Duterte Administration’s effort in its campaign on Anti-Drug War

President Rodrigo Duterte has launched a war on drugs – June 16, 2016, that has resulted in the
extrajudicial deaths of thousands of alleged drug dealers and users across the country. The Philippine president
sees drug dealing and addiction as “major obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress,” says
John Gershman, an expert on Philippine politics. The drug war is a cornerstone of Duterte’s domestic policy
and represents the extension of policies he’d implemented earlier in his political career as the mayor of the city
of Davao. In December 2016, the United States withheld poverty aid to the Philippines after declaring concern
over Duterte’s war on drugs.

When Rodrigo Duterte campaigned for president, he claimed that drug dealing and drug addiction were
major problem to the Philippines’ economic and social progress. He promised a large-scale crackdown on
dealers and addicts, similar to the crackdown that he engaged in when he was mayor of Davao. When Duterte
became president in June, he encouraged the public to “go ahead and kill” drug addicts – he says.

There was criticism and violent reaction as he implemented the law. Many have died and many children
are involved. Despite of violent reactions form Filipinos, the war on drugs has received a high level of popular
support from across the class spectrum in the Philippines. Even through some people are concerned about these
deaths, they support him as a president for his position on other issues. For example, he has a relatively
progressive economic agenda, with a focus on economic inequality. Therefore, it concluded that he just did it
just to saved Filipinos in dealing with drugs. In addition, it shows that everyone can go out without hesitation
and fear.
 John Mark C. Aragoza

Duterte Administration's record in the promotion of human rights

During his speech, Duterte said that the “Philippines will continue to protect the human rights of its
people”. Alluding to the allegations of human rights and international law violations that have been made
against his government, Duterte claimed that “interest groups have weaponized human rights” to discredit his
government.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte campaigned on a promise that advocated violent measures,
including killings of criminal suspects, to “solve drugs, criminality, and corruption in three to six months of
taking office.” Since taking office in June 2016, Duterte’s “war on drugs” includes the killing of thousands of
people by police who claim to be acting in self-defense and unidentified gunmen.

I salute our president, because it is badly needed to addressed this into serious matter. I could say that it
is crucial and challenging in his part because he needs a full support of his cabinet members. Especially at this
pandemic time, there are still cases regarding child abuses and rape victim. I hope this would put into justice to
pay those people who commit violence.
 John Mark C. Aragoza

Duterte Administration's efforts in Anti - Corruptions

True to his promise, Duterte has signed documents promoting his anti-corruption drive, resorted to a
“firing spree” of unscrupulous government workers, and established a government hotline to allow the public to
report corrupt practices in state departments and offices. I described Duterte’s zero-tolerance approach toward
fighting corruption. Duterte has advocated for policies based in discipline and violence. He has threatened to
bring back the death penalty for the crime of plunder or even to kill violators himself. Indeed, Duterte has
already admitted to killing criminals in the past. Duterte and his supporters acknowledge that his approach
disregards due process and rule of law, which they argue is necessary because of how widespread corruption
has become in Philippine government. One of the reasons Duterte was so successful as a candidate was because
his zero-tolerance approach resonated with the immense frustration many Filipinos feel over the widespread
corruption that has plagued the country for decades. In recent years, a series of high-profile scandals have
heightened voters’ sense of disillusionment with the current system. In 2013, numerous senators, congressmen,
and even judges were implicated in a multi-million pork barrel scheme—one of the largest in Philippine history.
In addition, investigations into allegedly corrupt acts committed by Vice President Jejomar Binay and his son,
Junjun Binay, have received a great deal of attention, particularly during the presidential campaign in which the
older Binay was a candidate. Scandals of this sort have contributed to widespread discontent among the
electorate. This frustration has had some positive effects. Although I worry that his victory will be more
destructive than his supporters believe, I can only hope that the Philippines’ President-elect can harness this
immense discontent to mobilize support for lasting, positive change in the country’s fight against corruption.

John Mark C. Aragoza

Despite rare moments of tough talk and occasional action, President Rodrigo Duterte fails to advance
Filipinos’ interests in the West Philippine Sea.

According to Rappler, The President’s actions and statements have so far painted an obvious pattern of
appeasing China, despite the efforts of some diplomatic and defense officials to assert Filipinos’ rights in their
own waters. Diplomatic and defense sources Rappler spoke to described Duterte’s strategy as one of
compromises that had failed to evolve, let alone advance the country’s position in the West Philippine Sea.

Although he was handed the landmark Hague ruling at the beginning of his term, Duterte has failed to
use the Philippines’ legal victory to advance the country’s interests. Instead, he has kept with his early decision
to downplay the Philippines “ace card” to foster warmer ties with Beijing. Duterte himself has softened efforts
to call out China, using televised addresses to walk back not only his own statements, but those of his Cabinet
secretaries.

Even in the few occasions Duterte uttered strong statements on the West Philippine Sea, he made it
apparent that he valued preserving good ties with China above much else.

Therefore, I conclude that why not talk about the West Philippine Sea to talk about the division of labor
to disseminate the things that could be done with the island. Why not have a distribution of labor/work so that
everybody or both countries will be benefited. Example, the China will do the manufacturing and Philippines
will do the production. I know this wont be possible but, this is only my recommendation in this chaos situation.

John Mark A. Mandagan