A Distorted Justice

Evaluating War on Drugs Campaign thru Rawls’s Sociopolitical Philosophy

Social injustices and inequalities have become staples in political discourse, seen as
longstanding entropies that forbid humanity from living an ideal political and civic life. As much
as these concepts have been talked about ever since the public partook a greater involvement in
politics, they are barely addressed and seemingly impossible to be resolved. John Rawls is among
the line of 20th century political thinkers whose work serves as a valuable standpoint to evaluate
“justice as fairness” in contemporary society. It mainly banks on the concept of the veil of
ignorance in building egalitarian and fair societies.
Despite critiques on the drawbacks and shortcomings of Rawls’s political thought, his
conception of justice essentially puts premium to equality founded on policies and social
institutions devoid of partisanships and self-serving interests. This makes it a significant tool in
evaluating the underlying interests, and even moral ambiguities within existing social mechanisms
and policies. This inspired the writing of this paper and its attempt to assess Rodrigo Duterte’s
War on Drugs campaign, applying the propositions of Rawls’s political philosophy.

Justice or lack thereof

From his candidacy to his election to presidency, Duterte earned both popular support and
criticisms for his aggressive rhetoric, and unorthodox—or most would consider ruthless—means
in carrying out his War on Drugs campaign. He claims that this ultimately aims to address the
alarming rate of drug usage, and criminality in the Philippines. This anti-drug campaign, also
dubbed as "Operation Double Barrel" or “Oplan Tokhang,” was propagandized as the effective
arrest of suspected drug dealers and users, serving as an alternative to the inefficient court
procedures and slow judicial system of the country. But in practice, it has been a campaign of
extrajudicial execution especially in impoverished urban areas such as Manila 1. Parallel to the idea
of killing drug suspects is Duterte’s proposal to reimpose death penalty for high-profile criminals
and politicians2.
This serves as an explicit manifestation of Duterte’s brand of justice—a reciprocal or an
“eye-for-an-eye” justice. This made it easier for the administration to justify the rationale behind
their bloody campaigns and still sustain relatively strong public support. A criminal will have to
pay the penalty equivalent to the crime/s s/he has committed.
This sounded strongly appealing to a nation who has long been riddled with previously
corrupt and predominantly elite-run administrations that relish in impunity. But zooming in on the
current administration, they are no better than their predecessors. Their sense of justice thru penalty
only applies to their enemies and the ordinary people. Interests of political allies and cronies are
still prioritized, and protected, as seen in the alleged involvement to drugs of some of the allies,
family members, and even the president himself3, and the difference in the arrest of ordinary
citizens versus political allies in breaching Covid-19 protocols.

1. n.a. “License to Kill,” Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/03/02/license-kill/philippine-police-

killings-dutertes-war-drugs (accessed December 16, 2020).
2. Mara Cepeda. “Duterte wants death for drug convicts: ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’,” Rappler,
https://www.rappler.com/nation/sona-2017-philippines-death-penalty (accessed December 16, 2020).
3. Regine Cabato. “Thousands dead. Police accused of criminal acts. Yet Duterte’s drug war is wildly popular,”
Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/thousands-dead-police-accused-of-criminal-acts-yet-
dutertes-drug-war-is-wildly-popular/2019/10/23/4fdb542a-f494-11e9-b2d2-1f37c9d82dbb_story.html (accessed December 16,
2020).
War on Drugs in Rawls’s Political Thought
Using Rawls’s propositions and conceptions of justice, one can see the apparent unfairness
of the said campaign as it blatantly violates his principles of justice. The first principle states that
each person is entitled to the exercise of basic liberties4. Oplan Tokhang is an apparent disregard
of alleged drug personalities’ constitutional right to due process, and instead functions as a brazen
promotion of unlawful executions. A suspect is deprived of his basic liberty not only just to due
process, but also the equal protection of laws.
The second principle acknowledges inevitable social inequalities, but still ensures that the
least advantage are well-off5. In this campaign, impoverished and urban-poor communities are
considered as the most vulnerable and affected by the campaign’s repercussions. The campaign
does more damage than good to the least advantaged, if there is any good at all. While some drug
users eventually quit the illegal market from fear of death, there is still a greater number of accused
persons, and even minors, that are killed by vigilantes and even policemen themselves. In the
absence of due process, unlawful murders are easily executed by persons with authority,
motivating police brutality and vigilante killings.
Another provision of the second principle asserts for the “…fair equality of opportunity,”
which the campaign also fails to deliver. Accused persons who are actually not guilty are robbed
of their right to prove their innocence. Suppose that accused persons are drug users indeed, they
are then are robbed of the chance to reformation and to lead a better life after prison. This goes to
show that the campaign does not create a social environment that would benefit the least
advantaged, and that the only interests it caters to are those of the police, the administration, the
vigilantes, and even high-profile drug lords who will continue to run the market regardless of the
deaths of small-scale drug dealers.
Rawls provided for certain circumstances whereas the compromise and sacrifice of the
liberties of some can be tolerated and acceptable. He claims that it may be reasonable to
compromise certain freedoms if it will generate “long-run benefits” that would be “…great enough
to transform a less fortunate society into one where the equal liberties can be fully enjoyed. 6” As
priorly stated, drug operations will simply perpetuate given that the large-scale drug lords remain
unscathed. Even with the death of thousand drug pushers, the problem with drugs will simply
replicate over time.
Such compromise is also acceptable if the lesser liberty is acceptable “…to those
experiencing it”—and that is hardly the case for the families left behind by victims of extrajudicial
killings. Families have been demanding for justice, and asserting the innocence of their gunned
loved ones. Children are inflicted with trauma as they witness their parents get killed firsthand.
Rawls added that inequalities are acceptable so long as they “…relieve even worse
injustices.” Then again, the campaign only adds up to the long list of injustices plaguing the
country and hampering a genuine national development. Some would argue that the campaign has
been effective given the decrease of index and non-index crime from 2018-20197. But this is at the

4.William Ebenstein, and Alan Ebenstein, “Rawls” in Great Political Thinkers: From Plato to the Present 5th ed. (Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College, 1991), 924-925.
5. Ebenstein and Ebenstein, 924
6. Ebenstein and Ebenstein, 925
7. n.a. “Philippines 2020 Crime & Safety Report,” OSAC,
https://www.osac.gov/Country/Philippines/Content/Detail/Report/b5c8b11f-5b1b-4180-b911-18307766f680 (accessed December
16, 2020).
expense of the even bigger crime committed by the government itself to its own people through
unlawful killings and state neglect in improving the lives of Filipino communities.

In realizing Rawls’s sense of justice

In reimagining the Philippines under the Duterte administration using the veil of ignorance,
no one would wish to be born a drug user, or a person whose circumstances ultimately lead them
to drug involvement, or a name included in the drug list. This is evident proof of how the
administration mismanages the drug problem of the country.
Firstly, thru applying the veil of ignorance, one would not want a social environment that
can get them killed. Hence, a fair society must always reinforce people’s basic liberty to due
process, and right to live. Persons must be able to prove their innocence. Accordingly, persons
involved with drugs need rehabilitation and reformation, not death. In line with this, judicial
mechanisms and prison systems must be improved to serve their essential purpose of reforming
convicts.
Applying this concept once again, most would prefer a social environment and living
conditions that would not warrant the need for drug involvement. The drug problem in the
Philippines is rooted in poverty. Thus to create a fairer society, poverty must be eliminated.
Although varying social classes might still exist, it must be ensured that all are experiencing at
least the bare minimum of the standards of living. In the context of drugs, poverty and
unemployment must be resolved so that people would find no reason to engage in the drug market.
One morally ambiguous dimension of this issue is whether or not drug use is inherently
harmful. Some would affirm the harm in using drugs given the disorientation they cause to users.
On the contrary, some would argue the benefits of using. This warrants another discussion
altogether, but for the purpose of this paper, a fair society must see to it that there are laws set in
place to allow the use of safe, recreational drugs and eliminate illegal drug market activities.
Those who remain avid supporters of the campaign, and other injustices forwarded by the
current regime, seem to pay little to no attention on the grave impacts to victims and affected
communities. This is mainly because they are not the ones experiencing it. This is where Rawls’s
veil of ignorance becomes all the more relevant. A truly fair society is only possible if the social
mechanisms operating do not promote personal ends of powerful individuals, and instead aim to
uplift the lives of all members of the country.

[05119]
Bibliography

Cepeda,Mara. “Duterte wants death for drug convicts: ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’,”
Rappler,
https://www.rappler.com/nation/sona-2017-philippines-death-penalty (accessed December 16,
2020).

Ebenstein, William and Ebenstein, Alan. “Rawls” in Great Political Thinkers: From Plato to the
Present, 923-928. 5th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College, 1991.

n.a. “License to Kill,” Human Rights Watch.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/03/02/license-kill/philippine-police-killings-dutertes-war-
drugs (accessed December 16, 2020).

n.a. “Philippines 2020 Crime & Safety Report,” OSAC.

https://www.osac.gov/Country/Philippines/Content/Detail/Report/b5c8b11f-5b1b-4180-b911-
18307766f680 (accessed December 16, 2020).