponised to justify state violence, as seen in Duterte’s use of troll farms.

Victims’ families, led by groups like Rise Up for Life and for Rights, have been the primary advocates for accountability, yet their demands for systemic change are often reduced to legal victories. Indigenous leaders, such as those from the Lumad communities, have warned that the drug war is part of a broader campaign of land dispossession, but their voices are excluded from international legal proceedings. The marginalised perspectives of urban poor communities, who bear the brunt of the killings, are rarely centred in policy discussions.