Securitization in the Philippines’ Drug War: Disclosing the Power- Relations between Duterte, Filipino Middle Class, and the Urban Poor

Muhammad Anugrah Utama Department Ilmu Hubungan Internasional Universitas Gadjah Mada [email protected]

ABSTRACT Since his inauguration in late June 2016, Duterte has adopted “shoot-to-kill” policy for suspected criminals and drug addicts. Despite public support, the policy received growing international backlash over extra-judicial killing and mass slaughter of youth, mainly the urban poor communities. This paper attempts to analyze the process of securitization waged by President Duterte to construct a state of emergency of drugs so that extraordinary yet outrageous measures can be justified by using the Copenhagen School’s securitization concept developed by Buzan, Waever, and Wilde (1998). This paper argues that President Duterte’s speech acts and politicization of threats successfully build public support of harsher law enforcement on drug- related crime. Furthermore, the paper also connects the dot between the securitization of drugs as Duterte’s political weapon and the disproportionate impact it has on the minority poor and vulnerable children. Using the critical application of securitization theory developed by Charett (2009), the paper concludes that the asymmetrical power relations will lead to securitizing actor maintaining its power in the expense of oppressing the marginalized voice, especially the minority poor and children population, thus de-securitization model (Hansen, 2012) is more effective in dealing drug-related crimes in the Philippines. Keywords: Securitization of Drugs; War on Drugs; Duterte; Philippines

ABSTRAK Sejak pelantikannya pada akhir Juni 2016, Duterte telah mengadopsi kebijakan "shoot-to-kill" untuk pelaku kriminal dan pecandu narkoba. Walaupun mendapat dukungan publik, kebijakan tersebut menerima reaksi internasional yang meningkat atas pembunuhan ekstra-yudisial dan pembantaian massal kaum muda, terutama masyarakat miskin di perkotaan. Makalah ini mencoba untuk menganalisis proses sekuritisasi yang dilakukan oleh Presiden Duterte untuk membangun keadaan darurat narkoba sehingga tindakan luar biasa namun keterlaluan dapat dibenarkan dengan menggunakan konsep sekuritisasi Copenhagen School yang dikembangkan oleh Buzan, Waever, dan Wilde (1998). Makalah ini berpendapat bahwa pidato Presiden Duterte dan politisasi ancaman berhasil membangun dukungan publik terhadap penegakan hukum yang lebih keras pada kejahatan terkait narkoba. Selain itu, makalah ini juga menghubungkan antara sekuritisasi obat sebagai senjata politik Duterte dan dampak yang tidak proporsional yang dimilikinya terhadap minoritas miskin dan anak-anak yang rentan. Dengan aplikasi kritis dari teori sekuritisasi yang dikembangkan oleh Charett (2009), makalah ini menyimpulkan bahwa hubungan kekuasaan asimetris akan menyebabkan aktor sekuritisasi mempertahankan kekuasaannya dengan mengorbankan penindasan suara yang terpinggirkan, terutama minoritas

Indonesian Journal of International Relations, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 41-61 © 2021 Indonesian Association for International Relations ISSN 2548-4109 electronic ISSN 2657-165X printed Securitization in the Philippines’ Drug War 42

miskin dan populasi anak-anak, sehingga model desekuritisasi (Hansen, 2012) lebih efektif dalam menangani kejahatan terkait narkoba di Filipina. Kata kunci: Sekuritisasi Narkoba; Perang melawan Narkoba; Duterte; Filipina

Introduction door-to-door operations (Simbulan President Rodrigo Duterte’s promise to et.al., 2019). The anti-drug campaign has kill drug dealers, addicts, and criminals been dubbed as “Operation Double successfully attracted public support in Barrel” in which one of its major his presidential campaign which led to operations, the Oplan Tokhang in order his landslide victory by 6.6 million votes to “knock and plead” drug addicts and compared to his closest rival in the 2016 pushers which can lead to dozens killed election. Associating himself to Adolf in just one-night operation. To date, Hitler, Duterte pledged to slaughter three Duterte’s hardline “war on drugs” has million drug addicts and claimed the claimed the life of 12,000 Filipinos, country could become a “narco-state.” mostly urban poor, and at least 2,555 However, the drug problem in the killings have been attributed to the Philippines may not be as bad as Duterte Philippine National Police (Human has portrayed. Dangerous Drugs Board Rights Watch, 2020). (DDB) reported in the 2015 Nationwide Not only the number is terrifying, Survey that the current drug use but most of the killings are conducted prevalence among Filipinos aged 10 to extra-judicial or without due process in 69 years old is at 2.3%, or an estimated the name of eliminating drug crime 1.8 million users, much lower than where the perpetrators, be it the Duterte’s figure of three million drug Philippine National Police officers or addicts, showing how the statistics he unidentified “vigilantes,” enjoy used might have been flawed or impunity (Johnson & Fernquest, 2018). exaggerated (Baldwin & Marshall, The campaign received international 2016). condemnation from human rights Since the start of the “war on activists, international organizations, and drugs,” Duterte administration has even the International Criminal Court mobilized the Philippine National Police which begin to conduct a “preliminary and local governments unit to use examination.” Despite international punitive measures, engaging in extensive backlash, Duterte enjoys relatively high

43 International Journal of International Relations popularity and support from the public. politics. Even most Filipinos believe that This paper attempts to answer the drug-related crimes rate has decreased, process of how a securitizing actor, however, homicides and extrajudicial President Duterte, subjectively assess killings continue to surge and have and construct a threat, drugs, to a state- disproportionate impacts minorities, survival level so that the use of specifically among the urban poor and extraordinary measures can be justified children (Kim et.al., 2017). This paper even supported by society, despite the finally attempts to make visible the hardline policies seem to have an power relations between Duterte, the unprecedented impact on homicides and state elites, the general Filipino middle- extrajudicial killings and class, and the urban poor: their roles in disproportionately target the poor securitization and how they are impacted populations. by the campaign. This paper argues that by using pervasive and relatable speech acts Conceptual Framework politicizing the threat of drug-related In international relations, the concept of crimes, Duterte has successfully created security is connected with the a state of emergency and capitalized Copenhagen School as a synthesis of public support for his policies. Danilo constructivist approach which focuses Reyes (2016) dubbed the policy as a on a process-oriented conception of spectacle of violence, sending a message security instead of the materialist to intimidate other potential abusers in approaches of classical security theorists which law-abiding citizens have a sense (Williams, 2003). Buzan, Wæver, & of feeling safe knowing that the threat Wilde (1998) define securitization as a has been eliminated by Duterte’s process of state actors transforming policies. Supporting the argument, this subjects into matters of “security” which paper will further analyze the possible involves an extreme version of motives and impacts the policies have, politicization to justify the use of that Duterte himself benefits from extraordinary means and without the securitization which – as emphasized by normal (democratic) rules and Kennert & Eligh (2019) – is to gain deliberations in policy-making prominence and reinforce his power in Securitization in the Philippines’ Drug War 44

The concept occupies the middle To prevent ‘everything’ from ground between the traditionalist vs becoming a security issue, Buzan, wideners debate in security whereas Waever, and Wilde (1998) identified securitization explains how non-military successful securitization to consist of issues have been transformed into the three steps: (1) identification of security of state concerns. The school existential threats; (2) establishing the believes that threat is constructed need for an emergency action; (3) a therefore is subjective and that security rejection of rules which govern inter-unit issue is politicized. Thus, the concept relations under normal conditions. This seeks “to determine how, by whom, paper will utilize a qualitative research under what circumstances, and with what method that will focus on analyzing consequences a certain issue is classified speech acts by Duterte if they qualified as existential threats but not others” the indicator of successful securitization. (Eriksson, 1999). The past research on drugs policy The concept central to in Southeast Asia, notably by James securitization is speech act which has Windle (2016) in Vietnam and Thailand specific grammar and rhetorical and Yanu Widiyono (2017) in Indonesia structure in the attempt of framing and focuses on the process and policy lifting the issue above politics. implication of securitization, but there McDonald (2008) outlines four main are gaps in explaining who are involved elements of securitization through and their power relations in the process, speech acts: (1) The securitizing actor even though such explanations are who initiates the process by declaration. necessary to understand why securitized (2) The issue (an existential threat) that policies tend to have disproportionate is shifted into emergency mode beyond impact on certain groups. In analyzing normal politics. (3) A referent object the consequences of securitization, this whose survival is threatened and must be paper will use a critical application of the protected by extraordinary means. (4) securitization theory, countering the Public acceptance to justify the use of assumption that everyone is involved extraordinary means. This paper will equally in the process of securitization. identify McDonald’s four elements in Even though a successful securitization analyzing Duterte’s speech acts. requires agreement between the

45 International Journal of International Relations securitizing actor(s) and the public, we the power that state elites have over the should not neglect the power structure ‘regime of truth’ of security (Bigo, between the statist elite, the general 2002). This paper will analyze the public, and the perceived, thus they are impact of the securitization of drugs in playing unequal roles in securitization. the Philippines not just on minority The critical application of groups but also to the long term securitization theory developed recently effectivity of the drug war. In the end, by Charett (2009) attempts to challenge this paper will try to present an the normative dilemma by firstly, alternative model on securitization by disclosing the power that elites maintain taking into account the marginalized and over securitized policies, secondly, dissenting voices. presenting the tool to counter elite utterances by seeking out dissenting or Results and Discussions: Theorising Securitization of Drugs marginalized voice of securitization. through Duterte’s Speech Acts This article will attempt to uncover the power structure of Duterte (and his “Hitler massacred three million administration), the general Filipino Jews. Now, there are three public, and the marginalized voice of the million drug addicts. I'd be happy urban poor and the role each group has to slaughter them. I would like to over securitization process, thus making finish the problem of my country sense on the impacts of the drug war to and save the next generation the urban poor. from perdition,” (Villamor, The theory problematizes the 2016). power that elites maintain over defining security policy which excludes certain The sentence uttered by Duterte groups and ideas, resulting in negative as the securitizing actor was one of the consequences not only for the groups but most controversial not just because of also for the whole community (Wyn praising Hitler, but also brutal grammar Jones, 1999). Securitization theory needs and harsh rhetoric “slaughter.” In to be dislodged from its narrow focus on another speech, Duterte vowed that state elites by also disclosing the under his rule fish in Manila Bay would dissenting discourse and deneutralizing grow fat from the bodies of drug users Securitization in the Philippines’ Drug War 46

and addicts (Murdoch, 2017). Just justified to be killed even without due several months in his campaign, Duterte process. Therefore, the threat is not the also urged people to kill drug addicts, drugs per se, but the persons that are even promised to give them medal for using and engaging in the drug business. doing it. It is important to note that drugs Duterte also deployed loaded and criminality were not a major national words such as “failed-state,” concern until his candidacy. After taking “lawlessness,” or “narco-state” his oath inside the presidential palace, hyperbolizing and creating his “regime the leader spoke in a speech using vulgar of truth” on how the state is alarmed by and profanity words in front of a crowd the plague of drugs. From his speeches, of 500 people in a Manila slum: the referent object is not only the societal sector which is the security of the “These sons of whores are children, families, and communities as a destroying our children. I warn whole, but also the state in economic, you, don’t go into that, even if political, and even military (security) you’re a policeman, because I sector, claiming that the lawlessness will really kill you,” (The (criminality) and socio-economic Guardian, 2016). decline are caused by drug-related crimes. Duterte uses the framing of Generally, the general Filipino “destroying our children, our state” to public is in favor of the war on drugs and construct drugs as an existential threat is satisfied with the measures exercised compared to another threat as his by the Duterte administration, even political opponent, Risa Hontiveros, though they feel like the killings are not said, to move attention away from really necessary. Duterte has poverty (Hincks, 2016). Duterte successfully enjoyed overwhelming attributed declining socio-economic support of 82% and a net satisfaction of growth to drug addiction and drug “excellent” (+70) in an independent trafficking. Moreover, Duterte also survey in 2019 with only 12% net dehumanizes drug users as no more dissatisfaction (Flores, 2019). The humans and that drug-related crime is the dissenting voices mostly come from root cause of all crimes, thus they are activists, human rights advocates, and

47 International Journal of International Relations those who have become victims and will be packed,” (Human Rights suffered trauma from the drug war. This Watch, 2017). interplay between securitizing actor and the acceptance from audience Duterte has continuously called demonstrates a successful securitizing for the killing of drug traffickers and move. drug addicts using profanity words such In analyzing the process of as “son of a bitch,” even to as far as securitization by Duterte, it is important calling for “shoot-to-kill” policy without to note that Duterte initiates his due process to the Philippine National presidential term on 30 June 2016, with Police and even vigilantes, as Human words “need to be addressed with Rights Watch dubbed “giving the license urgency … rampant sale of illegal to permit extrajudicial killings.” Duterte drugs.” As the first step of securitization has been mobilizing extraordinary of drugs, Duterte signed a declaration of measures to respond to the “emergency” a “state of national emergency” which of drug-related crimes. In 2017, Duterte equates criminality including the use and planned a controversial move to involve trade of drugs to other extraordinary the military as he calls police to be crimes such as bombing and terrorism “corrupt from the core,” due to his which are causing lawlessness in allegation of police officer involved in Mindanao. The presidential the drug trade. proclamation orders the Philippine law enforcement officials to carry out "I'm taking in the AFP (Armed suppression of violence including drug- Forces of the Philippines) and related crimes “as may be permitted in raising the issue of drugs as a the Constitution and existing laws.” national security threat so that I (Official Gazette, 2016). will call on all the armed forces to assist," (Regencia, 2017). “When I become president, I will order the police to find those The Government has asserted people [dealing or using drugs] that majority of killings have been and kill them. The funeral parlors committed by vigilantes “fed up with the current justice system.” Duterte Securitization in the Philippines’ Drug War 48

administration officials have always be swayed by the popular opinion or few cultivated a public sentiment among who dissent have less power, and the Filipinos – particularly those living in marginalized community might be high-density, poor areas affected by the excluded from the process and face drug economy – that “real” justice could disproportionate impact from securitized only take place outside of the courtroom policies. (Kennert & Eligh, 2019). The way Duterte benefited from Duterte justifies his anti-drug campaign securitizing the issue of drugs, gaining calling for as life-or-death struggle political popularity since his campaign against a “drug menace,” (Kine, 2017) for presidency. The ‘Dutertismo’ style represents the full process of has been described by a Filipino securitization as Duterte rejects the past Journalist, Randy David as “pure law enforcement by the court and law theater” rather than the rational enforcer and calls for more extraordinary application of ideas to society’s measures such as ordering military or problems” while the other adopted a even vigilantes to kill as well as police more positive tone describing the officer without due process. phenomenon as an anti-elite and revolutionary “radical politics” Disclosing the Power Structure: (Labastin, 2018). Duterte’s machismo Duterte’s Power among the Filipino was widely described as the “punisher” The critical securitization theory and having a “reputation for toughness explains that a successful securitization and honesty.” Duterte’s net satisfaction is best explained by uncovering the remains high at 70% as of May 2017, power structure of the actor, therefore it steadily higher compared to his is not just a mere intersubjective predecessors according to a survey agreement among the subjects (Charett, conducted by Social Weather Station 2009). Waever explicitly states that “by (The Economist, 2017). In 2019, definition, something is a security Duterte’s net satisfaction even reaches a problem when the elites declare it so” new record as ‘excellent’ with +72 net (Waever, 1995). States elite due to their satisfaction score and 82% Filipinos advantaged position over articulating saying they are satisfied with Duterte’s security threats, the general public might performance, however that might change

49 International Journal of International Relations in 2020 due to Covid-19 factor (Tomacruz, 2020).

Figure 1: Philippines’ Presidents Net Satisfaction

Source: Social Weather Stations, reprocessed by The Economist

Duterte’s popularity illustrates Duterte utilizes social media to the growing wave of strongman leaders tarnish opponents, deploying internet who use rhetorical coercion for the trolls to curb criticism, intimidating dissenting opponents. While Thompson those who have not yet spoken out, and (2016) stated that the failure of liberal mobilized mass constituency through democratic promises in or failure of social media, Facebook in particular, human rights discourses led to the rise of with the use of radical rhetoric Duterte, hereby I argue that Duterte’s portraying a corrupt elite that coddles popularity was mainly due to his success drug dealers and addicts. He also using on securitizing drug as a national judiciary to muzzle press and his emergency, earning a reputation as a political opponents, for instance, a tough leader who exploits the society’s Philippine Senator, Leila de Lima, who insecurity by creating a sense of criticized him for extrajudicial killings emergency, be it through exaggerated or was convicted of taking bribes from drug false statistics, his coercive rhetorics. dealers (Thompson, 2016; Bernstein, Duterte also used authoritarian moves to 2020). Duterte is also known for dissing intimidate political opponents or activists, human rights advocates, and dissenting voices and awaken fascist even international bodies and figures. He spirit with anti-Western values to literally raised middle finger to the invalidate international critics (Pernia, European Union and call Obama a “son 2019). of a whore” for meddling in the Securitization in the Philippines’ Drug War 50

country’s human rights situation (Curato securitizing actor plays the highest role & Ong, 2018). in influencing and creating the “regime Duterte might claim or brand of truth” as opposed to the normal himself to be the anti-elite, anti- politics where more democratic establishment, or outsider of the politics, bargaining could happen. Even though but his strongest support did not come most Filipino – including those from the from the poorest voters but rather from lower-class who were bought with the the “other” elites and the middle class idea of drugs causing socio-economic (Thompson, 2016). Duterte has been problems – hated what he’s doing, but targeting liberal and traditional business they feel like it’s the necessary steps to oligarchs using his bureaucratic power. be done and willing to accept the In fact, he has been replacing them with draconian measures. The middle-class a new “yellow” elite coalition – mostly Filipino plays a major role as the from his Davao connections, for majority urban population in instance, Dennis Uy – who contributes to legitimizing Duterte’s cause of the drug Duterte’s campaign donor and support war. for his authority to enforce his law-and- Duterte activated and exploited order monopolistic narrative in exchange the agency of the precarity and insecurity of preferential treatment for their of the wealthier middle-class (Ramos, company (Heydarian, 2019). Duterte 2020) by politicizing fear, especially selectively attacks liberal and traditional among the workers living in urban areas oligarchs, replacing them with his where criminality and drug-related “Dutertegarchs” who supports his crimes are perceived as rampant and policies, giving him enough power to disturbing. As drug-related crimes have remove institutional constraint to his been associated with the urban poor, violent anti-drug campaign. majority of the urban population which The power Duterte has through consists of a more educated and his bureaucratic power and monopoly of wealthier middle class welcomes the discourse has influenced the majority effort of Duterte to strike upon the middle class or silenced the unheard imminent “disease” of the society. Thus, voices from the general Filipino public. the Duterte phenomenon is not a revolt In the emergency mode of politics, a of the “anti-elite” poor, but is driven by

51 International Journal of International Relations the angry protest of the relatively as the source of “trash” (drug-addicts) wealthier and more educated new middle and that they are persecuted like animals, class (Teehankee, 2016). thus explaining why their voices are Kusaka (2017) furthers the powerless. Few people filled a case argument on how Duterte uses “social against the Philippine National Police bandit-like” morality, building a but mostly the poor can do nothing but to narrative on “cleaning” and shaping the remain silent and accept the poor from immorality, linking drugs as monopolistic discourse the Duterte the source of other crimes and administration has, that they are being underdevelopment. Poverty and “saved” from the danger of drugs. unemployment are the root causes of drug-related crimes, however Duterte The Impact of War on Drugs: Seeking successfully transformed the discourse Marginalized Voice the other way around and monopoly the There has not been so much reliable and definition and construction of threat. aggregated data that can be cited in terms Human Rights Watch reported in 2017 of killings of the urban poor in Duterte’s by citing several news sources such as war on drugs. However, the data from Reuters and Time magazine that there Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) from are concerns about “dubious data” 2009-2014 indicated that an Duterte used as exaggerated, flawed, or overwhelming amount of rehab patients non-existent, illustrating how drug from drugs are male from low-income problems are not as bad as the president families with average income below depicts to be. P11,000 in urban areas despite the People in the low-income bracket average income of the Philippines being have the least amount of capital which P22,000. In recent data by DDB in 2018, translated to a weak ability to influence most drug abusers are unemployed his campaign, their dissenting voices are (50.06%) and underage, mostly high unheard as they are persecuted in high- school-educated (28.14%). From this intensity and without prior warning profile, it is clear that the poor, unlike those from middle- and upper- unemployed, and the underage will be class (Jun You, 2018). The poor and disproportionately affected by Duterte’s slum neighborhood has been stigmatized war on drugs. Securitization in the Philippines’ Drug War 52

Figure 2: Profile of Drug Patients in Rehabilitation Facilities

Source: DDB Website, reprocessed by Rappler (2016)

Drug users come from all there, the police benefits from killing economic classes, but the police target with payments ranging from P8,000 – the poor and rarely crackdown on drug P15,000, even worse, they also stole users in middle- and upper-class goods from the already impoverished neighborhoods (Jun You, 2018). Police families and made them pay for each as well as vigilantes or dressing as body – providing them the incentive to vigilantes stormed into poverty-stricken kill (Wells, 2017). neighborhood, rushed into houses, and The government has claimed that without prior notice shoot or kill alleged the drug-related crime rate had decreased drug addicts or drug traffickers. About and that the government is “winning” the 40 percent of the killings were conducted drug war. The public opinion seems to in the slums of Metro Manila and most agree that criminality has dropped due to victims were construction workers, Duterte’s war on drugs. During Duterte’s vendors, drivers, farmers, those with first year in office (2016-2017), while all low-income, or even unemployed crimes drop by 9.8%, killings including (Coronel et.al., 2019). The poor, murders and homicides rise by 22.75% criminals, and those who lived at the (Talabong, 2017). The killings margin whom Duterte calls living in overwhelmingly targeted vulnerable “low-lives” have their bodies laid in the communities: urban poor and their streets, made into text by placards, children. The impact of the anti-drug humiliated, and paraded in public campaign was human rights abuses (Reyes, 2016). The cruelty doesn’t stop (right to due process), extrajudicial

53 International Journal of International Relations killings, and a climate of impunity – the socio-economic reasons of people causing homicide and murder rates to engaging in the drug business in order to skyrocket. Instead of war on drugs, demonize former President Beniqno Duterte is declaring war on the urban Aquino whose presidency arguably poor, specifically those who have been facilitated economic growth despite accused of drug-related crimes. increasing crime rate (Regilme, 2020). Overly-securitized policies By disclosing the power-relations in benefit and reinforce the power of state securitization of a certain threat, we elites, while securitization tends to would be able to understand that there ignore and even has a disproportionate are marginalized dissenting voices that impact on marginalized groups, in the have been silenced by the “loud and case of Duterte’s war on drugs it’s the tough” campaign of war on drugs. urban poor and children (Kim et.al, 2017). The “rescuing” mission does not “Those who are rich are jailed provide them protection but exposed and turned into witnesses. How them as targets of abuse and violence. come the poor are being killed? Families are torn apart as men are In our neighborhood…they usually the breadwinner of the already usually kill those of us who have impoverished family, driving the family families – people who sell to further into poverty. Many children have a little money. If people had suffered lasting harm from other opportunities, they psychological distress, economic wouldn’t,” (Wells, 2017). hardship worsens by the death of a family breadwinner, as well as the Duterte’s war on drugs is an stigma in society (Conde, 2020). effort to reinforce his political power and Duterte’s administration legitimacy using his already strong eliminated the people instead of asking bureaucratic power at the expense of the why they are engaged in the industry in urban poor. State power as Reyes (2016) the very first place. Duterte has been able argued, is exercised in a spectacle of to shift the discourse of poverty to drug- body humiliation and violence to those related criminality and that the latter whose voices are unheard and often caused the former, simplistically ignore ignored. Duterte has exploited society’s Securitization in the Philippines’ Drug War 54

political agency, especially among the around as Duterte may have thought. middle class, by the interplay of politics There are strong links between poverty, of anxiety and hope (Curato, 2016), inequalities, and drug use as well as justifying his extraordinary measures in fragile family bonds, psychological the war on drugs; killing the poor, discomfort, low job opportunities, and destroying families, while ignoring few community sources (Shaw et.al, socio-economic issues. 2007). As DDB chairman, Dionisio Santiago, stressed, drug proliferation En Route to Desecuritization: plagues the poor community the most, Adressing Socio-Economic Issues of therefore if they did not get shot, they Drugs will die out of hunger or disease because The critical application of securitization they don’t have money for medicine theory is to overcome the normative (Talabong, 2017). dilemma in the theory itself that While many people believe the asymmetrical power-relations in the crime rates might have fallen in the short process of securitization led to term due to the current drug war, the disproportionate negative effects on the long-term efficiency of the campaign is marginalized. The next step is to offer an highly-doubted. As those who are alternative model by seeking the voice of trapped in the poverty cycle have no the marginalized. The securitization choice but to engage themselves in the theory offers a concept called de- business and those who are less- securitization, which focuses on shifting educated, mentally and physically an issue outside of emergency mode into deprived – either due to poverty or normal bargaining politics to stop the use because of poverty cannot afford of extraordinary measures that brings medication – are prone to substance counterproductive results. abuse. As Duterte continuously The problem of drugs in the dehumanizes drug addicts, he fails to Philippines is deeply rooted in the issue address the socio-economic side of of poverty as we can see in DDB drugs. If he continues the oppressive statistics in Figure 2 above. It is poverty measures eliminating the people, instead that leads to drug addiction and of the root causes of the drug-problem trafficking, instead of the other way itself, it is indeed a war on the poor.

55 International Journal of International Relations

Hansen (2012) provides four securitization of drugs includes policy theoretical frameworks of de- re-articulation. To achieve de- securitization. Two of them are “change securitization, the actor (not limited to through stabilization” and “policy re- the government) should articulate that articulation.” Change through there would be a change from an stabilization involves changing identity oppressive approach to a more humane and interest of the threat which requires but effective policy. In regards to law changing the narrative that the drug enforcement, the society must be ensured addicts and small-scale drug dealers that the due process through justice could also be a victim of socio-economic system is necessary to serve justice and problems such as poverty, is effective, therefore anti-corruption unemployment, lack of education, and policies must be socialized. The lack of access to mental and physical alternative solutions should address the health facilities. The real threat is the socio-economic issues of the poor which drug itself, people living in has been ignored by the current underdevelopment fall into prey of administration. For instance, to balance uncontrolled substances. As drug addicts the law enforcement approach, the become dependent on drugs, in most proposed campaign by DDB “Love Life, countries, they don’t have access to Fight Drugs” adopts an evidence-based affordable, humane treatment because of and holistic approach through education, the stigma of being drug addicts (Csete health, and community projects focusing et.al., 2016). The process of on social and psychological approaches. deconstructing the label of threat could Aside from supply reduction programs, be done through campaign or speech act. the campaign also focuses on demand For example, the “Love Life, Fight reduction programs which include Drugs” campaign by DDB which supporting sustainable livelihood focuses on protecting the life against the programs, civic awareness, and regional threat of the drugs as what they dubbed as well as international cooperation as “pro-life” and “pro-poor strategy,” (Manalo, 2017). (Espenido, 2018). However, the process towards After changing the identity of the de-securitization not only requires the threat, the process to deconstruct government agency to articulate a more Securitization in the Philippines’ Drug War 56

humane policy but media to shift the security of the state. Duterte implied how discourse towards evidence-based policy the current justice system and drug and health professionals to advocate a policies might not be adequate to deal public health perspective (Bombarda, with the emergency the country faced, 2018) to counter the state elites’ “regime then justify extrajudicial killings of drug- of truth”. Therefore, accountable addicts and drug-dealers. Duterte’s war research and statistic should be on drugs has received wide public encouraged as a basis for policymaking. acceptance due to his vulgar grammar As people from lower class are often and harsh rhetoric which are able to marginalized, the middle-class and create a sense of urgency of the use of influential leaders should speak up extraordinary measures. against the unprecedented impact and By disclosing the power- trauma the war has caused the relations, we finally understand that Philippines. Human rights advocates, Duterte’s bureaucratic power helps him activists, both organic and nonorganic, securitizing issues to reinforce his should educate the general Filipino political legitimacy. He utilized public about human rights, justice, and autocratic moves such as tarnishing socio-economic perspective on the drug political opponents and oppress war by seeking and amplifying the dissenting voices. His speech acts marginalized voice, the urban poor successfully activated the agency of the whose voices and justice have been taken more educated and wealthier middle- away. class by the interplay of politics of anxiety and hope. The poor who have Conclusion less influence in his campaign are the Duterte through his speech acts has victims of Duterte’s drug war as they are successfully securitized the issue of persecuted in high intensity and do not drugs, moving out the issue from the receive the same treatment as the rich public sphere to the emergency mode to when it comes to the “shoot-to-kill” justify his extraordinary measures. Drug- policy. addicts and drug-dealers have been The Philippines’ war on drugs constructed as imminent threat not only has a disproportionate impact on the poor to the society’s well-being, but also the due to blatant ignorance on the socio-

57 International Journal of International Relations economic issues which might affect the duterte-data/ (Accessed on 8 long-term effectivity of the policy as October 2020) well. This paper offers de-securitization Bautista, L. B. (2017). "Duterte and his as a means to overcome the quixotic war on drugs" consequences of the drug war. There is a University of Wollongong, Faculty of Law, Humanities and need to shift the issue out of emergency The Arts Papers. Thinking mode into the normal bargaining in the ASEAN 2-5. public sphere by seeking the voices of Bernstein, R. (2020). "The Paradox of those who have become victims and Rodrigo Duterte." The Atlantic. whose voices have been marginalized. 22 February 2020. Duterte’s notion of “just killing the https://www.theatlantic.com/inte idiots” instead of rehabilitating them, rnational/archive/2020/02/philip pines-rodrigo-duterte- which he scoffs at as an idea imported china/606754/ (Accessed on 19 from the West and is rooted in being July 2020) “soft” should be challenged (Bautista, Bigo, D. (2002). “Security and 2017). The threat is the drug itself which Immigration: Toward a Critique is exacerbated by poverty, the of the Governmentality of government needs to have a holistic Unease.” Alternatives 27: Special Issue 63-92. approach in both supply and demand reduction by rearticulating a more Buzan, B., Wæver, O., and de Wilde, J. humane policy if society’s security – not (1998). Security: A New just popularity and political legitimacy – Framework for Analysis. Boulder. Colo: Lynne Rienner is really what they are fighting for. Pub.

Charrett, C. (2009). “A Critical References Application of Securitization Theory: Overcoming the Baldwin, C. & Marshall, A. R. C. Normative Dilemma of Writing (2016). Security." International Catalan "As death toll rises, Duterte Institute for Peace, Working deploys dubious data in 'war on Paper No. 2009/7. drugs'." Reuters. 18 October 2016. Coronel, S., Kalaw-Tirol, Lorna., and https://www.reuters.com/investi Pimentel, B. (2019). “The Drug gates/special-report/philippines- Securitization in the Philippines’ Drug War 58

Killings: Who, What, Where, Cooperation and Conflict (34), When, How?” The Drug p. 315. Archive. https://drugarchive.ph/post/26- Espenido, G. (2018). "Philippines’ War the-drugkillings-who-what- on where-when-how-master. Drugs: Its Implications to Human Rights in Social Work Csete, J. et al. (2016). “Public health Practice." Journal of Human and Rights and Social Work 3. international drug policy.” Lancet; 387: 1427–80. Flores, H. "82% of Pinoys satisfied with dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140- drug war - SWS." The 6736(16)00619-X. Philippine Str. 23 September 2019. Conde, C. H. (2020). "Our Happy https://www.philstar.com/headli Family nes/2019/09/23/1954156/82- Is Gone: Impact of the "War on pinoys-satisfied-drug-war-sws/ Drugs" on Children in the (Accessed on 17 July 2020) Philippines." Human Rights Watch Report. Hansen, L. (2012). "Reconstructing https://resourcecentre.savethechi Desecuritisation: The ldren.net/node/17642/pdf/philip Normative-Political in The pines0520_web_0.pdf/ Copenhagen School and (Accessed on 20 July 2020) Directions for How to Apply It." Review of International Studies, Curato, N. (2016). “Politics of Anxiety, Vol. 38, Issue 3. Politics of Hope: Penal doi.org/10.1017/S026021051100 Populism and Duterte’s Rise to 0581 Power.” Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 35 (3). Heydarian, R. J. "Duterte replacing old elite with new in Philippines." Curato, N. & Ong, J. C. (2018). “Who Asia Times. 10 December 2019. Laughs at a Rape Joke? Illiberal https://asiatimes.com/2019/12/d Responsiveness in Rodrigo uterte-replacing-old-elite-with- Duterte’s Philippines.” Ethical new-in-philippines/ (Acessed on Responsiveness and the Politics 30 July 2020) of Difference 65. Hincks, J. "Philippines: Inside Duterte's Eriksson, O. (1999). “Observers or killer drug war." Al Jazeera. 9 Advocates? On the Political September 2016. Role of Security Analysts.” https://www.aljazeera.com/indep th/features/2016/09/philippines-

59 International Journal of International Relations

duterte-killer-drug-war- 160905094258461.html Kim, E., Dinco, J., Suamen, L., Hayes, (Accessed on 18 July 2020) M. & Papsch, T. (2017). “The "Explainer: How serious is the PH drug Impact of Securitisation on problem? Here's the data." Marginalised Groups in the Asia Rappler. 27 August 2016. Pacific: Humanising the Threats https://rappler.com/newsbreak/iq to /data-drug-problem-philippines Security in Cases from the (Accessed on 20 July 2020) Philippines, Indonesia and China.” Global Campus Human Johnson, D. T. & Fernquest, J. (2018). Rights Journal 414 (1). "Governing through Killing: The War on Drugs in the Kine, P. (2017). "Phillipine President Philippines." Asian Journal of Rodrigo Duterte's 'War on Law and Society, Volume 5, Drugs'." Harvard International Issue 2. Review Harvard International doi.org/10.1017/als.2018.12 Review Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 24- 27. Jun You, H. (2018). “The Philippines Mystery: Rodrigo Duterte's Labastin, B. A. (2018). "Two Faces of Popularity. The Cornell Dutertismo: Two Visions of International Affairs Review Democracy in the Philippines." Vol. XI. Social Ethics Society Journal of Applied Philosophy, Special Kusaka, W. (2017). "Bandit Grabbed Issue December 2018. the State: Duterte's Moral Politics." “License to Kill” Philippine Police Philippine Sociological Review Killings in Duterte’s “War on Vol. 65, Special Issue: Imagined Drugs.” Human Rights Watch Democracies. Report 2017. https://www.hrw.org/sites/defaul Kennert, M. & Eligh, M. (2019). “A t/files/report_pdf/philippines031 Militarized Political Weapon: The 7_web_1.pdf Philippines' War on Drugs” Global Initiative Against Manalo, K. (2017). "DDB game plan: Transnational Crime Report. Target supply and demand in https://globalinitiative.net/wp- drug war." ABS-CBN News. 30 content/uploads/2019/06/TGIAT October 2017. https://news.abs- OC-Drug-related-violence-in- cbn.com/news/10/30/17/ddb- the-Philippines-report-1938- game-plan-target-supply-and- web-2.pdf/ Securitization in the Philippines’ Drug War 60

demand-in-drug-war (Accessed 2016. on 30 July 2020) https://www.theguardian.com/w orld/2016/jul/01/philippines- McDonald, M. (2008). "Securitization president-rodrigo-duterte-urges- and people-to-kill-drug-addicts/ the Construction of Security." (Accessed on 16 July 2020). European Journal of International Relations, 14:4. "Philippines' 'War on Drugs'." Human doi.org/10.1177/1354066108097 Rights Watch. 2020. 553 https://www.hrw.org/tag/philippi nes-war-drugs/ (Accessed on 14 Murdoch, L. (2017). "Philippine July 2020) fishermen say they are dumping bodies in "Proclamation No. 55, s. 2016." Official Duterte's 'war on drugs'." The Gazette, Government of The Sydney Morning Herald. 31 July Philippines. 4 September 2016. 2017. https://www.officialgazette.gov. https://www.smh.com.au/world/ ph/2016/09/04/proclamation-no- philippine-fishermen-say-they- 55-s-2016/ (Accessed on 18 July are-dumping-bodies-in-dutertes- 2020) war-on-drugs-20170730- gxlmhz.html (Accessed on 15 Ramos, C. G. (2020). "Change without July 2020). Transformation: Social Policy Reforms in the Philippines under "Nationwide Survey on the Nature and Duterte.” Development and Extent of Drug Abuse in the Change Vol. 51 Issue 2. Philippines 2015." Dangerous Drugs Board of the Philippines. Regencia, T. (2017). "Duterte: 'I will https://pcij.org/uploads/5be017b kill dced4d-DDB-2015-Nationwide- more if only to get rid of drugs'." Survey-Final-Reportc.pdf/ Al Jazeera. 3 February 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news Pernia, R. A. (2019). "Human Rights in /2017/02/duterte-kill-rid-drugs- a 170202073247477.html/ Time of Populism: Philippines (Accessed on 17 July 2020). under Rodrigo Duterte." Asia- Pacific Social Science Review Regilme, S. S. F. (2020). "Visions of 19(3) Peace Amidst a Human Rights Crisis: War on Drugs in "Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte Colombia and the Philippines." urges people to kill drug Journal of Global Security addicts." The Guardian. 1 July

61 International Journal of International Relations

Studies. https://rappler.com/nation/crime doi:10.1093/jogss/ogaa022 s-killings-pnp-statistics-duterte- first-year (Accessed on 23 July Reyes, D. A. (2016). “The Spectacle of 2020) Violence in Duterte’s “War on Drugs.” Journal of Current Talabong, R. (2017). "PH drug problem Southeast Asian Affairs Vol. 35 rooted in poverty - drugs board (3). chief." Rappler. 30 October 2017. "Rodrigo Duterte’s lawless war on https://rappler.com/nation/philip drugs is pines-drug-problem-rooted- wildly popular." The Economist. poverty-ddb-chief-dionisio- 20 February 2020. santiago (Accessed on 29 July https://www.economist.com/brie 2020) fing/2020/02/20/rodrigo- dutertes-lawless-war-on-drugs- Teehankee, J. C. (2016). "Duterte’s is-wildly-popular (Accessed on Resurgent Nationalism in the 19 July 2020) Philippines: A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis." Shaw, A., Egan, J. & Gillespie, M. Journal of Current Southeast (2007). Asian Affairs, Vol. 35 (3). "Drugs and Poverty: A Literature Review." Scottish Thompson, M. R. (2016). “Bloodied Drug Forum Report. Democracy: Duterte and the www.sdf.org.uk/wp- Death of Liberal Reformism in content/uploads/2017/03/Drugs_ the Philippines.” Journal of _Poverty_Literature_Review_20 Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 07.pdf (Accessed on 28 July 35 (3). 2020) Tomacruz, S. (2020). "Duterte's Simbulan, N., Estacio, L., Dioquino- satisfaction rating reaches new Maligaso, C., Herbosa, T., & record-high." Rappler. 21 Withers, M. (2019). "The January 2020. Manila Declaration on the Drug https://www.rappler.com/nation/ Problem in the Philippines." Ann duterte-satisfaction-rating-sws- Global Health 85(1). doi: survey-december-2019 10.5334/aogh.28 (Accessed on 8 October 2020)

Talabong, R. (2017). "Except for "2018 Statistics." Dangerous Drugs killings, Board: all crimes drop in Duterte's 1st Republic of The Philippines year." Rappler. 12 August 2017. Office Securitization in the Philippines’ Drug War 62

of the President. 14 October 2019. Widiyono, Y. (2018). "The Effect of https://www.ddb.gov.ph/researc Illicit h-statistics/statistics/45- Drugs Securitization in research-and-statistics/434- Indonesia.” Master of Arts 2018-statistics (Accessed on 30 (MA), thesis, International July 2020) Studies, Old Dominion University, doi:10.25777/k6y0- Villamor, F. (2016). "Duterte, Citing 3v94 Hitler, Says He Wants to Kill 3 Million Addicts in Philippines." Windle, J. (2016). "Security trumps The New York Times. 30 drug September 2016. control: How securitization https://www.nytimes.com/2016/ explains drug policy paradoxes 10/01/world/asia/philippines- in Thailand and Vietnam." rodrigo-duterte-hitler-drugs.html Drugs: Education, Prevention (Accessed on 15 July 2020) and Policy Volume 23 Issue 4. doi.org/10.3109/09687637.2016. Wæver, Ole. 1995. “Securitization and 1140720 Desecuritization,” in On Security, ed. Ronnie Lipschutz. Williams, M. C. (2003). "Words, NY: Columbia University Press. Images, Enemies, Securitization and Wells, M. (2017). "Philippines: International Politics." Duterte's International Studies Quarterly 'war on drugs' is a war on the (47), p. 512. poor." Amnesty International. 4 February 2017. Wyn Jones, Richard. (1999). Security, https://www.amnesty.org/en/late Strategy, and Critical Theory. st/news/2017/02/war-on-drugs- Colorado: Lynne Rienner war-on-poor/ (Accessed on 19 Publishers Inc. July 2020)

63 International Journal of International Relations