Unapologetic and unwavering, former President Rodrigo Duterte declared on Monday before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee subcommittee that he takes “full legal responsibility” for his administration’s so-called drug war, including the killings that occurred during police operations. Going so far as to offer himself for imprisonment, Duterte shielded the police officers who carried out his order, saying: “I did what I had to do, firmly and without compromise.”

Rody’s drug war remains one of the most divisive chapters in modern Philippine history. To his supporters, it was a necessary campaign to eradicate a pervasive drug problem, while his critics argue that it resulted in widespread human rights abuses. The former president’s defense before the Senate was obviously not an attempt to justify every death or gloss over the consequences of his approach, but rather to reassert his rationale: protecting the Filipino people at all costs.

Duterte’s testimony, with his offer to take sole legal responsibility, indicates a willingness to confront the consequences of his decisions head-on. There is a subtle but significant power in this gesture. By placing the burden entirely on his shoulders, Duterte shields the police from prosecution, casting them as public servants merely executing orders. “They (cops) deserve pity since they were merely doing their job,” he said in the vernacular.

This move could be viewed as both an act of leadership and an attempt to shape the narrative surrounding his administration’s actions. While some may see it as a strategy to deflect broader accountability, it nonetheless reflects a rare display of accountability rarely seen in politics.

Duterte’s resolve to “protect the innocent and the defenseless,” as he put it, is central to his defense of the drug war. He insisted that the campaign was not merely about killing but about eradicating the drugs that poisoned communities and fueled violent crime.

His blunt directive to police officers — “If there’s a gun, and if you think you’re going to die, shoot the criminal. Shoot him in the head. Kill him” — is undoubtedly harsh, and for many, these words epitomize the controversy surrounding his presidency. Yet, it also demonstrates a clear-cut approach to law enforcement that sharply contrasts with the current perception of softness in addressing criminality and illegal drug operations.

The criticism directed at the present police leadership for allegedly being “too soft” on crime reflects a longing for the kind of decisiveness that Duterte embodied. While the tactics employed under his administration were controversial, there is an argument to be made that the sheer force and zero-tolerance stance toward the drug trade deterred some levels of criminality.

When compared with what some perceive as a lack of assertiveness today, Duterte’s policies can appear to some as a regrettable but necessary evil. His insistence on taking responsibility could also be seen as a challenge to the current administration: a call for them to tackle pressing issues with the same level of resolve, even if it means making hard and unpopular choices.

Duterte did not shy away from acknowledging the darker aspects of his campaign, including its casualties. Government records put the death toll at 6,200 drug suspects killed in police operations from June 2016 to November 2021, but human rights groups claim the number may be much higher, potentially reaching 30,000 when considering unreported killings.

Yet, even in the face of these statistics, Duterte’s stance remains unyielding. He expressed a genuine loathing for illegal drugs and sympathy for the victims of addiction, whom he viewed as patients in need of medical help. This nuanced view complicates the narrative of Duterte as merely a leader who condoned violence; rather, it paints a picture of a man caught between the need for drastic measures and the recognition of human suffering.

The question of whether Duterte’s methods were justified is not easily answered. It is clear, however, that his unbending commitment to the drug war’s principles earned him both praise and condemnation. While the ethical implications of the drug war will continue to be debated, the former president’s latest statements serve as a reminder of why he was respected by many: his refusal to equivocate or shift blame, his unwavering focus on the issues he prioritized, and his boldness in taking a stance that few would dare.