Rodrigo Duterte’s ICC Arrest: A Landmark Case for Justice in the Philippines

The arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on 11 March at Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Manila marks a historic moment in the pursuit of accountability for alleged crimes against humanity. Detained under a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), Duterte now faces trial in The Hague over extrajudicial killings (EJKs) tied to his infamous “war on drugs” and his earlier tenure as mayor of Davao City. The case, which has polarised opinion in the Philippines and beyond, raises profound questions about sovereignty, international justice, and the legacy of one of the country’s most controversial leaders.

A Long-Awaited Arrest

Duterte’s apprehension upon returning from Hong Kong was swift and procedural, yet it ignited a firestorm of debate. Supporters decried it as a politically motivated attack orchestrated by foreign powers, while critics hailed it as a overdue reckoning for thousands of deaths during his presidency from 2016 to 2022. The ICC warrant specifically cites 43 deaths as representative cases—19 linked to the so-called Davao Death Squad (DDS) during his time as mayor, and 24 attributed to law enforcement during his national anti-drug campaign. However, these are merely illustrative of a far graver toll, with estimates from human rights groups and the ICC ranging between 6,000 and 30,000 victims.

The scale of violence under Duterte’s policies has long been a point of contention. A pre-trial ICC document from September 2021 notes that Philippine authorities themselves reported at least 5,281 deaths in police anti-drug operations between July 2016 and March 2019. The broader estimate of 12,000 to 30,000 deaths underscores the systematic nature of the killings, which the ICC describes as “widespread” and conducted “on a large scale and frequent basis” over an extended period. This characterisation forms the backbone of the charge of crimes against humanity, a designation that hinges on proving a deliberate, state-sponsored attack on civilians.

Legal Foundations and Challenges

At the heart of the ICC’s case is Duterte’s alleged role as an “indirect co-perpetrator” under Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute. This legal classification does not require evidence of personal involvement in killings but holds him accountable for enabling and orchestrating a campaign of violence. ICC documents assert that Duterte was the “mastermind” of a plan to target alleged criminals, first in Davao and later nationwide, using his authority as mayor and president to oversee its implementation. As the sole figure with ultimate control over state actors during his presidency, the ICC argues he could have halted the violence but instead fostered an environment of impunity through public statements encouraging extrajudicial actions.

Critics of the case, including many of Duterte’s supporters, argue that the focus on just 43 deaths undermines the prosecution’s credibility, suggesting that if thousands were killed, all should be cited. Others claim the “indirect” label weakens the charge, implying a lack of direct responsibility. However, legal experts note that selecting specific, well-documented cases is standard in international trials to establish patterns of violence without overwhelming judicial proceedings. The ICC has explicitly stated that the larger death toll supports its case, reinforcing the systematic nature of the attacks.

A further point of contention is the ICC’s jurisdiction. Duterte’s allies insist that Philippine courts should handle the matter, framing the arrest as an affront to national sovereignty. Some even allege that he was “kidnapped” due to the absence of a domestic warrant. These claims, however, do not hold up under scrutiny. The ICC operates on the principle of complementarity, stepping in only when a state is unwilling or unable to prosecute. Given the lack of significant domestic action against Duterte for these alleged crimes, the ICC’s intervention aligns with its mandate. Moreover, the arrest followed proper legal protocols, as confirmed by both ICC statements and Philippine authorities.

Political Motivations or Impartial Justice?

Beyond legal arguments, a narrative of political persecution pervades discussions among Duterte’s base. Many view the arrest as a Western-orchestrated move, pointing to his defiance of US influence and alignment with China and Russia as reasons for targeting him. Online, claims circulate that the timing—after a perceived decline in his allies’ political clout—suggests domestic opponents are weaponising the ICC. There is, however, no credible evidence to support these assertions. The ICC’s investigation, spanning years, rests on witness testimonies, forensic data, and reports from independent human rights organisations, not political agendas.

The broader context of Duterte’s “war on drugs” reveals a policy that, while ostensibly aimed at reducing crime, disproportionately affected marginalised communities. Victims were often labelled as drug users or dealers with little evidence, killed by police or vigilantes in operations that critics describe as state-sanctioned murder. The ICC notes that the campaign extended beyond drugs, targeting suspected criminals of various kinds, further evidencing a deliberate policy rather than isolated incidents. Duterte’s own rhetoric, including public calls for violence against suspects, is cited as creating a culture where such killings were not only tolerated but encouraged.

Implications for the Philippines and Beyond

Duterte’s trial in The Hague, where he was transferred on 12 March, carries far-reaching implications. Domestically, it could embolden efforts to seek justice for victims of EJKs, though it risks deepening political divides. His supporters, who still wield influence, may frame the case as foreign meddling, potentially stoking nationalist sentiments. Conversely, human rights advocates hope it signals that no leader is above the law, setting a precedent for accountability in a region where impunity often prevails.

Internationally, the case tests the ICC’s reach and credibility. Critics of the court argue it disproportionately targets leaders from less powerful nations while sparing those from global superpowers. This perception, echoed by some of Duterte’s defenders, fuels debates about the ICC’s impartiality. Yet, the rigorous process behind the warrant—grounded in years of evidence collection—counters claims of bias. If anything, a successful prosecution could strengthen the court’s role as a deterrent against state-sponsored violence worldwide.

A Trial of Legacy

As Duterte prepares to defend himself in court, the narrative surrounding his arrest continues to unfold. Social media platforms are awash with misinformation, from baseless claims of kidnapping to assertions that the ICC lacks authority. Separating fact from fiction is crucial at this juncture. The legal process, while complex and contentious, offers a structured path to determine accountability, far removed from the noise of online speculation.

For many Filipinos, particularly families of EJK victims, the arrest is a bittersweet milestone. It represents a chance for justice, yet the scale of loss—potentially tens of thousands of lives—remains staggering. Whether Duterte is convicted or acquitted, his legacy as a leader who prioritised a brutal anti-crime stance over human rights protections is indelibly marked by this case. The trial will not only judge one man but also scrutinise a policy that defined an era in Philippine history.

The road ahead is uncertain. If the ICC’s evidence holds, it could affirm the principle that power does not shield one from accountability. If not, questions about the court’s effectiveness and Duterte’s enduring influence will linger. For now, as the former president faces the weight of international law, the world watches a case that could reshape perceptions of justice in the Philippines and beyond.