Just War Theory as it relates to the Duterte Administration’s War on Drugs

Delfin Miguel D. Fernandez

nd
2 Term Paper | AB Political Science
San Beda University

The Philosopher Thomas Aquinas on the 2nd part of his work Summa Theologica he

discusses the conditions of a Just War, and he gave insights to the conditions for declaring War to

be Just, Thomas Aquinas took into account Augustine’s work on the Just War Theory, where he

[Augustine] provided the foundation for western literature on the theory, but when Thomas

Aquinas took part of this theory, he codified this theory and gave the 3 criteria for the theory and

remained the basis of Just War Theory up until today. The critique of War (warfare) and its

justification will revolve around the insights made by Thomas Aquinas on Just War Theory and

its significance to the War on Drugs of the Duterte Administration

What is Just War Theory?

Just War Theory is the justification on which states seek to legally and morally justify

going to war. Not all states concern themselves with such justifications, for example Nazi Germany

where there was a blatant disregard for the ‘proper’ execution of war. The United States does

explicitly recognize Just War Theory as criteria for engaging in war. Thus, the criteria of Just War

Theory are a primary basis for discussion and debate about US war actions.1 Thomas Aquinas: On

War,

1
Dorbolo, J. (2001). Just War Theory. Retrieved March 18 from
https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/just_war_theory/criteria_intro.html
The first thing is the authority of the prince by whose command the war is to be waged. It

does not belong to a private person to start a war, for he can prosecute his claim in the court

of his superior. In like manner the mustering of the people, that has to be done in wars,

does not belong to a private person. But since the care of the commonwealth is entrusted

to princes, to them belongs the protection of the common weal of the city, kingdom, or

province subject to them. And as they lawfully defend it with the material sword against

inward disturbances by punishing male-factors, so it belongs to them also to protect the

commonwealth from enemies without by the sword of war. The second requisite is a just

cause, so that they who are assailed should deserve to be assailed for some fault that they

have committed. Hence Augustine says: “Just wars are usually defined as those which

avenge injuries, in cases where a nation or city has to be chastised for having either

neglected to punish the wicked doings of its people, or neglected to restore what has been

wrongfully taken away.” The third thing requisite is a right intention of promoting good or

avoiding evil. For Augustine says: “Eagerness to hurt, bloodthirsty desire of revenge, an

untamed and unforgiving temper, ferocity in renewing the struggle, dust of empire,—these

and the like excesses are justly blamed in war.” 1. To the objection from the text that “all

that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” it is to be said, as Augustine says, that “he

takes the sword, who without either command or grant of any superior or lawful authority,

arms himself to shed the blood of another.” But he who uses the sword by the authority of

a prince or judge (if he is a private person), or out of zeal for justice, and by the authority

of God (if he is a public person), does not take the sword of himself, but uses it as

committed to him by another. 2. To the objection from the text, “I say to you not to resist

evil,” it is to be said, as Augustine says, that such precepts are always to be observed “in
 readiness of heart,” so that a man be ever ready not to resist, if there be occasion for non-

resistance. But sometimes he must take another course in view of the common good, or

even in view of those with whom he fights. Hence Augustine says: “He is the better for

being overcome, from whom the license of wrong-doing is snatched away: for there is no

greater unhappiness than the happiness of sinners, the nourishment of an impunity which

is only granted as a punishment, and the strengthening of that domestic foe, an evil will.”2

Thomas Aquinas argued that the requisite in going to war, is a violent act, but it is justified

when violence is acted upon only for a right purpose. The working argument for the Just War

theory is that the conditions of going to war must be with good moral reason and is only justified

when the ‘Good’ is in peril. John Dorbolo, stated that there is two traditional requisites in going to

war; JUS AD BELLUM The conditions required for justly going to war; the right to go to war,

and JUS IN BELLO The conditions required for the just conduct of war; the right conduct in war.

The criteria provide standards of conduct for nations, armies, and individual soldiers at war. Some

people have the idea that in war, anything goes; "all's fair in love and war." But this is never the

case in any war.

Armies maintain some standards of lawful vs. criminal behavior. Armies have police,

prisons, and courts. It is true that some armies show no legal or moral restraint when it comes to

the treatment of the enemy (some are hostile to their own populations), but those are militaries that

act contrary to the Just War criteria and usually in violation the international rule of law. Such

stares or individuals are often held accountable by domestic or international law. There are,

2
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: War (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 40) Retrieved March 18, 2019 from
http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/130.html
however, many cases where war crimes are not prosecuted or redressed. Just War Theory is a

philosophical idea and can be used as the basis of a legal process. We are using the criteria to judge

cases of war acts.3

What is Jus Ad Bellum?

These are the ‘conditions’ and requirements when one state or nation, in deciding if they will go

to war;

JUST AUTHORITY: The first condition in Just War Theory is Just Authority, also known as

Competent Authority. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system

that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (i.e. Hitler's Regime) or a deceptive military

actions (i.e. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this

criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of

judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must

be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice;

JUST CAUSE: This is the central condition for many discussions over the justification of a war.

If a Just Cause cannot be shown, many people will reject the call to war. Now, almost all nations

and leaders who wage war claim to do so on the basis of a Just Cause. Iraq, for instance, explicitly

claimed to have a Just Cause in its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It is not enough to simply claim to

have a Just Cause. We must be able to show that some wrong has been committed by one nation

for which war is the proper redress by another. Unprovoked aggression, such as an invasion, fits

3
Dorbolo, J. (2001). Just War Theory. Retrieved March 18 from
https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/just_war_theory/criteria_intro.html
clearly within the criteria of a Just Cause. Few would deny a nation the right to defend itself against

unprovoked attack. The defense of an ally against an aggressor is also generally considered a clear

Just Cause;

JUST INTENTION: The Just Intention (or Right Intention) condition in Just War Theory sets a

limit to the extent of the war. Even given a Just Authority and a Just cause, it is possible for a

warring state to go beyond the bounds of its justification. In the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, the

coalition forces led by the US stopped short of invading and occupying Baghdad. In answer to the

criticisms of this action, US military leaders pointed out that the Just Cause and sole objective of

the war was to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. Having achieved that objective, the limit of

the justification for prosecution of the war had been reached and a ceasefire was negotiated. Calls

to occupy Iraq, assassinate Saddam Hussein, or use nuclear weapons clearly exceeded the authority

of the US and UN action. A just war is limited to the pursuit of the avowed just cause. A just war

is limited to the pursuit and securing of the Just Cause. LAST RESORT: War is morally

permissible only when no other means to achieving the Just Cause is possible. This means that the

nation considering war has exhausted all potential solutions, including political and diplomatic.

This condition seems to mitigate against the national pride that sometimes leads to war as the resort

of choice. A nation may have to compromise and negotiate to win solution short of war. But at

least, the condition of last resort requires that political and diplomatic approaches to a solution

have been fully attempted.4

4
Dorbolo, J. (2001). Just War Theory. Retrieved March 18 from
https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/just_war_theory/criteria_intro.html
What is Jus in Bello?

These are the conducts, when one state or nation, in what to do, if they go to war,

PROPORTIONALITY. The proportionality of the use of force in a war. The degree of allowable

force used in the war must be measured against the force required to correct the Just cause and

limited by Just Intention (see Jus Ad Bellum).

DISCRIMINATION. The combatants discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.

Innocent, nonmilitary people should never be made the target of attacks.

RESPONSIBILITY. A country is not responsible for unexpected side effects of its military

activity as long as the following three conditions are met:

(a) The action must carry the intention to produce good consequences.

(b) The bad effects were not intended.

(c) The good of the war must outweigh the damage done by it.

Duterte’s War on Drugs

Since taking office on June 30, 2016, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has carried out

a “war on drugs” that has led to the deaths of over 12,000 Filipinos to date, mostly urban poor. At

least 2,555 of the killings have been attributed to the Philippine National Police. Duterte and other

senior officials have instigated and incited the killings in a campaign that could amount to crimes

against humanity. Human Rights Watch research has found that police are falsifying evidence to
justify the unlawful killings. Despite growing calls for an investigation, Duterte has vowed to

continue the campaign.5 And ever since that start of this War on Drugs large-scale of alleged

extrajudicial killings was criticized back to the administration as human rights group strong

condemns these act of violence towards these people under the influence and, or carrying

narcotics/drugs. Together wit the Philippine National Police’s (PNP) OPLAN TOKHANG. Oplan

Tokhang involves visiting the homes of suspected pushers and users to convince them to give up

illegal drugs. The term – derived from the Visayan words “toktok” and “hangyo,” meaning to

knock and to make an appeal – later became associated with extrajudicial killings after many of

those who surrendered to authorities and admitted to pushing or using drugs were killed by

unidentified assailants or in alleged shootouts with police.6

Narrative

Jus ad Bellum of the War on Drugs, following the definition cited above dwell on the matters of

the War on Drugs.

JUST AUTHORITY, this particular aspect is already established from the pronouncement from

the very highest office of the land, the President’s Office had always publicized his criticism and

rage against illegal drugs flourishing in the Philippines. “The fight will be unrelenting….The fight

5
Human Rights Watch. Philippines’ ‘War on Drugs’. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/tag/philippines-war-
drugs
6
Romero, A. Duterte promotes Oplan Tokhang brains. Retrieved from
https://www.philstar.com/nation/2018/11/14/1868349/duterte-promotes-oplan-tokhang-brains
will not stop until those who deal with it [drugs] understand that they have to stop because the

alternative is either jail or hell,”7

JUST CAUSE, The administration really pushes this war as a noble cause to rid the Philippines

from illegal drugs, the Presidents time and time again really pushed the boundaries of this action

of the government toward illegal substances. A hallmark of the Duterte administration is the

President’s pledge to rid the country of illegal drugs. It’s a program that helped to propel Duterte

to the presidency and one that he had vowed would be “chilling” and “relentless.”8

JUST INTENTION, “Hitler massacred three million Jews … there’s three million drug addicts.

There are. I’d be happy to slaughter them.” These words, spoken by Filipino President Rodrigo

Duterte in September, have become notorious worldwide. Duterte has since apologised for the

reference to the Holocaust. But alongside continued concern about the extrajudicial killings in the

Philippines drug war, questions remain about whether there are actually three million drug users

in the country – and whether they are addicts.9 He added that the use of these drugs affects the

humanity of a person therefore, the person under the influence of these drugs are no longer humans.

Claiming that in an instance, that the continuous use of shabu would “shrink the brain”, making

users “no longer viable as human beings in this planet”. Based on these statements, and contrary

7
President Rodrigo Duterte's 2017 State of the Nation Address. (As cited in Cupin, B. Duterte: War on drugs 'will be
unrelenting'. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/176562-sona-2017-philippines-duterte-war-on-
drugs.)
8
Tomacruz, S. Duterte gov't tally: 'Drug war' deaths breach 5,000-mark before 2019. Retrieved from
https://www.rappler.com/nation/220013-duterte-government-tally-killed-war-on-drugs-november-2018
9
Ketchell, M. Just how big is the drug problem in the Philippines anyway?. Retrieved from
http://theconversation.com/just-how-big-is-the-drug-problem-in-the-philippines-anyway-66640
to his own government’s official stance and efforts, Duterte seems to think rehabilitation is not an

option.10 Here, we can actually see what are the Intentions of why PRRD really pushed for an all

out War against Drugs.

Jus in Bello of the War on Drugs, following the definition cited above dwell on the matters of the

War on Drugs.

PROPORTIONALITY, The full might of the Philippine National Police (PNP)), is vested on the

War on Drugs. In at least 5,317 alleged drug suspects have been killed from the time the

administration's anti-illegal drugs campaign began on July 1, 2016 until December 18, 2018,

according to independent monitoring by the ABS-CBN Investigative & Research Group. Six out

of every 10 victims were killed in operations conducted by law enforcement agencies, including

police and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency operatives, data showed.11

DISCRIMINATION, The War on Drugs have played a big roles in reducing the amount of drug

users and pushers in some parts of the Philippines, allowing people’s perception to change.

Incoming Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Director Oscar Albayalde downplayed on

Wednesday a human rights group’s claim that abuses by the police force under the Duterte

administration is worse than during the Marcos dictatorship. Albayalde dismissed the assertion of

Human Rights Watch (HRW) as mere “perception” of “a few sector only,” and even maintained

10
Ketchell, M. Just how big is the drug problem in the Philippines anyway?. Retrieved from
http://theconversation.com/just-how-big-is-the-drug-problem-in-the-philippines-anyway-66640
11
ABS-CBN News. War on drugs is working, says PNP; touts survey results. Retrieved from https://news.abs-
cbn.com/news/02/17/19/war-on-drugs-is-working-says-pnp-touts-survey-results
that the PNP under President Rodrigo Duterte has made an “unprecedented” improvement in peace

and order.12

RESPONSIBILITY, But the victory at the expense of the innocent, is really victory? Even with

the statistics of this war on drugs, how are we sure that those in the data that all of them are really

and truly, couriers and users of illegal substance, the fact remains that do we really have the full

understanding of these people involved? Otherwise, the official discourse and popular

understandings of drug use will remain unchallenged - and the “three million addicts” in the

Philippines will all be deserving of the “highest punishment” in the eyes of their fellow Filipinos.13

Conclusion

In the light of day we can only but observe and criticize from our own level of understanding if

whether this act of War against Drugs is really ‘justified’ following the definition and how these

definition applies, at to some extent also provide meaning and or wider understanding, or at the

very end dispute the War on Drugs of the Duterte Administration. This research was focused on

the lens of both parties as to the pros and cons of the War on Drugs, also called Campaign against

Illegal drugs. To end, we must always remain vigilant with our own actions, and truly stand on our

action if we as a collective sees this as a benefit for the nation, or a benefit to someone’s will.

12
Ballaran, J. Rights abuses in drug war just a ‘perception’ of few – Albayalde. Retrieved from
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/983262/rights-abuses-in-drug-war-just-a-perception-of-few-
albayalde#ixzz5mtulFE93 Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
13
Ketchell, M. Just how big is the drug problem in the Philippines anyway?. Retrieved from
http://theconversation.com/just-how-big-is-the-drug-problem-in-the-philippines-anyway-66640