The ICC Trial of Duterte: Justice, Jurisdiction, and the Pursuit of Accountability

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

In a dramatic turn of events that has shaken the political landscape of the Philippines, former President Rodrigo Duterte now faces trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged crimes against humanity. For years, Duterte had defied international scrutiny over his bloody war on drugs, a campaign that, according to human rights groups, has resulted in over 30,000 deaths. Now, after years of legal battles and political maneuvering, the wheels of justice have begun turning—outside Philippine shores.

Why is Duterte Being Tried at the ICC?

The simplest answer: No similar case has been filed against him in the Philippines. Despite the country having laws on crimes against humanity, no legal action has been pursued within its borders. Victims, along with human rights organizations and concerned individuals—including former Senator Antonio Trillanes—sought justice elsewhere. In 2017, they bypassed the Philippine judicial system, citing its inability to conduct a fair and impartial trial due to Duterte’s immense power and influence.

The argument is compelling: if the domestic legal system is unwilling or unable to act against the accused, international justice must step in. The ICC operates under the principle of complementarity, meaning it only intervenes when a country fails to prosecute crimes under its jurisdiction. In Duterte’s case, the absence of any domestic proceedings paved the way for the ICC’s intervention.

Does the ICC Have Jurisdiction?

Yes—both the ICC and the Philippine Supreme Court have affirmed this. The Philippines was a member of the ICC when the alleged crimes occurred, from 2011 (when Duterte was still Davao City Mayor) to 2017 (during his presidency). His administration withdrew the country from the ICC in 2019, but that withdrawal was not retroactive. This means the Philippines is still accountable for crimes committed during its ICC membership.

Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled that the country still has an obligation to cooperate with the ICC’s proceedings. However, as a sovereign state, the Philippines also has the option to refuse cooperation. The question now is whether the government, under President Marcos Jr., will comply or resist.

Was Duterte’s Arrest Illegal?

No. His arrest was carried out legally and by the book. Upon arriving from Hong Kong, Duterte was met at the airport by officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP), who served him an arrest warrant from the ICC. He was read his Miranda Rights, ensuring that due process was followed. The arrest was not a political maneuver but a lawful action based on international legal obligations.

For years, Duterte had taunted the ICC, dismissing its authority and daring it to come after him. Now, the institution he once ridiculed has exercised its mandate, proving that even the most powerful leaders are not above the law.

Why Only 40+ Cases and Not All 30,000+ Deaths?

The staggering number of reported deaths in Duterte’s drug war has led many to wonder: why is the ICC only prosecuting around 40 cases? The answer lies in legal strategy. The ICC does not need to examine all 30,000 cases to establish guilt. Instead, prosecutors have carefully selected cases that demonstrate a clear and systemic pattern of extrajudicial killings and human rights violations.

By focusing on these key cases, the prosecution aims to prove that the killings were not isolated incidents but part of a deliberate and coordinated policy—a defining characteristic of crimes against humanity. This strategic selection strengthens the case, making it harder for Duterte’s defense to argue that the deaths were mere accidents or isolated excesses by rogue officers.

The Global Implications of Duterte’s Trial

Duterte’s trial at the ICC is more than just a legal proceeding; it is a historic moment for international justice. It sends a powerful message to world leaders that state-sanctioned violence and mass killings will not go unpunished. It also serves as a test of the ICC’s ability to hold former heads of state accountable, especially those who wield significant influence over their home countries.

For the Philippines, the trial presents a pivotal moment of reckoning. Will the government honor its international commitments, or will it shield a former president accused of grave crimes? Will this trial serve as a deterrent against future abuses of power, or will it deepen political divisions?

One thing is certain: the fight for justice is far from over. Whether in The Hague or in the hearts of thousands of victims’ families, the demand for accountability will not be silenced. The world is watching, and history will remember.