Rodrigo Duterte’s ICC Appearance Sparks Legal and Political Tensions in Manila

The arrest and subsequent transfer of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to The Hague for an initial appearance before the International Criminal Court (ICC) on 14 March 2025 has ignited a firestorm of legal and political controversy in Manila. Duterte, whose administration’s brutal war on drugs is alleged to have resulted in thousands of deaths, now faces charges of crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, back in the Philippines, the government grapples with domestic legal challenges, including habeas corpus petitions filed by Duterte’s children, and a complex stance on the ICC’s jurisdiction over the country.

The dramatic turn of events marks a significant chapter in the Philippines’ tumultuous relationship with the ICC, which began when the country withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019 under Duterte’s leadership. Despite this withdrawal, the ICC has pressed forward with its investigation into the extrajudicial killings linked to Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, which human rights groups claim resulted in at least 20,000 deaths, while official figures cite around 6,000.

A Historic Appearance at The Hague

Duterte’s initial appearance before Pre-, at 14:00 local time in The Hague, was a historic moment. It marked the first time a former Philippine president has faced such international scrutiny for alleged crimes committed during their tenure. The charges stem from the violent anti-drug campaign launched in 2016, which saw police and vigilante groups accused of widespread human rights abuses, including summary executions.

Photographs released by the ICC and published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer captured the 79-year-old former leader in the courtroom, a stark contrast to his defiant public persona during his presidency. While the specifics of the hearing remain under wraps, the ICC’s decision to proceed with the case signals a determination to hold high-ranking officials accountable, regardless of national objections to its jurisdiction.

The arrest itself was facilitated through cooperation with Interpol, as the Philippine government has repeatedly stated it does not recognise the ICC’s authority. This cooperation, however, has not been without controversy, as it raises questions about the extent of Manila’s involvement in Duterte’s transfer to The Hague.

Domestic Legal Battles Intensify

Back in Manila, the fallout from Duterte’s arrest has taken on a distinctly legal flavour. On 18 March 2025, the Presidential Communications Office revealed that the government is considering appointing its own lawyer to defend its position on the arrest, following the recusal of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) from the case. The OSG, led by Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra—who previously served as Duterte’s justice secretary—has maintained that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the Philippines, a stance echoed by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

“What I know is that when I spoke with [Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin], they will hire their own lawyer,” said Undersecretary Claire Castro of the Presidential Communications Office in an interview with Radyo 630. However, Castro was unable to confirm whether this would involve a private lawyer or government counsel, only noting that public funds could be used as the matter “involved public duty.”

The legal complexities are compounded by habeas corpus petitions filed by Duterte’s children, which name high-ranking officials—including Bersamin, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, the Philippine National Police, the Bureau of Immigration, and the military—as respondents. These petitions challenge the legality of Duterte’s arrest and transfer, urging the Supreme Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release or justify his detention.

Castro dismissed the possibility of Bersamin or Remulla representing the government in this matter, citing a conflict of interest. “Mahirap ipagtanggol ang sarili (it would be hard to defend yourself),” she remarked, highlighting the awkward position of officials who are both respondents in the case and key figures in the administration.

The Supreme Court has also weighed in, directing the government to explain why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued for Duterte. This development places additional pressure on the Marcos administration, which must balance domestic legal obligations with its public rejection of ICC authority.

A Nation Divided Over ICC Jurisdiction

The Duterte case has reignited a long-standing debate in the Philippines over the ICC’s role and the country’s obligations under international law. When the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019, Duterte argued that the ICC was biased and infringed on national sovereignty. This view persists within the current administration, with officials like Castro reiterating that compliance with Interpol was a procedural necessity rather than an endorsement of the ICC’s jurisdiction.

Yet, human rights advocates and legal experts argue that the Philippines remains bound by international commitments, particularly for crimes allegedly committed before the withdrawal took effect. The ICC’s investigation focuses on the period between 2016 and 2019, when the country was still a signatory to the Rome Statute, giving the court a legal basis to pursue the case.

Public opinion on the matter is deeply divided. Supporters of Duterte, including many who credit his hardline policies with reducing crime, view the ICC case as a politically motivated attack on a populist leader. Conversely, families of victims of the drug war, alongside human rights organisations, see the trial as a long-overdue reckoning for atrocities committed under Duterte’s watch.

The War on Drugs: A Bloody Legacy

Central to the ICC’s case is Duterte’s war on drugs, a signature policy of his presidency that promised to eradicate illegal narcotics through aggressive enforcement. From the outset, the campaign drew international condemnation for its brutality. Police operations often resulted in deadly encounters, with suspects frequently killed under the pretext of resisting arrest—a practice critics labelled as state-sanctioned murder.

Official figures place the death toll at around 6,000, but independent estimates, including those from human rights groups, suggest the number could be as high as 20,000 or more when accounting for vigilante killings encouraged by Duterte’s rhetoric. The former president’s public statements, in which he openly endorsed violence against drug suspects, have been cited as evidence of his complicity in the alleged crimes against humanity.

For many Filipinos, the drug war remains a deeply personal issue. Stories of loved ones killed in midnight raids or labelled as “drug pushers” without evidence continue to haunt communities. The ICC trial, if it proceeds to a full hearing, could provide a platform for these voices to be heard on an international stage, though it also risks deepening national divisions.

Political Implications for the Marcos Administration

The Duterte case poses a delicate challenge for President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., whose administration includes allies of the former president, including Duterte’s daughter, Sara, who serves as Vice President. While Marcos has publicly aligned with the view that the ICC lacks jurisdiction, his government’s compliance with Interpol in facilitating Duterte’s arrest has raised eyebrows among Duterte loyalists.

Analysts suggest that Marcos may be walking a tightrope, attempting to maintain diplomatic relations internationally while avoiding alienating a significant domestic political base. If the habeas corpus petitions gain traction in the Supreme Court, the administration could face further scrutiny over its handling of the arrest and its broader stance on human rights accountability.

Moreover, the case has implications for the Philippines’ standing in the international community. Continued resistance to the ICC could strain relations with Western allies and human rights-focused organisations, while full cooperation might be seen as a betrayal of national sovereignty by many at home.

What Lies Ahead for Duterte and the Philippines?

As Duterte remains in ICC custody in The Hague, the immediate future of his case depends on the outcomes of the pre-trial proceedings. If the charges are confirmed, a full trial could follow, potentially lasting years and drawing sustained global attention to the Philippines’ human rights record.

Domestically, the resolution of the habeas corpus petitions will be a critical test of the Philippine judiciary’s independence and its willingness to engage with international legal mechanisms. For now, the government’s decision to appoint its own lawyer signals a readiness to contest the arrest on legal grounds, though the specifics of this strategy remain unclear.

For the Filipino public, the unfolding saga is a reminder of the unresolved traumas of the drug war and the broader question of accountability for those in power. Whether the ICC trial will deliver justice or further polarise the nation remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: Rodrigo Duterte’s legacy, for better or worse, continues to shape the Philippines’ political landscape.

In the meantime, the eyes of the world—and of countless Filipinos—remain fixed on The Hague, where a former president’s fate hangs in the balance, and on Manila, where the battle over law, sovereignty, and justice rages on.