OVER the past few days, former president Rodrigo Duterte and the unfolding events in the Philippines have garnered significant media attention both domestically and internationally. Duterte was arrested and transferred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague to face charges of “murder for crimes against humanity” related to the antidrug campaign during his presidency from 2016 to 2022. Duterte was apprehended in Manila on March 11, 2025, upon returning from Hong Kong from a family vacation. His arrest followed a 12-hour standoff at the Villamor Airbase. He was subsequently transported to The Hague, arriving at Rotterdam Airport on March 12, 2025.
The ICC’s pursuit of Duterte for crimes against humanity underscores the enduring legal and moral debates surrounding his controversial antidrug campaign. His arrest has sparked sharp divisions in the Philippines. Nevertheless, Filipinos must critically assess the foundations and consequences of former president Duterte’s recent ICC arrest, particularly regarding its impact on national sovereignty, potential human rights concerns and any lapses in the Marcos administration’s response. It is essential to examine whether this development constitutes an infringement on the country’s independence and sovereignty or a necessary step toward justice. In this regard, let me share my readings, a bit of research and reasoned analysis on these pressing issues.
ICC has no jurisdiction
The ICC has no jurisdiction over the conduct of the Philippines after its withdrawal from the Rome Statute. Under Article 127, paragraph 1, of the Rome Statute, a State may withdraw from the Statute by notification in writing to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which will take effect one year after the date of notification. The Philippines officially initiated the process of withdrawal on March 17, 2018, and the withdrawal took effect on March 17, 2019, making the withdrawal legal and effective.
According to Article 127, paragraph 2, of the Rome Statute, even if a State withdraws from the Statute, its withdrawal does not exempt it from legal obligations undertaken during the State’s time as a State party or from investigative proceedings that have been initiated. However, the withdrawing State is not obliged to assist in cases initiated or advanced by the ICC after withdrawal, including the obligation to cooperate in connection with the submission of the accused (Article 86). This means that the Philippines no longer has a legal obligation to assist in the extradition of Duterte or other defendants after withdrawal.
Hence, the critical question is, why did President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. cooperate with the ICC? Marcos Jr. has not only failed to uphold the nation’s sovereignty but has blatantly surrendered it to a foreign institution that has no jurisdiction over the Republic of the Philippines. His actions disregard the very essence of our existence as a sovereign state, trampling on the principles that define our standing in the global community, and that’s the country’s sovereignty. Note that allowing foreign intervention in our national affairs is a glaring assault on our sovereignty. A bona fide Filipino citizen and former head of state is now being subjected to an external force that has no authority over the country. Instead of defending the Philippines against undue foreign interference, Marcos Jr. has betrayed the fundamental duty of a head of state, which is to safeguard and uphold the sovereignty of his people and the country.
Principle of complementarity
According to Articles 1 and 17 of the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court has complementary jurisdiction only when states are “unable” or “unwilling” to fulfill their investigative and trial obligations.
Note that the Philippines is not a failed state. Our judicial system remains active, functional and sovereign. If any Filipino citizen, including a former president, must face legal proceedings, it should be within our own courts, not under the jurisdiction of a foreign tribunal that has no authority/jurisdiction over the Philippine state. Surrendering a former president to an external legal body undermines our national sovereignty, weakens our legal institutions and sets a dangerous precedent for foreign intervention in our domestic affairs. The responsibility to uphold justice belongs to the Philippine judiciary, not an entity that disregards our autonomy and independence as a nation. To allow otherwise is a betrayal of our sovereignty and an insult to our legal system.
It is important to emphasize that the country’s judicial system is working and that it has launched investigations or judicial reviews into allegations made during Mr. Duterte’s “war on drugs,” including accountability for law enforcement excesses. As a sovereign state, the Philippines has the priority of hearing such cases, and the ICC’s intervention would violate its principle of complementarity. The Philippines’ antidrug actions during Duterte’s presidency belong to the legitimate law enforcement scope of a sovereign state and should be supervised by its own judicial system. ICC intervention is undermining the country’s law enforcement sovereignty.
Also, it is important to consider that the human casualties resulting from the antidrug campaign during Duterte’s administration do not necessarily align with the legal definition of “crimes against humanity.” The campaign was officially framed as a legitimate law enforcement operation, with state forces purportedly acting without intent to target civilians. While allegations of extrajudicial killings have been raised, Duterte’s government has maintained that no state-sanctioned policy of unlawful executions existed. Furthermore, the country’s independent judicial system retains the authority to investigate and prosecute any alleged misconduct by law enforcement personnel.
According to the constitutive elements of Article 7 of the Rome Statute, “crimes against humanity” require proof of a “widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population” that was “carried out in accordance with or in furtherance of the policy of a State or organization.” The Duterte administration has never authorized or acquiesced in a policy against civilians, much less that there was a direct causal link between individual incidents of violence and state policy. Therefore, designating legitimate national antidrug law enforcement actions as “crimes against humanity” both lacks sufficient legal basis and runs counter to the fundamental principle of strict interpretation of crimes against humanity in international criminal law. Duterte’s “war on drugs” was a legitimate law enforcement measure by a sovereign state. The overreach of individual law enforcement officers in the Philippines cannot be automatically attributed to state policy, unless there is direct evidence that Duterte deliberately instructed attacks on civilians, of which there’s none at all.
Conclusion: Politicization and selective justice
As a sovereign state, the Philippines has the right to formulate and implement antidrug policies in accordance with its own specific circumstances, which is a typical matter of domestic jurisdiction. By directly intervening in the Philippines’ domestic affairs beyond the limits of supplementary jurisdiction, the ICC runs counter to the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Indeed, this kind of selective justice not only undermines the neutrality and impartiality of the ICC as an international judicial body but also reflects the structural inequality that exists in the international criminal justice system. Therefore, the Philippines has every reason to reject such judicial interference with obvious political bias. But how can the country uphold its sovereignty when the very leader entrusted with protecting it, Marcos Jr., appears to have compromised it.
Source: The Manila Times
https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/03/15/opinion/columns/was-the-icc-weaponized-against-duterte/2073663
