I. Introduction
For decades, the Philippines has been embroiled in a critical drug crisis, primarily driven by the widespread abuse of methamphetamine, locally known as ‘shabu.’ Recognized by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime as the most commonly used drug in the region (UNODC 2012), shabu continues to be a significant concern (UNODC 2023a, 89), posing a grave threat to the nation’s security (transnational criminal activity, contributes to narco-politics, undermines justice systems, and fuels terrorism) and undermining sustainable development goals (DDB 2015). The prevailing drug policy, influenced by traditional dichotomies of good versus evil (Neumann 1919, 493), has been primarily punitive, focusing on the eradication of drug use. However, this stance has faced criticism for failing to consider evidence-based and human rights-oriented solutions.
In 2016, a crucial turning point emerged with the launch of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Operation Plan: Double Barrel, a forceful anti-drug initiative that drew significant backlash, including from international bodies like the International Criminal Court, for its excessive use of force (ICC 2022). This essay argues for a paradigm shift in tackling the drug crisis in the Philippines. It advocates for the adoption of a restorative justice model that emphasizes community-centric health-based solutions, viewing substance abuse more as a public health issue than a criminal one. This shift is reinforced by acknowledgments of the punitive drug war’s failure from both local officials, like ex-Bulacan police provincial director PCOL Romeo Caramat, and international observers, such as UNODC’s Jeremy Douglas (Allard and Lema 2020).
The essay critically examines traditional criminal justice methods, highlighting their limitations and biases, and proposes the integration of community policing and restorative justice. Through this lens, the essay explores successful global models, such as those implemented in the global north-Portugal and Switzerland, and local initiatives like the rehabilitation program in the global south- Bogo City, Philippines. The final recommendations focus on integrating these progressive approaches into the Philippine criminal justice system, aiming for a holistic solution to drug addiction that promotes recovery and societal cohesion.
II. Grounding the Link: Restorative Justice System and Community Policing
Exploring the Philippines’ drug crisis, this essay critically examines conventional criminal justice methods, highlighting their shortcomings as indicated by (Brown and Curtis (1987). These traditional approaches, often marred by non-impact policing and legal biases, have prompted a shift towards more effective strategies. In response to these criticisms, there has been an increased focus on community policing, a strategy aiming for proactive crime management and improved quality of life, resonating with Greene (2000). This shift has also paved the way for advocating restorative justice, as championed by John Braithwaite and rooted in ancient reconciliation traditions described by Van Ness (1986). Together, these methods offer promising solutions to mitigate drug issues and related crimes in the Philippines.
Recent research highlights an increased concentration of criminal activities among socio-economically disadvantaged groups, a trend linked to growing economic disparities and uneven distribution of crime control resources (Hunter and Tseloni 2016; Nilsson et al. 2017; Pease and Ignatans 2016). This rise in crime and victimization, especially in poorer regions, is largely attributed to economic inequalities and the unequal protection of property. Furthermore, chronic offenders are often victims of cumulative disadvantages, including child maltreatment (Savage 2009; Shannon 2006; Whitten et al. 2019). These findings emphasize the necessity for strategies that address the underlying causes of criminal behavior, such as economic hardship and childhood adversities, rather than solely relying on punitive measures. McCarthy (2019) suggests that failing to tackle these fundamental issues may result in offenders continually cycling through the criminal justice system. This insight holds significant importance for policymakers addressing drug-related crimes and violence in underprivileged areas. In Metro Manila, for instance, drug-related killings predominantly occur in the city’s boundaries and margins, areas often characterized by pockets of poverty (Pangilinan et al. 2021, 118).
Community policing, despite its diverse global applications (Scheider et al. 2009; Kappeler and Gaines 2012; Fielding 1995), fundamentally seeks to establish trust and credibility between police and communities (Carter and Fox 2019; Segrave and Ratcliffe 2004). Its core objective focuses on crime prevention (Riechers and Roberg 1990; Roth et al. 2004), in line with Sir Robert Peel’s philosophy of collective responsibility in crime prevention (Lee 1901) and the Broken Window Theory, which emphasizes community involvement in maintaining public safety and preventing crime escalation by addressing minor disorders (Keizer et al. 2008; Skogan 2015; Zimbardo 1973, 85-90).
The community policing approach differs from restorative justice, which Tony Marshall describes as a collaborative process for all affected parties to repair harm and prevent future crimes (Walgrave 1998, 19-20). Restorative justice, promoted by Bazemore (1999) for its focus on the impact of crime on individuals and communities and by (Umbreit 1998) for emphasizing offender accountability without stigmatization, both ideas echoed by John Braithwaite, an Australian criminologist and researcher (Tonry 2000, 328). Further, this alternative approach goes beyond traditional crime control to transform the principles of criminal justice and align with broader social values (Braithwaite 1999).
Connecting repairing harm to individuals to prevent future crimes, it also explores John Braithwaite’s ‘reintegrative shaming’ theory, positing that effective community shaming of criminal behavior can lead to lower crime rates (Braithwaite 1989, 1). The theory posits that communities with effective communication of shame regarding criminal behavior have lower crime rates, whereas those where violent acts are not deemed shameful experience higher levels of violence (Braithwaite 2016). This theory, particularly relevant to common and juvenile crimes, supports reducing recidivism through positive offender reintegration (Zhang and Zhang 2004). Research has found that reintegrative shaming effectively deters juvenile criminal behavior (Levi 2002).
Addressing the Philippines’ drug crisis requires a paradigm shift from traditional punitive justice to approaches like community policing and restorative justice. By focusing on structural factors that breed inequality and drive criminal behavior (Brown (2020), focusing on structural factors that drive criminal behavior, and emphasizing community-based interventions as advocated by Ruth Morris and Rachel Herzing, promoting transformative justice (Ansfield et al. 2023; Morris 2000). These methods offer a more effective and humane solution to managing drug issues such as addressing the root causes, reducing recidivism and stigmatization of offenders and fostering societal cohesion.
III. Exploring the Current Punitive Justice System in the Drug War Context
In the context of the drug war, the Philippines’ punitive justice system, as dictated by the 1987 Constitution, is mandated to maintain peace, protect lives and rights, and foster dignity, welfare, and justice, ensuring due process and swift justice (OG 1987). The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 outlines voluntary drug dependency treatment and legal exemptions for participants (OG 2002). However, the government’s approach between 2016 and 2022, marked by extrajudicial killings (CHR 2022, 37), an overtaxed justice system, and overcrowded prisons (Morales 2017; Punongbayan 2018), strayed from these constitutional principles, instilling widespread fear (Warburg and Jensen 2020) and neglecting the establishment of rehabilitation centers. Community programs often contradicted the law’s provisions for voluntary services, being mandatory without independent evaluation (UNODC 2022, 26).
During this turbulent period, the Philippines witnessed an evolution in its rehabilitation approach, marred by coercion and fear (Lasco and Yarcia 2022a). Rehabilitation admissions surged by 34.55% in 2018 due to plea bargaining (DDB 2018), but in 2019, despite continued plea bargains, admissions declined by 4.04% as more people opted for voluntary community-based rehabilitation (DDB 2019). Before President Duterte’s administration, rehabilitation followed the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3 of 2007, requiring user or family consent (DDB 2007). Duterte’s strict drug policies reframed rehabilitation as a harsh yet less violent alternative. Nevertheless, the UNODC noted that even before Duterte’s term, the country’s approach to voluntary treatments and sustained support for drug users was ineffective (UNODC 2014b, 38).
Mandatory rehabilitation involved three approaches: the police-led “Project Tokhang” under “Operation Plan Double Barrel,” campaign with door-to-door surrender requests, court-ordered rehab post-arrest, and family-initiated admissions without user consent (Lasco and Yarcia 2022a). The Duterte era saw a spike in drug-related arrests and prison overcrowding (Yarcia and Bernadas 2021). Project Tokhang, aiming to coerce millions into surrender, lacked evidence of its effectiveness in addiction management (Hunt 2020, 117). During this period, it also highlighted a “moral panic” around drugs (Cohen 2011, 8), with politicians leveraging public fear to position themselves as protectors, exacerbating societal divisions (Lasco and Curato 2019; Pratt 2007). Evident during the height of the drug war, President Duterte’s declaration of total war on illegal drugs as a national security threat (Bautista 2017) and his stark rhetoric about slaughtering millions of drug addicts highlighted his intent to eliminate crime to safeguard future generations (Holmes 2016).
The Philippine drug policy, veering away from its constitutional focus on rehabilitation and due process, relied heavily on punitive actions. Despite these efforts, drug problems persisted from 2018 to 2021, evidenced by increased methamphetamine imports and seizures in early 2022, the last phase of Duterte’s term (UNODC 2023, 91), highlighting the ineffectiveness of government interventions and the lack of adequate support for People Who Use Drugs (PWUDs).
IV. Effectiveness of Restorative Justice in Tackling Drug Crisis
Global North Perspective
Portugal’s model of prioritizing rehabilitation over criminalization exemplifies the success of a health-based, restorative justice system, contrasting sharply with the prohibitive drug policies of the United States, which have adversely affected public health and crime rates, unlike Portugal and Switzerland, whose decriminalization strategies have yielded positive outcomes (Miller 2021). The United States has witnessed significant challenges, particularly evident in its struggle with Mexico’s drug cartels. Despite substantial support for Mexico’s security and judicial reforms, these efforts have not successfully curtailed violence and drug trafficking, highlighting the limitations of American drug policies (CFR 2022). This situation has contributed to Mexico becoming a major supplier of illegal drugs to the US market due to high demand (Smith (2021), illustrating the flaws in American drug policy.
Portugal’s restorative justice system views drug addiction as an amalgamation of medical, psychological, and social issues, advocating for therapeutic and community-centric solutions. This approach, evident since Portugal’s decriminalization in 2001, represents a shift from punitive measures to a focus on public health and rehabilitation. Portugal’s experience, especially its transformative 2001 law, reversed its severe drug epidemic, contrasting with the ongoing opioid crisis in the United States (Clay 2018). Since 2001, the Portuguese Drug Policy Model (PDPM) has decriminalized all illegal drugs, marking a shift away from the failed War on Drugs and towards respecting drug users’ rights (RÊGO et al. 2021). Renowned for its humane and practical approach, the PDPM is a global benchmark in inclusive policymaking (Bergeron and Colson 2017; Woods 2011). It involves a commission of experts focusing on reducing drug use and risk education in a non-judgmental way (Carapinha et al. 2017, 9), emphasizing the health rights of individuals involved (Silvestri 2014).
Portugal’s drug policy is a notable success story, with drug-related deaths dropping significantly since the 2001 reforms; despite a slight rise, they remain lower than pre-reform levels (EMCDDA 2020b). Portugal also saw a unique decline in hazardous drug use (Hughes and Stevens 2010), especially among youth (EMCDDA 2020a), compared to its neighbors. Post-reform, police efforts shifted from users to traffickers, increasing drug seizures and reducing incarcerations and judicial system strain (Hughes 2017). The number of people jailed for drug offenses dropped significantly, contrasting with the previous situation where a large portion of prisoners were drug-related offenders (Torres et al. 2016). By 2019, Portugal’s prison population for drug crimes fell below the European average (COE 2019), suggesting the reforms may have led to reduced drug seizure (Félix et al. 2017) and a potentially decreased market flow due to lower drug demand.
Similarly, Switzerland’s response to its heroin epidemic in the late 1980s and 90s offers insights into innovative social policy changes. The Swiss experience demonstrates that drug policy can evolve substantially, shaped by public health emergencies like the AIDS epidemic, community needs, and collaborative learning among diverse groups (Kubler 2001). Transitioning from an abstinence-based approach to harm reduction or heroin-assisted treatment (Uchtenhagen 1999). These changes underscore the importance of scientifically validated program evaluation, integration of policing with health initiatives, and adaptability in policy development. A study on the long-term effects of heroin-assisted treatment showed it significantly reduced heroin, cocaine, and benzodiazepine use over six years, with about 10% of participants entirely stopping opioid use (Guttinger et al. 2003).
Key takeaways include the necessity for evidence-based program evaluation, combining law enforcement with health initiatives, educating the public about drug policies, being receptive to independent reviews, and addressing ideological resistance through evidence-based approaches (Kubler and Walti 2001). While Switzerland’s small size and advanced health system might not make its methods universally applicable, the nation’s overcoming of challenges and its contribution to global drug policy research are noteworthy. Swiss drug policy reform shifted focus from individual to collective efforts across multiple sectors, culminating in a comprehensive four-pillar approach to drug policy. This evolution, marked by developing programs like Heroin-Assisted Treatment, underscores the significance of trial and error, flexibility, and progressive scaling in social innovation (Wolf and Herzig 2019). These practices have been instrumental in shaping informed policy decisions and enhancing the understanding of complex social issues.
The Portuguese and Swiss drug policies, while not fully embracing restorative justice principles like direct dialogue among victims, offenders, and community members, both share their essence in addressing drug abuse’s root causes, emphasizing community rehabilitation and support for users, and prioritizing public health over punitive measures. These approaches have notably reduced drug-related issues in Portugal, such as deaths, HIV/AIDS cases, and crimes, earning them global recognition in drug policy reform debates.
Global South Perspective
The Philippines’ drug war highlights the limitations of its punitive justice approach compared to more effective strategies in the Global North. The Philippine National Police’s Operation Plan Double Barrel, comprising Project “Tokhang” for reducing drug supply and demand and Project “HVT” targeting shabu labs and suppliers (DDB n.d.), has often resulted in societal division and hasn’t addressed the underlying causes of addiction. Similar to other Asian countries, the Philippines has predominantly used mandatory residential treatment for dealing with illicit drug use (Vuong et al. 2017). At a 2017 University of the Philippines conference in Manila, experts from ten economies analyzed the Philippines’ drug crisis, with the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) workshop highlighted the drug issue’s complexity, rooted in poverty and inequality, advocating for a comprehensive, rights-based approach involving diverse stakeholders instead of just criminalization (Simbulan et al. 2019).
Bogo City, Philippines, serves as a model for effective restorative justice at the city level. Despite limited government policy on outpatient drug treatment (Cayabyab 2016), the city implemented a community-based approach to drug rehabilitation, diverging from the national punitive strategy. Considering, that the chairman of the Dangerous Drugs Board reported that 90% of voluntarily surrendered drug dependents could be treated through a community-based rehabilitation program (Cepeda 2016). The “Re-Re” program in Bogo City, focusing on community-based rehabilitation and reintegration, has shown promising results (Alipon 2017). It employs humane methods like the 12 Steps to Sobriety from Narcotics Anonymous and involves the local government in continuous rehabilitation efforts and anti-drug education (Re-Re 2018). Against the backdrop of the national punitive anti-drug campaign, Bogo City, led by its local police and government, developed an approach that diverged from President Duterte’s retributive measures (Rauhala 2017).
The success of the community-based rehabilitation program in Bogo City is significantly attributed to the local police force’s initiative and leadership in adopting a compassionate approach towards PWUDs, offering them opportunities for reform and the local leaders and structure empowerment. Since the police chief’s appointment in December 2016, the city has not recorded any operational drug-related deaths, showcasing the strategy’s effectiveness. The police leadership’s focus on grassroots empowerment has been pivotal in building trust and support for peace and order and in persuading PWUDs to engage with the Rehabilitation and Reintegration (Re-Re) programs (Mayol 2017).
The empowerment strategy made by the local police involves first the city’s barangay officials, particularly the elected chairpersons and its Barangay Anti-Drug Abuse Council (BADAC) members. These officials play a pivotal role in understanding and managing their area’s drug-related challenges. Their responsibilities include identifying and accounting for PWUDs who require treatment and being knowledgeable about the aims and practices of barangay drug-clearing operations. These operations are governed by DDB Regulation No. 3 of 2017, which outlines the standards for declaring barangays as drug-free (DDB 2017). This initial phase is crucial in laying the groundwork for a thriving drug-free community.
The local police’s next strategy focuses on empowering city officials, particularly the local chief executive or mayor and the City Anti-Drug Abuse Council (CADAC), whose support, including funding, is crucial for effective policy implementation. Central to this is integrating the Rehabilitation and Reintegration (Re-Re) program into the broader drug-clearing operations, which is crucial for rehabilitating PWUDs and their societal reintegration. Bogo City’s comprehensive rehabilitation approach combines law enforcement, community engagement, educational workshops, sports, weekly mandatory drug testing, and activities like cleaning city canals and waterways, providing a holistic response to the drug issue and supporting PWUDs’ recovery.
V. Rehabilitation in Restorative Justice
In Restorative Justice and Rehabilitation, the system perceives drug addiction as a multifaceted issue, integrating medical, psychological, and social elements, and advocates for therapeutic, community-driven solutions. Portugal’s 2001 decriminalization and rehabilitation-focused drug policy exemplify this, having notably decreased drug-related deaths and hazardous use, particularly among youth, while reducing incarcerations and easing judicial system burdens.
Switzerland’s transition from abstinence-based policies to a harm reduction approach, incorporating heroin-assisted treatment, exemplifies the synergy between restorative justice and rehabilitation. This strategy views drug addiction as a public health issue, focusing on healing both individuals and communities, rather than solely relying on punitive actions. It fosters collaborative efforts between law enforcement and health services, prioritizing rehabilitation and community support while respecting individuals’ rights and dignity. This holistic and evidence-based methodology facilitates effective rehabilitation by integrating legal, health, and societal considerations, showcasing how drug policies can evolve to address public health challenges and societal needs effectively.
In the Philippines, Bogo City’s “Re-Re” program, led by the local police, showcases successful community-based rehabilitation. The program’s focus on grassroots empowerment and combining law enforcement with community participation offers a comprehensive approach to addressing drug problems, illustrating the potential of restorative justice in such crises.
The Philippines could, therefore, benefit from shifting from a punitive approach to one centered on rehabilitation, mirroring successes like Bogo City’s. Emulating this model, the government could establish community-based rehabilitation centers nationwide, tailored to local needs and incorporating restorative justice principles and Narcotics Anonymous’s 12-step approach/guidelines. This approach would aid in sustainable recovery and promote societal cohesion. Rossi and Conti (2023) study emphasized the variety of global responses to drug misuse, underscoring the need to tailor strategies to individual needs, be it towards total abstinence or harm reduction.
The 12-step approach provides a structured path for recovering from addiction with an emphasis on spiritual and personal growth. This method, though different from the restorative justice system, shares similar objectives in fostering rehabilitation and bolstering community support. These programs are frequently a part of community-based drug rehabilitation strategies, where the emphasis is on shared experiences and mutual support among individuals. The UNODC recognizes the value of such peer-support groups in complementing evidence-based treatments. Renowned for fostering a sense of community through peer support, the 12-step approach enhances restorative justice initiatives by promoting personal accountability and the process of making amends. These elements are crucial in personal recovery journeys and the broader context of community healing.
While the 12-step approach focuses on individual recovery and spiritual development, restorative justice primarily aims at healing communities and resolving conflicts stemming from criminal activities. In settings where community-based drug rehabilitation is practiced, these two approaches support and reinforce each other. The 12-step model assists individuals on their path to recovery, whereas restorative justice tackles the wider social and legal consequences of drug-related crimes. Combined, they present a holistic approach to rehabilitation, marrying the principles of personal growth, accountability, and community involvement. This synergy between the two methodologies aligns with the larger goals of restorative justice, offering diverse yet complementary strategies for recovery and rehabilitation.
This method fosters cooperation between law enforcement, healthcare providers, and community groups, as exemplified by Bogo City’s “Re-Re” program. Empowered by the local police, this program blends grassroots empowerment with formal law enforcement and community engagement, showcasing the efficacy of restorative justice in tackling drug issues. Incorporating the Narcotics Anonymous 12-step program’s principles, this approach complements restorative justice objectives, focusing on rehabilitation and community support. The 12-step program’s emphasis on personal and spiritual growth aids restorative justice’s goal of communal healing, particularly in drug rehabilitation contexts. Addressing personal addiction issues contributes to reducing the demand for drugs like shabu, ultimately leading to a decrease in supply and enhancing overall societal health.
VI. Challenges and Obstacles to Implementing Rehabilitation Programs
In the Philippines, addressing the drug crisis requires overcoming challenges such as limited funding, societal stigma, and cultural barriers, especially when implementing a health and community-based restorative justice system. The common perception of drug use as a moral failure, coupled with scarce rehabilitation options due to societal prejudice and punitive approaches, often impedes effective interventions (Lasco and Yarcia 2022b). This stigma also affects community acceptance and participation in Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR) programs (UNODC 2020), as seen in the initial implementation of the Re-Re program in Bogo City, where local leaders expressed concerns about potential criminal behavior by PWUDs. Moreover, a study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health highlights a broader societal trend of more negative attitudes toward drug addiction compared to mental illness and a reduced willingness to support policies that aid drug dependents in areas like insurance, housing, and employment (Barry et al. 2014).
Another common in community-based rehabilitation programs is Resource limitations, which pose a significant challenge to running the program. These programs frequently face a shortfall in funding and resources, which are crucial for their success. Adequate investment is essential in physical facilities and the equipment necessary for comprehensive rehabilitation services. Beyond the tangible assets, there is a pressing need for trained personnel, including healthcare professionals, counselors, and support staff, who are essential for delivering effective and empathetic care to individuals struggling with drug addiction (LI et al. 2013).
The scarcity of resources is particularly acute in low and middle-income countries, where healthcare and social service systems often grapple with limited budgets and infrastructural constraints. This lack of funding can lead to inadequate care and support for those in need, hindering their recovery and reintegration into society. The World Health Organization’s Substance Abuse Department (2021) highlights this issue, emphasizing the need for increased investment and attention to building robust CBR programs that can cater to the complex needs of individuals battling drug addiction (WHO 2021). Without such investment, many who could benefit from these services may continue to face barriers in accessing the care they need, perpetuating cycles of addiction and marginalization in these communities.
VII. Recommendations for a Comprehensive Restorative Justice System
Addressing drug crises such as addiction with a restorative justice approach necessitates widespread collaboration across various sectors and government involvement. Maté (2018) in his work “In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts,” emphasizes the complexity of addiction and the societal misconceptions that hinder effective treatment. Similarly, Dr. Joanne Csete points out the clash between traditional law enforcement methods and public health goals (Csete and Wolfe 2017). The World Health Organization and the UNODC have underscored the benefits of community-based rehabilitation, advocating for its role in facilitating sustainable recovery (UNODC 2014b; WHO 2020). The United Nations’ support for non-punitive measures is crucial in altering these perspectives (Csete 2020). The Philippines, as a developing country, can benefit from adopting a health and community-focused approach, encompassing both government and community efforts, to address addiction, reduce drug-related harm, and support societal reintegration.
Legislation in the Philippines could significantly enhance the restorative justice system by clearly defining the role of the national police within this framework. This would transform their role from partners to active implementers of restorative justice principles. Such legislation would be significant in cases of juvenile delinquency, mandating police intervention to protect minors, victims, and the community from the harmful effects of crime. A specific law for restorative justice would ensure its comprehensive integration into the broader criminal justice system, making it a standard part of the national police force’s duties. Integrating restorative justice into police operations would bolster their response to both criminal and drug-related issues, as evidenced by the successful model implemented in Bogo City. This approach harmonizes with the foundational objectives of the Philippine National Police, which encompass preventing crime, fostering healing, and reintegrating offenders. It emphasizes identifying and addressing the underlying factors of criminal behavior to avert future instances of violence.
VIII. Conclusion
This essay underscores the importance of shifting the Philippines’ drug policy from punitive measures to a restorative justice model, emphasizing health-based solutions and community engagement. The failure of the current approach, heavily reliant on force and criminalization, is evident in the persistent drug crisis despite harsh interventions. In contrast, successful examples from Portugal and Switzerland demonstrate the effectiveness of prioritizing rehabilitation and harm reduction. The experience of Bogo City in the Philippines further validates this approach, showing significant success in managing drug issues through community-based rehabilitation and reintegration programs.
Adopting a restorative justice system, which views drug addiction as a multifaceted issue requiring therapeutic and community-focused solutions, is crucial. Such a system recognizes the need for a compassionate approach, integrating the police into the more comprehensive health and community support network. This approach not only aids in reducing the stigma associated with drug use but also focuses on the holistic recovery of individuals, fostering societal reintegration and reducing recidivism.
Comprehensive legislation and cross-sectoral collaboration are necessary to implement a restorative justice system effectively. Policymaking should be informed by successful global models and grounded in a deep understanding of the complex nature of addiction and the social factors influencing it. By pivoting towards a health and community-based approach, the Philippines can address the root causes of drug addiction, mitigate drug-related harm, and promote sustainable recovery and societal harmony. This shift aligns with the United Nations’ advocacy for non-punitive measures and presents a more humane, effective strategy for tackling the drug crisis in the Philippines.
by: Byron Allatog
———————————
REFERENCES:
Alipon, Joworski. 2017. “Bogo City Achieves Drug-Free Status with Zero Deaths.” ABS-CBN NEWS. August 30, 2017. https://news.abs-cbn.com/focus/08/30/17/bogo-city-achieves-drug-free-status-with-zero-deaths#:~:text=More%20than%201%2C000%20surrenderers%20from,drug%20operations.
Allard, Tom, and Karen Lema. 2020. “Exclusive: ‘Shock and Awe’ Has Failed in Philippines Drug War, Enforcement Chief Says.” REUTERS. February 7, 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-drugs-performance-exclusi-idUSKBN2010IL.
Ansfield, Bench, Rachel Herzing, and Dean Spade. 2023. “Abolition Infrastructures: A Conversation on Transformative Justice with Rachel Herzing and Dean Spade.” Radical History Review 2023 (147): 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-10637246.
Barry, Colleen L, Emma E McGinty, Bernice A Pescosolido, and Howard H Goldman. 2014. “Stigma, Discrimination, Treatment Effectiveness, and Policy: Public Views About Drug Addiction and Mental Illness.” Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.) 65 (10): 1269–72. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400140.
Bautista, Lowell B. 2017. “Duterte and His Quixotic War on Drugs.” University of Wollongong. January 1, 2017. https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3877&context=lhapapers.
Bazemore, Gordon. 1999. “Crime Victims, Restorative Justice and the Juvenile Court: Exploring Victim Needs and Involvement in the Response to Youth Crime.” International Review of Victimology 6 (4): 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/026975809900600404.
Bergeron, Henri., and Renaud. Colson. 2017. “European Drug Policies : The Ways of Reform.” Abingdon, Oxon ; Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315690384.
Braithwaite, John. 1989. “Crime, Shame and Reintegration.” Cambridge ; Cambridge University Press.
Braithwaite, John. 1999. “Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic Accounts.” Crime & Justice (Chicago, Ill) 25: 1–127. https://doi.org/10.1086/449287.
———. 2016. “REINTEGRATIVE SHAMING.” John Braithwaite WAR.CRIME. REGULATION. 2016. https://johnbraithwaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2000_Reintegrative-Shaming.pdf.
Brown, Adrienne Maree. 2020. “What Is Trasnformative Justice? (Video).” Barnard Center for Research on Women. 2020. https://youtu.be/U-_BOFz5TXo?si=OBXK4sChDe1ljdrS.
Brown, Stephen Eugene, and John Curtis. 1987. “Fundamentals of Criminal Justice Research.” Criminal Justice Studies. Cincinnati, Ohio: Pilgrimage.
Carapinha, Ludmila, Catarina Guerreiro, and Lúcia Dias. 2017. “Effects of Dissuasion Intervention, Based on CDTs Activity.” SICAD. 2017. https://www.sicad.pt/BK/EstatisticaInvestigacao/EstudosConcluidos/Lists/SICAD_ESTUDOS/Attachments/180/Relatorio_EfeitosIntervencaoDissuasao.pt.pdf.
Carter, Jeremy G., and Bryanna Fox. 2019. “Community Policing and Intelligence-Led Policing: An Examination of Convergent or Discriminant Validity.” Policing : An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 42 (1): 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2018-0105.
Cayabyab, Marc Jayson. 2016. “House Urged to Enact Laws for Outpatient Rehab Centers.” Inquirer.Net. September 22, 2016. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/818036/house-urged-to-enact-laws-for-out-patient-rehab-centers.
CEPEDA, MARA. 2016. “DDB Wants Law Institutionalizing Community-Based Drug Rehab.” Rappler. September 22, 2016. https://www.rappler.com/nation/147020-ddb-law-institutionalize-community-based-drug-rehabilitation/.
CFR. 2022. “Mexico’s Long War: Drugs, Crime, and the Cartels.” Council on Foreign Relations. September 7, 2022. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/mexicos-long-war-drugs-crime-and-cartels.
CHR. 2022. “REPORT ON INVESTIGATED KILLINGS IN RELATION TO THE ANTI-ILLEGAL DRUG CAMPAIGN.” Government website. Commission on Human Rights. April 2022. https://chr.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/CHR-National-Report-April-2022-Full-Final.pdf.
Clay, Rebecca A. 2018. “How Portugal Is Solving Its Opioid Problem.” October 2018. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/10/portugal-opioid.
COE. 2019. “Space Project: Annual Reports 2001-2019.” Council of Europe. 2019. . https://wp.unil.ch/space/ space-i/annual-reports/.
Cohen, Stanley. 2011. “Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers.” 3rd ed. Routledge Classics. London: Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203828250.
Csete, Joanne. 2020. “The Elusive Search for Rights-Centred Public Health Approaches to Drug Policy,” July.
Csete, Joanne, and Daniel Wolfe. 2017. “Seeing through the Public Health Smoke-Screen in Drug Policy.” International Journal of Drug Policy 43 (May): 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.02.016.
DDB. 2007. “DDB Regulation No.3-RULES GOVERNING VOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT FOR TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION OF DRUG DEPENDENTS.” Dangerous Drugs Board. 2007. https://ddb.gov.ph/images/Board_Regulation/2007/Bd.%20Reg.%203%2007.pdf.
———. 2015. “National Anti-Drug Plan of Action.” Dangerous Drugs Board. 2015. https://ddb.gov.ph//images/NADPA_2015-2020_final_draft.pdf.
———. 2017. “Board Regulation No.3 Series of 2017: Strengthening the Implementation of the Barangay Drug Clearing Program.” Dangerous Drugs Board. 2017. https://ddb.gov.ph//images/Board_Regulation/2017/BR3_2017.pdf.
———. 2018. “2018 Statistical Analysis.” Dangerous Drugs Board. 2018. https://ddb.gov.ph/2018-statistical-analysis/.
———. 2019. “Statistical Analysis CY 2019.” Dangerous Drugs Board. 2019. https://ddb.gov.ph/2019-statistical-analysis/.
———. n.d. “Major Programs and Projects.” Dangerous Drugs Board. Accessed November 8, 2023. https://ddb.gov.ph/major-programs-projects/.
EMCDDA. 2020a. “Statistical Bulletin 2020 — Prevalence of Drug Use.” European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addition. 2020. https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/stats2020_en.
———. 2020b. “Statistical Bulletin 2020-Overdose Deaths.” European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addition. 2020. https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/stats2020/drd_en#.
Félix, Sónia, Pedro Portugal, and Ana Tavares. 2017. “Going after the Addiction, Not the Addicted: The Impact of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal.” IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc.
Fielding, Nigel. 1995. “Community Policing.” Clarendon Studies in Criminology Community Policing. Oxford: Clarendon.
Greene, Jack R. 2000. “Community Policing in America : Changing the Nature , Structure , and Function of the Police.” In . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16903903.
Guttinger, F, P Gschwend, B Schulte, Jürgen Rehm, and Ambros Uchtenhagen. 2003. “Evaluating Long-Term Effects of Heroin-Assisted Treatment – the Results of a 6-Year Follow-Up.” https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-94720.
Holmes, Oliver. 2016. “Rodrigo Duterte Vows to Kill 3 Million Drug Addicts and Likens Himself to Hitler.” The Guardian. October 1, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/30/rodrigo-duterte-vows-to-kill-3-million-drug-addicts-and-likens-himself-to-hitler.
Hughes, Caitlin Elizabeth, and Alex Stevens. 2010. “What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?” British Journal of Criminology 50 (6): 999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azq038.
Hunt, Frances. 2020. “Documenting the Impact of Philippine Drug Policy, Project Tokhang, 1 July 2016.”
Hunter, James, and Andromachi Tseloni. 2016. “Equity, Justice and the Crime Drop: The Case of Burglary in England and Wales.” Crime Science 5 (1): 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-016-0051-z.
ICC. 2022. “Prosecution’s Request to Resume the Investigation into the Situation in the Philippines Pursuant to Article 18(2).” International Criminal Court. June 24, 2022. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2022_05101.PDF.
JIANHUA LI, CHANGHE WANG, Jennifer M MCGOOGAN, KEMING ROU, Marc BULTERYS, and ZUNYOU WU. 2013. “Human Resource Development and Capacity-Building during China’s Rapid Scale-up of Methadone Maintenance Treatment Services.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 91 (2): 130–35. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.12.108951.
Kappeler, Victor E, and Larry K Gaines. 2012. “Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective.” 6th ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315722092.
Keizer, Kees, Siegwart Lindenberg, and Linda Steg. 2008. “The Spreading of Disorder.” Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 322 (5908): 1681–85. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161405.
Kubler, D. 2001. “Understanding Policy Change with the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Application to Swiss Drug Policy.” Journal of European Public Policy 8 (4): 623–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110064429.
Kubler, Daniel, and Sonja Walti. 2001. “Drug Policy-Making in Metropolitan Areas: Urban Conflicts and Governance.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 (1): 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00296.
Lasco, Gideon, and Nicole Curato. 2019. “Medical Populism.” Social Science & Medicine (1982) 221: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.006.
Lasco, Gideon, and Lee Edson Yarcia. 2022a. “The Politics of Drug Rehabilitation in the Philippines.” Health and Human Rights 24 (1): 147–58.
———. 2022b. “The Politics of Drug Rehabilitation in the Philippines.” Health and Human Rights 24 (1): 147–58.
Lee, William Lauriston Melville. 1901. A History of Police in England.
Levi, Michael. 2002. “Suite Justice or Sweet Charity?: Some Explorations of Shaming and Incapacitating Business Fraudsters.” Punishment & Society 4 (2): 147–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624740222228527.
Mat, Gabor. 2018. “In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction.” London: Vermilion.
Mayol, Ador Vincent. 2017. “Bloodless: This Cop Chief Gives Pushers, Addicts Chance to Live.” Inquirer.Net. October 15, 2017. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/937947/war-on-drugs-drug-killings-extrajudicial-killings-bogo-city-police-station-byron-allatog-pdea.
McCarthy, Molly. 2019. “Trends in Youth Offending in Queensland, 2008 to 2017.” Griffith University. December 2019. https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/1091069/Final-report-Youth-Offending-Trends-2008-to-2017.pdf.
Miller, Tristen. 2021. “The Ineffectiveness of the War on Drugs.” Murray State University. 2021. https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/bis437/371/.
Morales, Neil Jerome. 2017. “Jails, Justice System at Breaking Point as Philippine Drugs War Intensifies.” REUTERS. September 1, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-justice-idUSKCN1BB39F.
Morris, Ruth. 2000. Stories of Transformative Justice. 1st ed. Toronto, CAN: Canadian Scholars’ Press and Women’s Press.
Neumann, Henry. 1919. “Manichaean Tendencies in the History of Philosophy.” The Philosophical Review 28 (5): 491–510. https://doi.org/10.2307/2178324.
Nilsson, Anders, Felipe Estrada, and Olof Bäckman. 2017. “The Unequal Crime Drop: Changes over Time in the Distribution of Crime among Individuals from Different Socioeconomic Backgrounds.” European Journal of Criminology 14 (5): 586–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370816682979.
OG. 1987. “The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.” Official Gazette. February 1987. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/.
———. 2002. “Republic Act No. 9165- Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” Official Gazette. 2002. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2002/06/07/republic-act-no-9165/.
Pangilinan, Maria Karla Abigail, Maria Carmen Fernandez, Nastassja Quijano, and Wilfredo Dizon. 2021. “Examining the Effects of Drug-Related Killings on Philippine Conditional Cash Transfer Beneficiaries in Metro Manila, 2016–2017.” Journal of Illicit Economies and Development 2 (2): 110–26. https://doi.org/10.31389/jied.50.
Pease, Ken, and Dainis Ignatans. 2016. “The Global Crime Drop and Changes in the Distribution of Victimisation.” Crime Science 5 (1): 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-016-0059-4.
Pratt, John. 2007. Penal Populism Key Ideas in Criminology. Key Ideas in Criminology Penal Populism. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ; Routledge.
Punongbayan, Michael. 2018. “Drug War, Slow Justice System Congesting Jails.” PhilStar Global. July 4, 2018. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/07/04/1830408/drug-war-slow-justice-system-congesting-jails.
Rauhala, Emily. 2017. “Duterte’s Police Have Killed Thousands in the Philippines. But This Police Chief Told His Officers, ‘Don’t Kill.’” The Washington Post. October 8, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/dutertes-police-have-killed-thousands-in-the-philippines-but-this-cop-told-his-officers-dont-kill/2017/10/08/dd96df58-9c41-11e7-8ed4-a750b67c552b_story.html.
RÊGO, Ximene, Maria João OLIVEIRA, Catarina LAMEIRA, and Olga S. CRUZ. 2021. “20 Years of Portuguese Drug Policy – Developments, Challenges and the Quest for Human Rights.” Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention and Policy 16 (1): 1–59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-021-00394-7.
Re-Re. 2018. “Re-Re Program AVP.” Team Re-Re Bogo City. March 1, 2018. https://fb.watch/oh5VsOT6t4/.
Riechers, L.M., and R.R. Roberg. 1990. “Community Policing: A Critical Review of Underlying Assumptions.” Journal of Police Science and Administration 17 (2): 105–14.
Rossi, Carla, and Susanna Conti. 2023. Evaluating the Impact of Laws Regulating Illicit Drugs on Health and Society. Sharjah, SINGAPORE: Bentham Science Publishers. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/anu/detail.action?docID=30593706.
Savage, Joanne. 2009. The Development of Persistent Criminality. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195310313.001.0001.
Scheider, Matthew C, Robert Chapman, and Amy Schapiro. 2009. “Towards the Unification of Policing Innovations under Community Policing.” Policing : An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 32 (4): 694–718. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510911000777.
Segrave, Marie, and Jerry Ratcliffe. 2004. “Community Policing: A Descriptive Overview.” Australian Institute of Crimonology. January 3, 2004. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/archive/archive-168.
Shannon, David. 2006. “Chronic Offenders or Socially Disadvantaged Youth? Institutionalized Males as Missing Cases in School‐based Delinquency Research.” Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 7 (1): 78–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14043850500512205.
Silvestri, Arianna. 2014. “GATEWAYS FROM CRIME TO HEALTH: THE PORTUGUESE DRUG COMMISSIONS.” SICAD. 2014. https://www.sicad.pt/BK/Dissuasao/Documents/AS%20report%20GATEWAYS%20FROM%20CRIME%20TO%20HEALTH.pdf.
Simbulan, Nymia, Leonardo Estacio, Carissa Dioquino-Maligaso, Teodoro Herbosa, and Mellissa Withers. 2019. “The Manila Declaration on the Drug Problem in the Philippines.” Annals of Global Health 85 (1). https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.28.
Skogan, Wesley. 2015. “Disorder and Decline: The State of Research.” The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 52 (4): 464–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815577836.
Smith, Benjamin T. 2021. The Dope: The Real History of the Mexican Drug Trade. First American edition. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Tonry, Michael. 2000. The Handbook of Crime and Punishment. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Torres, Anália, Rita Mendes, and Sofia Gaspar. 2016. “Inquérito Nacional Sobre Comportamentos Aditivos Em Meio Prisional.” SICAD. 2016. https://www.sicad.pt/BK/EstatisticaInvestigacao/EstudosConcluidos/Lists/SICAD_ESTUDOS/Attachments/158/INCAMP_2016_Volume1.pdf.
Uchtenhagen, Dobler-Mikola, Steffen, Gutzwiller, Blättler, Pfeifer / Uchtenhagen, Gutzwiller, Dobler-Mikola, Steffen, Rihs-Middel. 1999. Prescriptions of Narcotics for Heroin Addicts: Main Results of the Swiss National Cohort Study. S. Karger.
Umbreit, Mark S. 1998. “Restorative Justice through Victim Offender Mediation: A Multi-Site Assessment.” In . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:151923925.
UNODC. 2012. “Patterns and Trends of Amphetamine-Type Stimulants and Other Drugs. Asisa and the Pacific.” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. December 2012. https://www.unodc.org/roseap/uploads/archive/documents/2012/12/ats-2012/2012_Regional_ATS_Report_FINAL_HQPDF_3_Dec_2012_low.pdf.
———. 2014a. “Community Based Treatment and Care for Drug Use and Dependence.” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. 2014. https://www.unodc.org/roseap/uploads/archive/documents/cbtx/cbtx_brief_EN.pdf.
———. 2014b. “Guidance for Community-Based Treatment and Care Services for People Affected by Drug Use and Dependence in Southeast Asia.” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. 2014. https://www.unodc.org/documents/drug-treatment/UNODC_cbtx_guidance_EN.pdf.
———. 2014c. “Guidance for Community-Based Treatment and Care Services for People Affected by Drug Use and Dependence in Southeast Asia.” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. 2014. https://www.unodc.org/documents/drug-treatment/UNODC_cbtx_guidance_EN.pdf.
———. 2020. “SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND DRUG USE DISORDERS.” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. 2020. https://wdr.unodc.org/wdr2020/field/WDR20_Booklet_5.pdf.
———. 2022. “Compulsory Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation in East and SouthEast Asia.” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. 2022. https://www.unodc.org/roseap/uploads/documents/Publications/2022/Booklet_3_12th_Jan_2022.pdf.
———. 2023. “Synthetic Drugs in East and Southeast Asia.” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. 2023. https://www.unodc.org/roseap/uploads/documents/Publications/2023/Synthetic_Drugs_in_East_and_Southeast_Asia_2023.pdf.
Van Ness, Daniel W. 1986. Crime and Its Victims: What We Can Do. Impact Books. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press.
Vuong, Thu, Nhu Nguyen, Giang Le, Marian Shanahan, Robert Ali, and Alison Ritter. 2017. “The Political and Scientific Challenges in Evaluating Compulsory Drug Treatment Centers in Southeast Asia.” Harm Reduction Journal 14 (1): 2–2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-016-0130-1.
Walgrave, L. 1998. Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Potenialities, Risks and Problems. Vol. 12. Samenleving Criminaliteit En Strafrechtspleging. Leuven: Leuven university press = Universitaire pers Leuven.
Warburg, Anna Bræmer, and Steffen Jensen. 2020. “Ambiguous Fear in the War on Drugs: A Reconfiguration of Social and Moral Orders in the Philippines.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (Singapore) 51 (1–2): 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463420000211.
WHO. 2020. “International Standards for the Treatment of Drug Use Disorders: Revised Edition Incorporating Results of Field-Testing.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization. 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/international-standards-for-the-treatment-of-drug-use-disorders.
———. 2021. “Mental Health and Substance Use.” World Health Organization. 2021. https://www.who.int/westernpacific/about/how-we-work/programmes/mental-health-and-substance-abuse.
Wolf, Miriam, and Michael Herzig. 2019. “Inside Switzerland’s Radical Drug Policy Innovation.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. July 22, 2019. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/inside_switzerlands_radical_drug_policy_innovation#.
Woods, Jordan Blair. 2011. “A Decade after Drug Decriminalization: What Can the United States Learn from the Portuguese Model.” The University of the District of Columbia Law Review 15 (1): 1.
Yarcia, Lee, and Jan Bernadas. 2021. “Articulating Key Obligations of States to Persons Deprived of Liberty under a Right to Health Framework: The Philippine Case Study.” International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare ahead-of-print (August). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHRH-08-2020-0071.
Zimbardo, Philip G. 1973. “A field experiment in auto shaping.” Vandalism. Ward, Colin Ward. 1973. Vandalism. London: Architectural Press.
Zhang, Lening, and Sheldon Zhang. 2004. “Reintegrative Shaming and Predatory Delinquency.” The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41 (4): 433–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427803262077.