On President Duterte's War on Drugs
By Menelito Mansueto (MSU-IIT)
These past few days, we have read on the pages of one or two philosophical associations in the country, including the wall of some academics, accusations against Dr. Christopher Ryan Maboloc. As teachers, we should be the first when it comes to telling the truth. A reading of the published work by Dr. Maboloc in Princeton Theological Seminary's IBMR Journal under Sage, reveals the real score on his position. I quote:
"Duterte’s drug war is premised on the pursuit of the common good. The public understands that a hardline approach to criminality is a necessary part of Duterte’s strategy. But the notion of the common good cannot be an excuse for violating the ideals of individual liberty and human rights. The politics of nation-states may be a factor in terms of finding the logical explanation for President Duterte’s approach. But the killings of drug suspects cannot be justified because they violate the right to due process" (Maboloc 2022, p. 355)
Maboloc, who published ten papers on the Duterte presidency that culminated into the book Radical Democracy in the Time of Duterte, is clear in his position regarding the war on drugs. His position on Duterte, on the other hand, as mentioned by Wataru Kusaka, (2022) is based on a grammar of dissent meant to give voice to underrepresented sectors, most especially Mindanao. The same observation was suggested by Symel De Guzman-Daulat (2022) in her review of Maboloc's book in Budhi: Journal of Culture and Ideas.
Maboloc (2022, p.355) adds that "many Filipinos believe that those involved in substance abuse should be given a chance to reform themselves. In fact, many who are involved in the illegal drug trade belong to poor communities. For this reason, some members of the clergy lament that the campaign against illegal drugs is in effect a war against the poor. Respect for people’s human rights is in fact consistent with preservation of the common good."
Clearly, the posts of some academics, who are quite unprofessional and without any substance, should be read with caution for being deceptive at best and a blatant lie at worst. It appears that some people have a myopic and outdated approach to the way things are done in today's world as they are stuck in their old and biased ways. Clearly, the negative views of some speak of a lack of innovation and the inability to adapt to the true nature of modern scholarship.