A Divided Nation: Duterte's Arrest by the ICC

The Philippine Response to Duterte's Arrest by the ICC

By: Ulysses C. Ybiernas | March 20, 2025

The arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte by the International Criminal Court (ICC) has sparked a significant wave of reactions both domestically and abroad. It raises complex questions about national sovereignty, international law, and the contentious issue of human rights during his administration, particularly with regard to the war on drugs and extrajudicial killings (EJKs). This development has polarized opinions, not only in the Philippines but also among Filipino communities abroad.

The ICC and Philippine Sovereignty

The ICC's move to pursue an arrest warrant for Duterte stems from its investigation into alleged crimes against humanity during the president's notorious war on drugs, which led to thousands of deaths, many of which were believed to be extrajudicial killings. Duterte, however, has been outspoken in rejecting the jurisdiction of the ICC, especially after the Philippines officially withdrew from the organization in 2019.

For many, the arrest is seen as a violation of the Philippines’ sovereignty. They argue that as a sovereign nation, the Philippines should have the right to handle its own matters, including criminal investigations of its leaders, without interference from external bodies like the ICC.

On the other hand, those supporting the ICC's actions argue that when a country withdraws from international treaties but continues to be held accountable for serious human rights violations, international law should still apply. The ICC’s mandate to prosecute individuals for crimes like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity is designed to ensure that such violations are addressed, regardless of a country's status in international organizations.

Mixed Reactions in the Philippines and Among Filipinos Abroad

Within the Philippines, reactions to the arrest warrant have been deeply divided. The current administration, led by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., defended the Philippine government's involvement in the arrest, explaining that it was in line with the country's obligations to the Interpol. Speaking for the first time about the arrest in a late-night press conference at Malacañang, Marcos Jr. emphasized that the government complied with Interpol's request for assistance. He stressed that fulfilling such commitments was crucial, as failure to do so could jeopardize future cooperation in cases involving Filipino fugitives abroad. This statement came shortly after Duterte's departure for The Hague, where he will face charges of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court.

On the other hand, Duterte’s supporters, who form a significant portion of the Filipino population, are resolute in their defense of his actions. For them, Duterte’s hardline stance against crime and drugs was a necessary and effective approach to restore order in a country ravaged by illegal narcotics and criminality. They see the ICC’s pursuit as politically motivated, aimed at discrediting a president who was both popular and feared for his uncompromising policies.

Foreigners and Filipinos abroad also have mixed feelings. While some express discontent with the ICC's actions, claiming that the arrest warrant is illegal or warrantless, others view it as a crucial step towards accountability and justice for victims of the drug war. Those critical of Duterte's policies often point to the lack of due process in the war on drugs, while others argue that the ex-president’s actions were part of his broader mission to rid the country of rampant drug abuse and crime.

Legal and Moral Implications

From a non-partisan standpoint, it is important to view the situation through a lens that balances both the legal and moral implications. Legally, the question revolves around whether the ICC had the authority to issue an arrest warrant given the Philippines’ withdrawal from the organization. While the Philippines is no longer a member of the ICC, the court's jurisdiction over crimes committed during Duterte's presidency, when the country was still a member, remains a point of contention. But under the International Criminal Court (ICC) framework, the person of interest must meet the following conditions: (1) the crime must have occurred in a country that is a member of the ICC, or the case must be referred by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), or the country involved must accept the ICC's jurisdiction, (2) the accused must be considered an individual who is alleged to have committed one of these crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, crime of aggression) after the establishment of the ICC in 2002, (3) Under Article 27 of the Rome Statute, official capacity (e.g., being a head of state or government) does not exempt an individual from prosecution, and they can still be tried for crimes committed under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

Morally, the issue is more nuanced. Critics argue that Duterte's approach to the drug problem, particularly through extrajudicial killings, violated basic human rights principles. Amnesty International and the United Nations have reported numerous accounts of unlawful deaths, often without due process, and have called for an investigation into potential crimes against humanity. These concerns are compounded by allegations that state forces were directly involved in carrying out these killings.

However, supporters of Duterte argue that his policies were aimed at restoring law and order in a country that had long been plagued by drug abuse and criminality. They contend that Duterte's actions were a response to the dire situation the country faced, and they assert that his tough stance was necessary for the greater good of society. In this view, Duterte’s popularity can be attributed to his perception as a leader willing to take decisive action, even at the cost of international criticism.

The EJK Issue: Truth or Propaganda?

One of the most contentious aspects of Duterte’s presidency is the issue of extrajudicial killings. Human rights organizations and critics of the administration argue that Duterte’s anti-drug campaign led to widespread EJKs. They claim that many victims were killed without due process, often in a context of police impunity and inadequate investigations. According to reports from Amnesty International, the United Nations, and local groups such as the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), the death toll during the war on drugs could be as high as 30,000.

However, Duterte and his supporters vehemently deny that extrajudicial killings were systematically encouraged or directed by the government. Duterte has often said that drug dealers and criminals who resisted arrest were “asking for it,” implying that the deaths were a consequence of the criminals’ actions rather than state-sanctioned violence.

The veracity of the EJK claims remains a key point of contention. While evidence of EJKs exists, and various reports document abuses by police, there are also criticisms of how these reports may have been politicized. The question of whether Duterte directly ordered or supported EJKs remains unanswered, and the ongoing debate continues to shape opinions both within the Philippines and internationally.

Why Duterte is Loved by Many Filipinos

Despite the controversies surrounding his presidency, Duterte remains deeply loved by a significant portion of the Filipino population, both domestically and abroad. His tough stance on crime and drugs, which resonated with many Filipinos frustrated by the country’s pervasive issues with poverty, crime, and drug abuse, earned him a loyal following. His promise to “clean up” the streets and restore order in a country plagued by illegal drugs was something that resonated with ordinary Filipinos who were victims of crime or had family members affected by drugs.

Duterte's direct, no-nonsense approach to governance, often described as “strongman” leadership, appealed to many who were disillusioned with the political establishment. His populist rhetoric, which often focused on the struggles of the common Filipino, won him widespread support, especially in rural areas. Duterte's “man of the people” persona made him relatable to those who felt marginalized by the country's elites.

Furthermore, for Filipinos abroad, Duterte’s stance on protecting national sovereignty and standing up against foreign intervention earned him admiration. His unapologetic nationalism, particularly his pivot to China and criticism of Western powers, resonated with many Filipinos living outside the country who felt that the Philippines had long been under the influence of foreign interests.

Final Thoughts

The arrest of Duterte by the ICC is a highly divisive issue, touching on questions of sovereignty, human rights, and the complexities of international law. While the ICC’s efforts to hold Duterte accountable for crimes against humanity reflect international concerns about human rights abuses, many Filipinos see the move as an infringement on the country’s sovereignty. The issue of extrajudicial killings remains at the heart of the debate, with supporters of Duterte continuing to argue that his policies were necessary for the country’s safety and progress. Regardless of the outcome, Duterte’s arrest has further polarized Filipino society, reflecting broader debates about justice, accountability, and the balance of power between local and international authorities.

← Previous Next →