“Permission to Kill”: The Narrative and Practice of Extrajudicial Killings in the Duterte

Administration’s ‘War on Drugs’— A Case Analysis Anchored to Amnesty International’s ‘If You

Are Poor, You Are Killed’ (2017).

I. Introduction / Background of the Case

From mid-2016, President Rodrigo Duterte launched an aggressive nationwide anti-drug

campaign framed as a moral and public-security imperative. The campaign combined police

operations (“Oplan Double Barrel” and “tokhang” house visits) with public rhetoric that at times

appeared to condone or celebrate killings of suspects. Independent monitoring and human-rights

organizations documented thousands of killings, many described as extrajudicial (police

“encounter” deaths, vigilante-style killings, and deaths under ambiguous circumstances).

Amnesty International’s 2017 investigation argued that the poor were disproportionately targeted

and that the narrative deployed by the state dehumanized victims, facilitating impunity.

The case raises core questions about state power, human rights, rule of law, how discourse

(political narrative) enables violence, and the institutional checks (or their failure) in democratic

societies. Understanding the intersection of narrative, institutional practice, and accountability

efforts (national and international) is crucial for policy, human-rights advocacy, and civic

education.
 II. Statement of the Problem / Focus Question

1. How did the state narrative portray drug-related persons and justify extraordinary

measures?

2. Which institutions carried out, enabled, or failed to check EJKs?

3. What are the short and long-term social, legal, and political consequences?

4. What institutional reforms or remedies can address impunity and structural drivers?

III. Objectives of the Case Study

This case study aims:

 To analyze the functions and roles of institutions involved (state actors such as the PNP,

executive branch rhetoric, CHR, judiciary; non-state actors like vigilantes; and

international bodies).

 To evaluate the significance and impact of the drug war and EJKs on Philippine society,

governance, and human rights.

 To identify main challenges (data manipulation, impunity, weakened oversight, social

polarization) and propose actionable recommendations for accountability, policy reform,

and victim redress.

I.V. Presentation of the Case (Narrative)

Anchor article / narrative frame

Amnesty International’s 2017 report titled “If you are poor, you are killed” documents patterns

of killings and argues that the public and official narrative— depicting drug users and low-level
suspects as a scourge and criminals— created a permissive climate in which extrajudicial killings

became normalized and disproportionately affected the urban poor. Amnesty’s field interviews,

case studies, and pattern analysis form the narrative anchor for this study.

Key facts and timeline (selected, illustrative)

 June 30, 2016 — Rodrigo Duterte inaugurated and immediately prioritized an

uncompromising anti-drug campaign. Duterte’s public statements signaled willingness to

tolerate lethal force.

 2016–2019 — Human rights organizations, independent trackers (e.g., University of the

Philippines/DAHAS), and media reported thousands of killings. Estimates vary: official

counts (police) reported lower validated numbers; rights groups and independent

databases reported far higher totals. This discrepancy and disputes over counting became

a political issue.

 2017–2018 — Groundbreaking NGO reports (HRW, Amnesty) documented patterns of

staged “buy-bust” encounters, planting of evidence, and vigilante-style killings —

pointing to systemic problems and impunity.

 August 2017 / Kian delos Santos case — The CCTV, witness testimony, and subsequent

conviction of three police officers for murdering 17-year-old Kian delos Santos

(conviction in Nov 2018) became a landmark case demonstrating state accountability is

possible but rare.

 2019–2023 — UN mechanisms and the International Criminal Court (ICC) moved

through preliminary examinations; the ICC later authorized investigations into alleged
 crimes against humanity arising from the campaign. The Philippine government’s

cooperation and data transparency remained contested.

Actors

 State actors: President (executive rhetoric and directives), Philippine National Police

(operations, alleged complicity), local officials (mayors), Department of Justice,

Commission on Human Rights (CHR — oversight and investigations), courts.

 Non-state actors: Vigilante groups and unidentified gunmen; local community actors;

civil society and families of victims; media (investigative outlets such as Rappler, local

journalists).

Narrative mechanisms (how speech enabled practice)

 Dehumanizing language: Official rhetoric described drug users/pushers as “vermin” or

threats to society, reducing empathy and facilitating support for harsh measures. Amnesty

and HRW documented how this discourse contributed to public tolerance of killings.

 Performance of toughness: The “tough on crime” narrative rewarded visible results

(arrests/deaths), incentivizing aggressive policing.

 Information control & data politics: Official “validated” counts

(#TheRealNumbersPH) were circulated to challenge higher NGO figures; accusations of

data manipulation and lack of transparency complicated accountability.

Evidence & quotes (examples)

 Amnesty International’s title phrase encapsulates the narrative and lived reality: “If you

are poor, you are killed.” (Amnesty report).

implicated in killings.

IV. Analysis of the Case

The researcher break the analysis into institutional, functional, significance, and challenges —

then interpret through theoretical lenses.

A. Institutions involved & their functions

1. Executive branch (President & Palace communications)

o Function: policy direction, public rhetoric, appointments. Duterte’s statements set

a permissive tone. The executive also promoted programs (tokhang, Oplan

Double Barrel) that structured police operations.

2. Philippine National Police (PNP)

o Function: operational enforcement; responsible for most documented “anti-drug”

operations declared by the state. NGOs allege many operations involved

extrajudicial killings, staged encounters, and planting of evidence.

3. Commission on Human Rights (CHR)

o Function: national human-rights watchdog; investigated and issued findings on

drug-related EJKs but lacked enforcement power to prosecute. CHR reports and

statements pushed for investigations and redress.

4. Judiciary & Prosecutorial bodies

the system can work, but broader systemic impunity remained.

5. International institutions (UN, ICC)

o Function: international oversight and accountability. The ICC’s preliminary

examination and later actions reflect international mechanisms stepping in when

domestic efforts fall short.

6. Civil society & media

o Function: documentation, advocacy, public pressure. Investigative journalism

(e.g., Rappler, Reuters) and NGOs (HRW, Amnesty) provided key evidence and

narratives that shaped international responses.

B. Functions performed (practical outcomes)

 Short term: crackdown visibility, claimed reduction of certain drug market metrics

(debatable), political signaling of toughness.

 Long term: erosion of rule of law norms, widespread human-rights harms for

families/children, polarization of public opinion, damage to trust in law enforcement,

international investigations (ICC) and diplomatic costs.

C. Significance (impact)

 On society: deep trauma for families; increased fear in communities; stigma and

marginalization of the urban poor; children orphaned or left behind.

 On governance: weakened accountability institutions; politicization of security;

international reputational costs and legal exposure (ICC).

treatment/harm-reduction; chilling effect on healthcare outreach and drug-treatment

programs.

D. Challenges and controversies (weaknesses)

1. Impunity & weak prosecutions: very few convictions relative to alleged killings;

selective accountability (Kian as exception).

2. Data disputes & transparency: official vs NGO counts; government campaigns to

discredit critical figures (#TheRealNumbersPH).

3. Narrative polarization: strong public support among many citizens for “order,” making

political reform difficult.

4. Legal/institutional constraints: CHR limited enforcement capacity; political pressure on

prosecutors/judges; threats and “red-tagging” of activists and journalists.

5. International diplomacy vs sovereignty arguments: government pushback against

UN/ICC involvement framed interventions as foreign interference; this complicated

cooperation.

E. Theoretical framing (defendable choices)

Hegemonic/Gramscian analysis: The state’s narrative (produced by the executive and amplified

in some media/municipal politics) created a “common-sense” legitimacy for extraordinary

measures. By framing drugs as existential social scourge and associating drug users with

criminality, the administration manufactured consent or acquiescence among segments of the

populace — enabling coercive practice without broad resistance. This fits Gramsci’s idea of
ideological leadership and consent-building; the rhetorical delegitimization of victims is a key

step in normalizing violence. (Defendable because Amnesty/HRW documented the

dehumanizing rhetoric and disproportionate targeting of the poor.)

State-crime theory / institutional capture: When policing agencies operate under political

incentives that reward “results” (body counts, arrests) without independent oversight,

institutional capture and collusion with illegal actors become likely. Evidence of staged

encounters, planting of evidence, and police impunity supports this lens.

Human rights & transitional justice lens: Given scale and patterns, international mechanisms

(e.g., ICC) and transitional-justice remedies (truth, reparations, institutional reform) are

appropriate complements to domestic remedies.

7. (Examples & Real-life Challenges) — short cases

 Kian delos Santos (2017) — a high-profile extrajudicial killing captured on CCTV; three

police officers were later convicted (2018). The case catalyzed outrage and showed

accountability is possible but exceptional.

 Data politics (2019) — government launched #TheRealNumbersPH to contest NGO

higher death-toll estimates; this demonstrated how institutional actors shape facts and

public perception to avoid scrutiny.

VII. Conclusion

The Duterte administration’s “war on drugs” combined a politically powerful narrative that

dehumanized suspected drug users (especially the poor) with institutional policies and policing

practices that produced thousands of deaths and deep social harm. While a small number of
domestic convictions occurred, the overall pattern indicated systemic impunity and weak

domestic accountability — prompting international scrutiny (UN, ICC). The case demonstrates

how political narrative and incentives can transform policing from a rule-bound public service

into an instrument of lethal exclusion when oversight is weak and public consent is

manufactured.

9. Recommendations

(organized, actionable, policy-oriented)

A. Immediate/short term

1. Independent, well-resourced national inquiry / truth-seeking into drug-related EJKs

(mandated subpoena power, victim participation, forensic capacity). (CHR + international

technical support.)

2. Targeted prosecutions: strengthen prosecutorial independence to pursue credible cases

beyond isolated convictions; protect witnesses and families; expedite key cases.

3. Victim reparations & social support: set up efficient compensation and psychosocial

programs for families and children of victims.

B. Institutional reforms

4. Police reforms: revise incentive structures (no “body-count” metrics), mandatory body-worn

cameras, independent civilian oversight boards with disciplinary powers, transparent operation

reporting.

5. Data transparency & independent monitoring: establish a public, independent database of

status to improve accountability and reduce information manipulation.

C. Policy & public health

6. Shift from punitive to public-health approaches: invest in harm-reduction, treatment,

poverty-alleviation and alternatives to incarceration for low-level drug offenses.

D. International & legal

7. Cooperate with credible international mechanisms while safeguarding due-process: accept

technical assistance for investigations, forensic capacity, and trial support. Where domestic

capacity is insufficient, support ICC/UN processes as complementary avenues for justice.

References / Sources (APA 7)

1. Amnesty International. (2017). If you are poor, you are killed: Extrajudicial executions in

the Philippines’ “war on drugs” (Report). Amnesty International.

[Link] Amnesty International+1

on drugs” (Report). HRW. [Link]

police-killings-dutertes-war-drugs. Human Rights Watch

3. Human Rights Watch. (2020). “Our happy family is gone”: Impact of the “war on

drugs” on children in the Philippines (Report). HRW.

[Link]

children-philippines. Human Rights Watch

4. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2020).

Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of

human rights in the Philippines. [Link]

_OHCHR_Philippines_briefing_final-[Link]. Harm Reduction International

5. International Criminal Court (ICC). (2023). Philippines situation (ICC page).

[Link] International Criminal Court

6. Reuters. (2019, July 18). War on numbers: Philippines targets drug killing data. Reuters.

[Link]

data-idUSKCN1UD1AG. Reuters

7. Al Jazeera. (2018, Sept. 28). Rodrigo Duterte: ‘My only sin is extrajudicial killings’. Al

Jazeera. [Link]

extrajudicial-killings. Al Jazeera

8. The Guardian. (2024, Oct. 28). Duterte tells Philippines ‘war on drugs’ inquiry he kept a

death squad. The Guardian. [Link]

duterte-testifies-philippines-war-on-drugs-inquiry. The Guardian

President Duterte detailed by court. AP News.

[Link] AP News

10. Time. (2017). This is the latest chilling statistic to emerge from the Philippine war on

drugs. Time. [Link]

TIME

11. The New York Times. (various). Coverage of the Philippines war on drugs. (See NYT

archives). New York City Bar Association

12. U.S. Department of State. (2019). Philippines 2019 Human Rights Report.

[Link]

[Link]. State Department

13. Amnesty International (press release). (2018, Nov 29). First conviction of police officers

in 'war on drugs' shows its deadly reality. [Link]

release/2018/11/philippines-first-conviction-of-police-officers-in-war-on-drugs-shows-

its-deadly-reality/ Amnesty International

14. Reuters (2018/2019 coverage). Reporting on police convictions and wider investigations.

(Multiple pieces). Reuters

15. ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project). (2021). The drug war rages

on in the Philippines (Report). [Link]

ACLED
16. Rappler / GIJN. (2019). Investigative and reporting guides / mapping of killings. See:

[Link]

the-philippines/. Global Investigative Journalism Network

17. University of the Philippines / DAHAS. (database). Drug-related Killings Database.

[Link] [Link]

18. Office of the Commission on Human Rights (Philippines). (2021). Statement and CHR

reports on drug-related extrajudicial killings.

[Link]

gana-on-the-findings-of-the-commission-on-human-rights-report-on-drug-related-

extrajudicial-killings-in-the-country/ CHR Philippines

19. The Guardian (2019). UN launches ‘comprehensive’ review of Philippine drug war.

[Link]

philippine-drug-war. The Guardian

20. Time (2017). Philippines sees the bloodiest night of Duterte's drug war.

[Link] TIME

21. Office of the New York City Bar (Caravana / fact-finding). (2025). Report of a Fact-

Finding Mission on Extrajudicial Killings (PDF).

[Link]

[Link]. New York City Bar Association

22. OMCT / child rights networks. (2020). Kian delos Santos anniversary/child killing

report. [Link]

OMCT
23. ABC News / major media (2018). Three policemen convicted of murder in deadly

Philippines drug war. [Link]

deadly-philippines-drug-war/story?id=59496359. ABC News

24. Global Initiative / Mindanao insecurity briefing (2020). Insecurity in Mindanao (report).

[Link]

[Link]. Global Initiative

25. McGill Human Rights (2020). “The Philippines 'war on drugs' (Read: The Poor): The

policy and its impacts” (paper).

[Link]