At the close of Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte’s administration, we look back at how his centrality in almost all aspects of policymaking and sustained populist appeal has shaped Philippine politics. With its official script and actual actions closely aligned, his government has put in danger many democratic precepts that were painstakingly created after 1986. International indices classify the Philippines under the Duterte government as being in a state of democratic backsliding and an electoral autocracy. Its abysmal human rights record on the war on drugs is the subject of a United Nations report and an International Criminal Court inquiry. Despite the stringent COVID-19 pandemic measures imposed, it has been one of the worst performing governments in the world in reducing the infection rate among its population.

On civil-military relations, three things were evident: (1) the enhanced control of the military by the president; (2) the president’s reliance on the police and the military as preferred policy implementors; and (3) the broadening and institutionalization of the military’s reach into civilian affairs at the subnational level. The balance of civil-military relations was firmly tipped in favour of the presidency, under whose authority the military has been mobilized and deployed domestically on many occasions. President Duterte has deployed (or in local legal parlance, “called out”) the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to wage war against the ISIS-linked terrorists in Marawi, implement martial law in Mindanao, enforce the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns, and support the police in the war on drugs. The tasks given to the military in these call-outs do not match their supposed warfighting skillset, or they extend beyond them, and encroach upon domains better performed by government civilian agents. Without contest or opposition from Congress or the Supreme Court, President Duterte successfully instrumentalized the armed forces to carry out controversial government policies. The AFP’s influence in internal security operations was enhanced with a commander-in-chief who trusted and relied on the armed forces more than their civilian counterparts. The domestic deployments of the military expanded and deepened its involvement in local affairs, enabling the armed forces to arrogate for itself tasks previously under the care of civilian agencies, such as provisioning direct humanitarian assistance, gaining it a formal foothold in decisions to end rebellion beyond kinetic operations and to acquire more leverage vis-à-vis local authorities to accomplish their internal security missions.