The people of the Philippines have elected the hardlined, “law and order” Rodrigo Duterte into office. Once the maverick mayor of Davao City -- a principality strife with gang warfare and drug abuse, he now stands as the servant-leader of the Filipinos and a visionary for the country of Banana Ketchup and 7000 islands.

But recently, Duterte has been criticized by the international community for his support of the killings of supposed drug lords and traffickers. UN secretary Ban ki-moon stated: “I unequivocally condemn [Duterte’s] … endorsement of extrajudicial killing, which is ... a breach of fundamental rights and freedoms.” Even western news outlets have been heavily reporting on the Filipino president from the New York Times to the Guardian.

This has created rift between Filipinos who support their president and the rest of the world. For Duterte supporters, international criticism is viewed as interference and as disrespectful to the views of Filipinos. Roberto Romulo, contributor for the Philippine Star, argues that international coverage has been biased and does not take full coverage of his accomplishments: “I am shocked at how one-sided [international media] can be.” Then he continues by condemning the outlets for failing to write about the Philippines’ economic accomplishments.

Champions of Duterte-esque killings draw a connection between the country’s prosperity and the fall of drug use. But their line of reasoning is wrong. To stip people of their rights to live without fair legal proceedings is not only a fruitless policy towards more security and economic growth, but is also a clear violation to people's fundamental rights.

Duterte’s war on drugs is doomed to fail. From the US to Latin America, and from West Africa to Afghanistan, global pursuits against drug trafficking have served to only magnify the drug problem and increase political corruption. Policy makers from around the world wrongly assumed that attacking the supply of drugs would give producers incentive to produce less. But empirically we know this didn’t happen. Instead, the war on drugs drove the prices of drugs higher while only slightly decreasing its demand (inelastic prices). For the Philippines, this means that attacking the supply will do little to affect demand of drugs.

Ultimately, the goal of antidrug policies is to create safer and healthier societies. But previous undertakings have had the opposite effect. One, prohibition encourages producers to design drugs that are more compact and potent to avoid detection by enforcement, which endangers users even further. Second, all citizens (users and nonusers alike) are forced sacrifice time, money (in the form of tax payments), property, and their lives for a futile cause. In the case of Davao City, where Duterte was mayor, residents lived under strict curfews, a smoking and liquor ban, and vigilante groups that killed several -- perhaps innocent -- citizens.

Duterte supporters contend that because of the former mayor’s vigilantism, Davao city has come to be, according only to Filipino outlets, “among the safest cities in the world.” But this widely held claim is full of errors. One, this fact is not recognized by any organization or intelligence unit outside of the Philippines. Second, the source (this one) which ranks Davao as “one of the world's safest cities” comes from a self-reporting survey website without effective metrics to measure the quantity and magnitude of crime. It would be as if a child ranked M&M’s and Skittles as among the healthiest foods on a self-reporting dieting website. In reality, Davao continues to have among the highest murder rates in the country, which can doubtedly be solved with more vigilante killings.

In the absence of a valid drug policy, Duterte is in effect promoting unjustified killings. It defeis not only international norms and Habeas Corpus in the Philippine Bill of Rights, but it is simply evil and inhumane. For without these protections, anyone who is speculated of being a trafficker is subject to death.

The profile of a trafficker is not clear. They can be a drug lords who make a living off the drug-trade, but they could be parents living in poverty trying to pay for basic necessities. Courts exist to judge the contexts and the varying degrees of crime and to punish accordingly. In vigilante rule, anyone involved in the distribution or consumption of illicit drugs is met with the ultimate punishment.

For people living in poverty unable to find employment, selling drugs is a means of liberation away from hunger and the hardship. Oftentimes, these individuals face two cruel options: either risk their lives to vigilante men or watch their own family suffer from poverty. Militant style of enforcement will only serve to deepen economic hardships in these communities.

And where does the president draw the line? Drug abuse is only a small factor in the list of the Philippine’s problems such as corruption, a poor business landscape, insufficient public health, extremist groups and so on. Perhaps the vigilante groups should go after “corrupt” politicians, members of cabinet, and businessmen.

While various communities have reported less violence in the streets, do Duterte’s policies really create more harmony in society? Is this the sort of legacy the country wants between now and 2022? Can Filipinos taste the fruit of greater prosperity if it is coated in the blood of its own citizens?

As a proud Filipino, I believe that president Rodrigo Duterte does not represent our country’s principles. I stand firmly with the international community, even if what they believe is biased. Objectively, we know that the incumbent has made dozens of grotesque statements that have shocked the world, and we know that he has been involved in -- or at least orchestrated -- stripping the lives of hundreds of men, women, and children.

I am even more distraught at the fact that millions of Filipinos are justifying these extrajudicial killings, falsely believing that it is a panacea to the country’s ailments. I believe that these ideas are misguided and illusory.

President Duterte may have had “success” as the maverick mayor -- and cult-like leader -- of a provincial city. But now he is faced with representing all Filipinos and a much larger stage and he is responsible pursuing a global vision. Likewise, it is the Filipino’s responsibility to make calls for justice and for reform. Because of the resilience of Filipinos and the pride they have (and that I have) of the Philippines, I know that they will want something better than the status quo, something that involves rule of law and peace.