Some People Need Killing Summary

“How does a state kill thousands yet retain its people’s support?”

1. Duterte’s Narrative: The Blame on Drugs

Rodrigo Duterte crafted a compelling story: illegal drugs were the cause of crime, poverty, and corruption in the Philippines. He argued that addicts and small-time dealers, labeled as durugistas, were wreaking havoc on neighborhoods. To fix these problems, Duterte claimed, these people needed to be eliminated. He demonized them as subhuman, calling addicts “heartless” and “mindless.” Duterte’s rhetoric boiled down to one principle: force was the only language they understood.

The simplicity of his message resonated with many impoverished Filipinos. After decades of perceived neglect by elitist politicians, Duterte positioned himself as the man who would take decisive action. While past leaders focused on reforms and liberal values, Duterte promised swift, brutal justice – even boasting that morticians would thrive under his presidency. His threats to kill were not hollow; they were his campaign promises.

This tough-talk approach to crime didn’t alienate voters – it propelled Duterte to victory in 2016. Despite his violence-first approach, millions of Filipinos viewed him as their defender against drugs and criminality. By offering scapegoats for the country’s issues, Duterte ensured his policies enjoyed broad support, even as they veiled human rights abuses.

Examples

• Duterte called on citizens to kill drug-addicted neighbors, framing it as an act of community service.
• He claimed there were up to 4.5 million drug addicts in the country, despite statistics showing far fewer users.
• His slogan “some people need killing” became a rallying cry for his presidency.

2. The Rise of Vigilante Justice

As mayor of Davao City, Duterte allegedly sanctioned the formation of a vigilante force known as the Davao Death Squad. This group executed hundreds of small-time offenders, including street kids, setting a precedent for Duterte’s presidency. The squad’s actions reflected Duterte’s narrative that meth addicts caused the gravest harms to society.

One chilling story Duterte often repeated was about apprehending a meth addict who was suspected of sexually abusing and killing a child. Though he never explicitly confirmed killing the suspect himself, Duterte hinted at a violent resolution. This story reinforced the idea that addicts were not just lawbreakers but moral monsters deserving execution.

As an illustration of the squad’s reach, between 1998 and 2006, over 800 individuals were killed in Davao. Human Rights Watch confirmed that the squad’s targets often came from “lists” compiled by police, suggesting state-sanctioned extrajudicial executions. Duterte later replicated this system nationwide as president.

Examples

• Duterte’s Christmas anecdote implied he personally executed a suspect, glorifying vigilantism.
• In Davao City, the Davao Death Squad targeted minors and petty offenders for death.
• International organizations cited evidence that this squad operated with police collusion.

3. Manipulated Statistics and Fear

To justify his war on drugs, Duterte cited alarming, inflated figures about addiction and crime. He claimed that 4.5 million Filipinos used illegal drugs, but official numbers revealed far less – only around 1.5 percent of the population. Duterte’s narrative ignored that most users relied on marijuana rather than methamphetamine.

Exaggerations extended to murder statistics. According to Duterte, drug addicts were responsible for 77,000 murders over four years. Official data, however, recorded just 53,000 murders during that period, making his claim blatantly false. The fabrication of these statistics fueled public fear and bolstered his violent policies.

This tactic of inflating dangers ensured popular support. By painting addicts as a major threat to society, Duterte secured approval for his campaign of state-sanctioned violence. His rhetoric validated the need for extreme measures in the eyes of his voters.

Examples

• Duterte asserted that “millions” of junkies terrorized Filipino communities.
• The UN contradicted him, stating drug usage in the Philippines was below the global average.
• He repeatedly used false murder statistics to scare citizens into compliance.

4. Door-to-Door Executions

Operation Tokhang, announced as Duterte’s flagship anti-drug initiative, was intended to make suspects surrender peacefully by “knocking” and “pleading.” In reality, it became a euphemism for extrajudicial killings. Police and vigilantes knocked on doors, and often, the confrontation ended in death.

Reports stated that suspects were shot immediately upon opening their doors, regardless of guilt or willingness to surrender. Bystanders were not spared if they tried to help or intervene. Statements like “We are Duterte” justified killings, presenting them as acts sanctioned by the state. Police narratives framed these executions as gunfights where officers acted in self-defense. Curiously, the suspects always died instantly, while officers never suffered injuries.

This systematic violence raised suspicion. In one province alone, police conducted 32 operations in a single day, killing 32 suspects with precision but reporting zero officer injuries. Such patterns repeated nationwide, challenging the plausibility of self-defense claims.

Examples

• Police killed thousands of suspects under Operation Tokhang within mere months.
• Official reports described every operation as a “shootout,” though forensic evidence suggested otherwise.
• Witnesses recalled hearing the killers declare allegiance to Duterte before opening fire.

5. Survivors and the Fight for Justice

Efren Morillo was one of the lucky few – he survived an execution attempt under Duterte’s regime. Efren, a vendor with no significant connections to drugs, was mistakenly rounded up in 2016. Police labeled him and four others as drug suspects and tied their hands.

Efren was taken outside, forced to kneel, and shot in the chest. The police left the scene satisfied the victims were dead, but Efren miraculously escaped. Forensics later proved Efren’s version of events: he had been shot while subdued, not during a firefight. Still, it took five years of legal battles before Efren finally cleared his name.

Such stories were rare. Most victims were too poor or isolated to fight back, and evidence often disappeared with them. Efren’s survival exposed how police manipulated crime scenes and fabricated shootout scenarios to justify murders.

Examples

• Efren was labeled a “notorious drug dealer” despite having no charges prior to the raid.
• Forensic data proved the four other victims had been executed while tied up.
• Police charged Efren with assault even as he lay critically injured in the hospital.

6. A Scandal that Briefly Halted the Killings

Public support for Duterte’s policies softened after a scandal involving police corruption. In 2017, officers kidnapped Jee Ick Joo, a South Korean businessman, during a fake drug operation. After collecting ransom from his family, the police killed Jee, cremated his body, and attempted to hide the crime.

This murder set off a diplomatic crisis, with South Korea demanding justice. Senate hearings revealed how deep corruption ran in the police force. Duterte responded by halting his drug operation temporarily to conduct “internal cleansing,” marking the first pause in widespread killings under his administration.

While public outrage temporarily slowed official killings, Duterte found new ways to continue his campaign through unofficial, off-the-books enforcers. Vigilante deaths rose sharply, suggesting that the killings never truly stopped – they merely adapted.

Examples

• Jee Ick Joo’s case resulted in national and international outrage.
• Duterte referred to the act as a betrayal by “rogue cops,” shifting attention away from systemic abuse.
• The police temporarily halted drug war operations to restore their tarnished image.

7. A War that Targeted the Poor

Duterte’s drug war overwhelmingly victimized the poor. Investigative reports showed that those killed were often small-time users, unemployed people, or individuals with only loose associations with drugs. Meanwhile, wealthy drug lords and their networks remained relatively untouched.

Victims’ families lacked the resources to challenge police reports or bring cases to court. Moreover, entire communities became targets: many residents feared being reported by a rival or neighbor falsely. A single accusation was often enough to justify a death sentence.

This selective targeting of the marginalized deepened societal inequalities. Those who could afford lawyers or bribes managed to evade the drug war’s brutal consequences, while impoverished Filipinos paid a devastating price.

Examples

• Many victims were slum residents or street vendors accused of low-level drug possession.
• Wealthier neighborhoods saw few police operations compared to over-policed poor areas.
• Sons and husbands riddled the death toll, leaving widows to fend for their families.

8. The Transition to Covert Operations

After temporarily pausing the drug war in 2017, Duterte shifted tactics. Rather than relying on police to carry out killings, unofficial contractors and vigilantes took over the dirty work. These groups were harder to track and allowed the administration to maintain plausible deniability.

Data from human rights organizations indicated that deaths climbed during this second phase. Because the perpetrators were shadowy actors, families of victims struggled even harder to seek justice. This phase of the war betrayed Duterte’s earlier promise of “internal cleansing” and exposed his intent to perpetuate the violence.

The cumulative effect of these operations devastated communities, leaving thousands of families in grief and fear. Despite international condemnation, local institutions were too compromised to hold those responsible accountable.

Examples

• Vigilante killings tripled the death toll by 2022.
• Unregistered entities carried out executions using the same tactics as the police.
• Families noted rising anonymity among those conducting night raids on drug suspects.

9. International Scrutiny and Court Investigations

Despite overwhelming evidence of killings and abuses, Duterte faced little political opposition domestically. Internationally, however, organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC) launched investigations into alleged crimes against humanity during his presidency.

The ICC’s scrutiny focused on illegal executions organized by state actors and Duterte’s role as the architect of these operations. While his government blocked cooperation with investigations, the international proceedings have brought renewed attention to the atrocities committed.

For many families of victims, international justice offers their only hope for accountability. Although the process is long, it symbolizes a growing consensus against state-sanctioned violence in the Philippines.

Examples

• Human rights groups estimate over 25,000 extrajudicial killings under Duterte's regime.
• The ICC investigations began in response to cases filed by victims’ families.
• Duterte’s administration refused to acknowledge ICC jurisdiction, stalling justice.

Takeaways

1. Stay informed about leaders’ narratives and critically evaluate their claims, especially when they target marginalized groups.
2. Support organizations that document abuse, as their work ensures accountability in the face of state violence.
3. Advocate for global collaboration to monitor and address human rights violations across nations.