Duterte’s Arrest Reignites Familiar Disinformation Tactics on Social Media
The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant for former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on March 11, a historic first for a former Philippine leader, has reignited the same disinformation machinery that characterized his presidency. Duterte, known for his adept manipulation of social media to cultivate a devoted following and silence dissent, faces charges related to his controversial "war on drugs." The online response to his arrest mirrors the tactics employed during his time in office, raising concerns about the resurgence of misleading narratives and the potential impact on public understanding of the legal proceedings.
Duterte’s legacy is intertwined with his pioneering use of social media for political gain. While he enjoyed genuine grassroots support, his administration also systematically deployed coordinated networks to disseminate propaganda, attack critics, and shape public opinion. This sophisticated digital operation, often involving paid trolls and partisan bloggers, effectively blurred the lines between organic support and manufactured consent. Now, with Duterte facing international legal scrutiny, these same networks appear to be reactivated, echoing the disinformation campaigns that marked his tenure.
The narratives circulating online following Duterte’s arrest warrant exhibit a striking resemblance to those used to defend the "war on drugs." Duterte is once again portrayed as both a frail victim of international overreach and a strongman hero willing to make tough decisions for the nation’s good. These dual portrayals aim to evoke sympathy while simultaneously reinforcing his image as a decisive leader. This carefully crafted narrative seeks to deflect attention from the serious allegations against him and frame the ICC’s actions as an unjust persecution.
Another recurring theme is the assertion that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over Duterte and the Philippines. This claim, frequently amplified by Duterte allies and supporters, hinges on the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC in 2019. However, this argument conveniently ignores the fact that the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed during the period when the Philippines was a member state, which includes the timeframe of Duterte’s "war on drugs." The involvement of Interpol, the international police organization, further complicates this narrative, as its cooperation facilitates Duterte’s potential transfer to The Hague, where the ICC is based, to face trial.
The rapid dissemination of these misleading narratives underscores the enduring power of Duterte’s online influence network. Even after leaving office, his supporters and allies continue to propagate disinformation, effectively rehashing old talking points and distorting the facts surrounding the ICC’s case. This raises concerns about the potential for these narratives to sway public opinion and undermine the credibility of the international legal process. The situation is further complicated by the continued presence of the Duterte social media army, reportedly bolstered by supporters of his daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte.
The re-emergence of these familiar disinformation tactics highlights the ongoing challenge of combating online misinformation, particularly when it’s amplified by well-organized networks with established reach and influence. As the legal proceedings against Duterte unfold, ongoing monitoring and fact-checking will be crucial to counter the spread of misleading information and ensure that the public discourse is grounded in accurate and verifiable information. The stakes are high, as the outcome of this case has significant implications not only for Duterte but also for the broader fight against impunity and the pursuit of justice for victims of human rights abuses. The ability of independent media and fact-checking organizations to effectively counter these disinformation campaigns will be vital to ensuring that the legal process can proceed without undue influence from manipulated public opinion.
