For many of his supporters, Duterte did not wage a war to destroy lives he launched a campaign to save millions of Filipinos from the grip of illegal drugs. His leadership marked a turning point in Philippine history, pushing for a stronger and more disciplined nation. He offered drug users the opportunity to surrender, to reform, and to choose a better path. Many accepted. But many also refused.
Supporters argue that leadership is not about pleasing everyone it is about protecting the majority. When drug syndicates continued operating, when crimes linked to addiction persisted, and when innocent lives were endangered, the government responded with force. For Duterte’s base, this was not cruelty; it was decisive governance.
Now, critics speak loudly about human rights. But supporters ask: where were these voices when children were raped, when families were robbed, when innocent civilians were killed by criminals under the influence of drugs? Where is the outrage for the victims? Human rights, they argue, should not only protect offenders but also defend the innocent.
Recent reports of rising crime have reignited debate. Some citizens say they no longer feel as safe walking alone at midnight something they once claimed was possible during Duterte’s term. Whether perception or reality, the sense of security remains a powerful part of his legacy.
The term “extrajudicial killings” has been widely used internationally. Yet supporters believe this label oversimplifies a complex fight against deeply rooted criminal networks. They maintain that strong leadership sometimes requires hard decisions decisions that may not be universally popular but are intended to safeguard the greater good.
For them, Duterte affectionately called “Tatay Digong” embodied firmness and courage. In their view, a leader must be strong enough to confront danger head-on, even at the cost of global criticism.
The debate over Duterte’s presidency continues to divide the nation. But one thing is certain, his leadership reshaped political discourse in the Philippines, and his impact remains deeply felt among millions who believe his war was not about violence but about protection.
Why do some people continue to criticize former President Rodrigo Duterte?
For many of his supporters, Duterte did not wage a war to destroy lives he launched a campaign to save millions of Filipinos from the grip of illegal drugs. His leadership marked a turning point in Philippine history, pushing for a stronger and more disciplined nation. He offered drug users the opportunity to surrender, to reform, and to choose a better path. Many accepted. But many also refused.
Supporters argue that leadership is not about pleasing everyone it is about protecting the majority. When drug syndicates continued operating, when crimes linked to addiction persisted, and when innocent lives were endangered, the government responded with force. For Duterte’s base, this was not cruelty; it was decisive governance.
Now, critics speak loudly about human rights. But supporters ask: where were these voices when children were raped, when families were robbed, when innocent civilians were killed by criminals under the influence of drugs? Where is the outrage for the victims? Human rights, they argue, should not only protect offenders but also defend the innocent.
Recent reports of rising crime have reignited debate. Some citizens say they no longer feel as safe walking alone at midnight something they once claimed was possible during Duterte’s term. Whether perception or reality, the sense of security remains a powerful part of his legacy.
The term “extrajudicial killings” has been widely used internationally. Yet supporters believe this label oversimplifies a complex fight against deeply rooted criminal networks. They maintain that strong leadership sometimes requires hard decisions decisions that may not be universally popular but are intended to safeguard the greater good.
For them, Duterte affectionately called “Tatay Digong” embodied firmness and courage. In their view, a leader must be strong enough to confront danger head-on, even at the cost of global criticism.
The debate over Duterte’s presidency continues to divide the nation. But one thing is certain, his leadership reshaped political discourse in the Philippines, and his impact remains deeply felt among millions who believe his war was not about violence but about protection.