The decision to surrender former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC) has ignited a firestorm of legal, political, and constitutional debate in Manila. On April 11, 2025, Justice Secretary Crispin Remulla defended the move during a Senate hearing, asserting that no local court order was required since Duterte was not extradited but rather “turned over” to the ICC. This unprecedented action has raised questions about the Philippines’ judicial sovereignty, the ICC’s jurisdiction, and the lingering shadow of Duterte’s controversial tenure.
A Contentious Surrender
During the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs’ investigation into the Duterte case, Justice Secretary Remulla faced sharp scrutiny from senators, including Imee Marcos, who questioned why the administration did not seek a court order before transferring the former president out of the country. “Why didn’t the administration secure a court order before flying the President out of the country?” Marcos pressed, highlighting concerns over procedural legitimacy. 
Remulla’s response was unequivocal. He argued that extradition protocols did not apply in this instance, as Duterte was already within Philippine jurisdiction. “Extradition can’t be used here because we can’t file for extradition since the person is already here with us,” he explained. Instead, he described the action as a “surrender,” framing it as the only viable option under the circumstances. “We have no other option,” he emphasized.
This distinction between extradition and surrender, however, has done little to quell unease among lawmakers. Critics argue that such a move may undermine the authority of Philippine courts and set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving international bodies.
Constitutional Concerns and Due Process
The surrender has also sparked a broader debate about whether it aligns with the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly provisions under Article 3, the Bill of Rights, which safeguards individual liberties. Senator Marcos raised this concern directly, questioning whether the government’s actions infringed on constitutional protections.
In defense, Remulla pointed to the ICC’s adherence to due process, noting that the court had investigated the case for seven years. “As far as we know, this case was investigated for seven years. Notices were given to the concerned parties, informing them that they could be charged, and they were allowed to respond,” he stated. He added that questions were provided to the parties involved, and they had opportunities to reply, suggesting that procedural fairness had been observed at the international level.
Yet, not all senators were convinced. Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, a close ally of Duterte and a figure also linked to the ICC investigation, challenged the Justice Secretary on the specifics of these notifications. Dela Rosa admitted to being contacted by someone wishing to discuss the accusations but questioned the legitimacy of engaging with the ICC. “Why should I speak with them? You already said that you don’t recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. You yourself, from the DOJ, have said many times that it’s not recognized. Why should I recognize it, especially when I’m the one being charged?” he retorted.
Remulla countered by referencing the “residual powers” of the ICC, which he argued remain in effect even after the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2018, a decision initiated by Duterte himself that became effective a year later. This legal gray area—where the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed during the Philippines’ membership—has become a focal point of contention.
The ICC’s Long Shadow
The ICC’s investigation into Duterte centers on allegations of crimes against humanity, particularly tied to his administration’s brutal war on drugs, which resulted in thousands of deaths. Human rights groups have long accused Duterte and his allies of orchestrating extrajudicial killings under the guise of anti-drug operations, claims that the former president has consistently denied. The ICC’s probe, initiated before the Philippines’ withdrawal from the court, has been a source of tension between Manila and international bodies advocating for accountability.
Duterte’s surrender marks a significant escalation, as it is one of the few instances where a former head of state has been handed over to the ICC without a formal extradition process. Legal experts in the Philippines have offered mixed views on the implications. Some argue that the move signals a willingness to cooperate with international justice mechanisms, while others caution that it risks eroding public trust in domestic institutions. As one retired Supreme Court justice recently noted, any perceived abuse in the handling of Duterte’s arrest could itself become a matter for ICC scrutiny, further complicating the situation.
Political Fallout and Public Sentiment
The political ramifications of Duterte’s surrender are already reverberating across the Philippines. Duterte, a polarizing figure who remains influential despite leaving office, has a loyal base of supporters who view the ICC’s actions as foreign interference. Protests have erupted in parts of Manila and Davao, Duterte’s political stronghold, with demonstrators calling for his release and decrying what they see as a betrayal by the current administration.
On the other hand, human rights advocates and victims’ families have hailed the surrender as a long-overdue step toward justice. Many hope it will pave the way for accountability not only for Duterte but also for other officials implicated in the alleged atrocities. Social media platforms, including posts on X, reflect this deep divide, with hashtags supporting and opposing Duterte trending in equal measure.
The Senate hearing itself underscored the fractured political landscape. Dela Rosa’s refusal to engage with the ICC echoes a broader sentiment among Duterte loyalists who reject the court’s authority. Meanwhile, lawmakers like Marcos, while critical of the process, appear to be navigating a delicate balance between upholding national sovereignty and addressing international obligations.
International Implications
Beyond the Philippines, Duterte’s surrender raises broader questions about the ICC’s role in holding leaders accountable, particularly in nations that have withdrawn from or never joined the court. The Philippines’ case may serve as a test of the ICC’s “residual powers” and its ability to pursue justice despite political resistance. If successful, it could embolden the court to take similar actions elsewhere, potentially reshaping the landscape of international criminal law.
For Southeast Asia, a region where authoritarian tendencies and human rights concerns often collide, the Duterte case is being closely watched. Neighboring countries with their own histories of political violence and impunity may see this as a precedent—either as a warning or as a call to further insulate themselves from international oversight. Analysts suggest that the outcome could influence regional attitudes toward global justice mechanisms for years to come.
Legal Uncertainties Ahead
From a legal standpoint, the absence of a court order in Duterte’s surrender remains a sticking point. While Remulla’s argument hinges on the technical distinction between extradition and surrender, critics warn that bypassing domestic judicial oversight could undermine the rule of law. There is also the question of whether the ICC’s processes, however thorough, can substitute for local legal protections enshrined in the Philippine Constitution.
Some legal scholars have proposed inviting international lawyers to advise on the Senate’s probe, as suggested by Malacañang Palace, to ensure a balanced perspective. Others caution that prolonged legal wrangling could delay justice for victims while allowing political narratives to dominate the discourse.
A Nation at a Crossroads
As the Philippines grapples with the fallout of Duterte’s surrender, the nation stands at a crossroads between asserting its sovereignty and embracing international accountability. The case is not just about one man but about the broader struggle to reconcile a painful past with an uncertain future. For now, the Senate hearings continue to expose deep divisions, while the ICC prepares to take the next steps in a case that has already made history.
As the legal and political battles unfold, one question looms large: will this moment mark a turning point for justice in the Philippines, or will it deepen the fractures within an already polarized society?
