During the recent Senate hearing on the drug war chaired by Senator Koko Pimentel, we were once again subjected to the endless rhetoric of former president Duterte repeatedly defending his controversial war on drugs.

Some sectors criticized the handling of the hearing as weak as Duterte and his men were able to monopolize the spotlight and were seemingly given the platform to repeat their narrative. Even the gallery was packed with his followers and sympathizers.

To his allies and followers, Duterte’s Senate performance was a hit. It evoked to them a feeling of nostalgia, reminiscent of the time he was president. And he was true to form, echoing statements from his presidency, such as his encouragement to police to meet drug offenders with deadly force, to the point of instructing them to give suspects guns for them to duel it out.

At the Senate hearing, Duterte again played to his perceived strengths. After all, his machismo harked of the traditional Filipino cultural values that prize masculinity as a protective force for family and community. As “Tatay Digong,” he was a father figure with whom people associated security and stability. This patriarchal approach made his drug war appear as tough love rather than ruthless violence.

This projection of machismo leadership played a significant role in shaping public opinion about drug addicts and small-time peddlers, cultivating a sense of tolerance (even support given Duterte’s high popularity rating) for extrajudicial killings (EJKs).

This macho image, which emphasized toughness, aggression, and “take no prisoners” resonated deeply across segments of society.

Duterte’s leadership portrayed drug addicts and peddlers as a menace to society, tapping into public fears around crime, security, and family safety. For years, he successfully framed addicts and pushers as inherently dangerous, reinforcing the binary view that they were obstacles to peace and order, therefore, justified targets for extreme measures.

By framing the war on drugs as a black-and-white issue, the former president downplayed the complexities of addiction and its social roots. He effectively portrayed those opposed to his drug war as soft and weak, and out of touch with the reality in the towns and barangays. This is why his followers still pound human rights advocates for continuing to present families of EJK victims as witnesses when those that were killed were criminals beyond redemption. For them, there should be no public empathy for addicts.

However, given the backdrop of the Garma and Leonardo revelations, we now know that the former president’s type of leadership brought only death, destruction and corruption to the law enforcement institutions in the country. The murder of General Barayuga, among others, showed us how law enforcement officers abused their power under the guise of the drug war.

Because it was implemented in darkness and lacked transparency, the drug war led to the misuse of power, to wrongful killings, and corruption. The fabrication of evidence, selective targeting, political weaponization, lack of due process, and extrajudicial killings were indicators the drug war did not give us peace and stability.

The drug war showed us the Duterte brand of leadership was ineffective and outdated. His portrayal as an anti-elitist strong man was an illusion to fool the public. The change that was promised was a hoax.

In the first place, the Duterte drug war lacked vision. The NEDA has shown that poverty reduction is among the most effective ways to address crime and drug abuse, a connection that was lost in the machismo culture.

To the macho leadership, the solution was to target the poor. Data showed that EJK victims were often low-level drug offenders, many of whom were jobless or had limited income, living in densely populated, poor neighborhoods. Poverty, limited access to legal resources, and lack of awareness of their rights often left individuals in these communities without effective recourse.

We need a leadership that views stability as eliminating drug addiction. Stability should be measured in terms of social equity, economic opportunity, and empowerment of individuals to build better lives.