There is a profound difference between defending a policy and sanctifying bloodshed.

When Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano publicly described the Duterte drug war as a “pro-life” campaign because “Ayaw ni Lord ng drugs,” he crossed a line that democratic societies should never normalize. See this link: https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/5/23/cayetano-on-duterte-s-war-on-drugs-it-s-a-pro-life-campaign-1815.

His statement was not merely insensitive. It was morally corrosive, constitutionally dangerous, and internationally humiliating.

At minimum, Cayetano should now be openly counted among the most unapologetic defenders of the bloody anti-drug campaign of former President Rodrigo Duterte — a campaign now under scrutiny before the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity.

Words matter, especially when spoken by the highest-ranking officer of the Senate of the Philippines.

And Cayetano’s words did not merely defend anti-drug operations. They attempted to morally baptize them.

The senator’s argument is painfully simple: because drug pushers allegedly destroy lives, killing them supposedly saves society and therefore qualifies as “pro-life.” It is the logic of moral arithmetic — subtract a few undesirable lives to preserve the greater social whole.

But that reasoning has haunted some of history’s darkest political moments.

Political philosopher Hannah Arendt (1963) warned that atrocities often begin not with monstrous rhetoric but with ordinary officials who rationalize violence as an administrative necessity. Once societies begin describing killing as socially therapeutic, moral language itself collapses.

That collapse is precisely what Cayetano’s remarks represent.

No serious Christian theology defines “pro-life” as the selective elimination of human beings deemed socially dangerous. On the contrary, mainstream Christian ethics rests upon the inviolable dignity of human life, including the lives of sinners, criminals, and social outcasts.

The Bible condemns vice and excess, yes. But nowhere does Christ authorize extrajudicial execution as a form of public salvation.

In fact, Scripture repeatedly restrains vengeance.

“Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13) remains among the clearest moral commandments in Judeo-Christian ethics. Romans 12:19 explicitly instructs believers: “Never avenge yourselves.” In Matthew 5:44, Christ goes even further: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Perhaps most devastating to Cayetano’s logic is John 8:7, where Jesus confronts a crowd preparing to stone a sinner: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

The theological point is unmistakable: moral imperfection does not grant humanity divine authority over life and death.

Cayetano’s remarks therefore reveal not biblical fidelity but theological confusion — the dangerous fusion of religious symbolism with authoritarian violence.

This is not new. Scholars of political theology have long warned against governments weaponizing religious language to legitimize coercion. Carl Schmitt (1922) famously argued that political systems often secularize theological concepts, turning sovereign power into a quasi-divine authority. Reinhold Niebuhr (1944), meanwhile, warned that nations frequently cloak violence in the language of moral righteousness.

That is exactly what is happening here.

The danger is magnified because Cayetano is not merely another Duterte loyalist. He is Senate President — the constitutional officer expected to oversee the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, the former president’s daughter, whose anti-drug campaign left thousands dead.

That institutional role matters enormously.

A Senate President who publicly characterizes the Duterte drug war as morally righteous risks destroying confidence in the neutrality of constitutional processes. His remarks create the appearance that one of the country’s highest officials has already embraced the ideological framework underpinning the very violence now under international investigation.

Worse, the international community is watching.

Foreign governments, global human rights organizations, and transnational legal institutions do not distinguish neatly between “personal opinion” and elite political signaling. When the Senate President of the Philippines calls mass anti-drug killings “pro-life,” many outside observers may reasonably interpret this as evidence that influential sectors of the Philippine state still endorse extrajudicial violence.

That perception damages the country’s democratic credibility.

It reinforces fears that impunity remains deeply normalized within Philippine political culture.

And it embarrasses millions of Filipinos who never accepted the idea that human rights are obstacles to public safety.

Cayetano’s statement should therefore not simply be dismissed as rhetorical excess.

Democracies cannot survive if constitutional officers casually moralize state violence.

At the very least, the senator deserves formal censure before the Senate Ethics Committee for conduct inconsistent with the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust under Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Legal scholars may also explore whether his remarks violate the spirit of Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which requires commitment to human rights, professionalism, and public accountability.

Civil society organizations, churches, universities, and legal institutions should likewise publicly condemn attempts to rebrand state violence as moral virtue. Silence only deepens normalization.

Ultimately, however, democratic punishment does not occur only in courtrooms.

It occurs through public memory, electoral accountability, and moral rejection.

Filipinos must decide whether they are willing to tolerate leaders who invoke God to justify death.

Because once political leaders successfully redefine killing as “pro-life,” the country ceases to merely debate policy. It begins drifting toward something far more dangerous — a political culture where violence acquires sacred legitimacy.

And history shows that societies rarely emerge from that descent unscarred.

Caveat:

I am trying to find out which congregation or what religion Mr. Cayetano subscribes to. Or what book did Cayetano read that made him or convinced him that killing thousands is a justifiable and morally correct act? The minute I know, I will write my thoughts, dear readers. I am certain, though, that what he read is definitely not the Bible, the Noble Qur’an, or any other ancient religious scripture.

The God I know is kind, yet also is a God of Justice. He giveth and taketh away. In taking lives, God does not allow humans to kill other humans. IN several events in the bible, God instructs His messengers to kill people.

Maybe Cayetano was confused when David was instructed to kill whole races or nations due to their infidelity with God.

God is the giver of life; therefore, it is up to God to punish sinners or to snatch their lives from these kinds of people.

Please read my next article. I cannot, for the love of me, allow Mr. Cayetano to use his public position to propagate such blasphemy.

References

Arendt, Hannah. 1963. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.

Niebuhr, Reinhold. 1944. The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness.

Schmitt, Carl. 1922. Political Theology.

Walzer, Michael. 1977. *Just and Unjust Wars.*

Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice.