"The article, "A Repudiation of the Duterte Doctrine," published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer on June 3, 2025, discusses a landmark Supreme Court ruling made public on May 20, 2025, concerning Carlito Salomon, a Muntinlupa City engineer dismissed from government service in 2011 after testing positive for shabu (methamphetamine) during a random drug test. The Supreme Court ruled that Salomon’s dismissal was unwarranted, emphasizing that civil servants like him deserve a second chance and access to rehabilitation. This decision is presented as a direct challenge to the "Duterte doctrine," a term referring to former President Rodrigo Duterte’s approach to the drug problem, which labeled drug users as "irredeemable and disposable" and justified widespread extrajudicial killings during his administration’s violent anti-drug campaign. The ruling underscores the importance of due process and rehabilitation over punitive measures, contrasting sharply with Duterte’s policies.
The article highlights that the Supreme Court’s decision restores the concept of due process, which was often overlooked during Duterte’s drug war. It also critiques the ongoing anti-drug campaign under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., noting that while it is described as “bloodless” and has seized drugs worth P43.8 billion from July 2022 to May 2025, the true measure of success lies in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring law enforcement does not equate effectiveness with loss of life. The ruling is seen as a precedent for officials and law enforcers to prioritize rehabilitation and due process, sending a message to those still influenced by Duterte’s violent “Tokhang” operations. Additionally, the decision is framed as a signal to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, where Duterte faces accusations of crimes against humanity, demonstrating the judiciary’s capacity to uphold justice despite the lingering impact of his drug war. The article calls for justice to extend beyond public officers to thousands of drug suspects denied basic rights, such as drug tests, during Duterte’s tenure.[](https://opinion.inquirer.net/183632/a-repudiation-of-the-duterte-doctrine)[](https://asianews.network/a-repudiation-of-the-duterte-doctrine-philippine-daily-inquirer/)
**Discussion of the Supreme Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court decision in the Carlito Salomon case marks a significant shift in the Philippines’ approach to drug-related offenses, particularly for civil servants. The ruling mandates that individuals like Salomon, who tested positive for drug use, should not face automatic dismissal but instead be offered rehabilitation and a chance to reform. This decision establishes a precedent that prioritizes rehabilitation over immediate punitive measures, challenging the harsh, zero-tolerance stance of the Duterte administration. By emphasizing due process, the Court acknowledges that drug use does not inherently render a person unfit for public service and that rehabilitation can align with the principles of justice and fairness.
This ruling directly repudiates the "Duterte doctrine," which dehumanized drug users and suspects, often leading to their extrajudicial killing or marginalization without fair legal proceedings. Duterte’s drug war, which resulted in thousands of deaths (with estimates ranging from 6,252 reported by the government to much higher figures by rights groups), operated on the premise that drug users were beyond redemption, justifying extreme measures. The Supreme Court’s decision counters this by affirming that individuals deserve a fair process, including access to rehabilitation programs, and that dismissal from service should not be the default response to a positive drug test.[](https://opinion.inquirer.net/183632/a-repudiation-of-the-duterte-doctrine)[](https://asianews.network/a-repudiation-of-the-duterte-doctrine-philippine-daily-inquirer/)[](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/03/12/icc-arrest-duterte-philippines-authoritarianism/)
The decision has broader implications for the Philippines’ justice system and anti-drug policies. It sets a legal standard that could influence how drug-related cases are handled, not only for public servants but potentially for the general population. By prioritizing rehabilitation, the ruling aligns with international human rights standards, which emphasize humane treatment and the right to reform over punishment. This is particularly significant in the context of Duterte’s ongoing ICC case, as the ruling demonstrates the Philippine judiciary’s ability to address past wrongs and uphold accountability, potentially strengthening the case for international scrutiny of Duterte’s drug war.[](https://opinion.inquirer.net/183632/a-repudiation-of-the-duterte-doctrine)[](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/03/philippines-former-president-dutertes-arrest-a-monumental-step-for-justice/)[](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/03/12/icc-arrest-duterte-philippines-authoritarianism/)
However, the article also points out challenges in implementing this precedent. Despite the Marcos administration’s claim of a “bloodless” drug war, the persistence of “watch lists” and a culture of violence among some law enforcement officials suggests that the Duterte doctrine’s influence lingers. The Supreme Court’s ruling must be actively enforced to change the mindset of barangay officials, police officers, and others who may still view drug suspects as targets for elimination rather than individuals entitled to due process. The article warns that without robust legal safeguards, even well-intentioned anti-drug campaigns risk repeating the violent mistakes of the past.[](https://opinion.inquirer.net/183632/a-repudiation-of-the-duterte-doctrine)[](https://asianews.network/a-repudiation-of-the-duterte-doctrine-philippine-daily-inquirer/)
**Critical Analysis:**
While the Supreme Court’s decision is a step toward a more humane and rights-based approach, its practical impact remains uncertain. The Philippine justice system has historically struggled with implementation, particularly in a society where political dynasties and personal loyalties often overshadow legal principles. The article notes that family networks and dynastic politics continue to dominate, which could undermine the ruling’s enforcement. For instance, the ongoing rivalry between the Marcos and Duterte families, as seen in the ICC arrest and political maneuvers, suggests that political considerations may overshadow judicial reforms.[](https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2025/03/polarized-opinion-the-arrest-of-duterte?lang=en)[](https://opinion.inquirer.net/180371/have-the-dutertes-turned-the-tide)[](https://opinion.inquirer.net/181821/in-the-aftermath-of-the-duterte-arrest)
Moreover, the ruling’s focus on civil servants raises questions about its applicability to the broader population, particularly the thousands of drug suspects killed or marginalized during Duterte’s drug war. The article calls for extending justice to these victims, but systemic issues—such as weak institutional accountability and public support for Duterte’s strongman tactics—may hinder progress. The persistence of Duterte’s populist appeal, as evidenced by protests supporting him at The Hague, indicates that public perception remains divided, potentially limiting the ruling’s transformative impact.[](https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2025/03/polarized-opinion-the-arrest-of-duterte?lang=en)[](https://medium.com/%40ch_commonfutures/the-worlds-eyes-on-a-nation-divided-public-discourse-towards-rodrigo-duterte-s-arrest-and-the-110b771e1bee)
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Salomon case is a landmark ruling that challenges the punitive legacy of Duterte’s drug war by mandating rehabilitation and due process. It sets a precedent for a more compassionate and legal approach to drug-related issues, but its success depends on overcoming entrenched political and societal barriers. The ruling serves as both a judicial and moral statement, urging a shift away from violence and toward justice, with implications for both domestic policy and the Philippines’ standing in international human rights discussions.[](https://opinion.inquirer.net/183632/a-repudiation-of-the-duterte-doctrine)[](https://asianews.network/a-repudiation-of-the-duterte-doctrine-philippine-daily-inquirer/)
News link - https://opinion.inquirer.net/183632/a-repudiation-of-the-duterte-doctrine."
Grok AI app, June 4 2025, upon request of Atty. Manuel Laserna Jr.
