FOR MANY Filipinos, former president Rodrigo Duterte’s case in the International Criminal Court (ICC) heralds a victory for human rights. In contrast, Duterte’s supporters question the legality of his arrest, arguing that the ICC proceedings impinge on the country’s sovereignty. 

As this case develops, more misconceptions about the ICC arise, whose outcome may impinge on the pursuit of justice for those victimized during Duterte’s administration. The postponement of his case, in particular, has many worried that he may avoid prosecution.

ICC Jurisdiction

The Philippines’ ratification of the Rome Statute started in 2000, when former president Joseph Estrada signed the document. After 11 years and numerous petitions to pass Resolution No. 546, the country became the 117th ICC member state on August 30, 2011.

However, this membership ended in March 2019 when the Duterte administration announced its withdrawal. This came a month after ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda opened a preliminary examination on the crimes against humanity committed in Duterte’s war on drugs, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of Filipinos.

Since Duterte’s arrest and detention in The Hague, Netherlands, government leaders from his camp claimed that the operations were illegal. They claimed the ICC no longer had jurisdiction in the country after the Philippines left the Rome Statute.

Despite these claims, Political Science Department Professor Atty. Ricardo Sunga III, LLM, explained, “The Duterte administration is laboring under the misconception that the withdrawal means they do not have to cooperate.” He affirmed that the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Statute does not lessen the legality of the proceedings against the former president.

Clearing contradictions

As soon as Duterte was arrested, a coordinated disinformation campaign sparked on social media, resulting in several misconceptions that must be answered and clarified.

CLAIM 1: The ICC no longer has jurisdiction over the Philippines after its withdrawal from the Rome Statute.

• Article 127 of the Rome Statute states that the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed when the country is still a party and may continue to exercise this even after the withdrawal. Both the ICC and the Supreme Court affirmed that the Philippines’ withdrawal in 2019 does not affect ongoing proceedings prior to its withdrawal.

CLAIM 2: Duterte should be tried in the Philippines since the local justice system is functioning.

• Article 17 of the Rome Statute states that a case becomes “inadmissible” if it is already being investigated or prosecuted by the state, unless the state is unwilling or unable to carry out the investigation.
• In 2021, the Duterte administration, through the Philippine Embassy in The Netherlands, appealed to the ICC to stop its investigation by presenting documents that prove its undertakings to address the case. However, the Court considered them insufficient and resumed investigation in 2023.

CLAIM 3: Duterte’s arrest and surrender to the ICC were illegal; therefore, he must be released.

• Republic Act (R.A.) 9851, or the International Humanitarian Law, allows Philippine authorities to surrender suspected persons to an international tribunal investigating crimes against humanity, pursuant to applicable laws and treaties.
• Article 59(2) of the Rome Statute states that the arrested person shall be brought to a “competent judicial authority” to ensure that legal processes are followed and the person’s rights are respected.
• An arrest warrant was issued by the ICC against Duterte on March 7, 2025. This was followed by a request for assistance or red diffusion from the International Criminal Police Organization, to which the Philippines cooperated as a member state.
• The Marcos administration explained that, in “substantial compliance” with the Rome Statute, the Department of Justice Prosecutor General acted as “competent judicial authority” to ensure that Duterte was informed of his rights and charges during his arrest. This was also affirmed by the ICC. 

Awaiting trial

Presently, Duterte’s case is at the pre-trial stage, beginning with his Initial Appearance last March 14 for confirmation of his identity and explanation of charges. This would be followed by the Confirmation of Charges, originally set on September 23, where the judges will determine whether or not there are substantial grounds to believe that Duterte committed crimes based on the presented evidence. The Chamber may decide to confirm the charges, decline for lack of evidence, or request amendments and further investigation.

Both camps have been preparing for months, with the Prosecutor having submitted 12 batches of evidence in July. Meanwhile, the Defense has sought the disqualification of two judges and Chief ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan over alleged conflict of interest (denied and pending, respectively), challenged the Court’s jurisdiction over the case, and sought Duterte’s interim release (both pending).

However, the ICC has indefinitely postponed the confirmation following Lead Counsel Nicolas Kaufman’s assertion that Duterte is suffering from “cognitive deterioration” and thus, unfit for trial. Victims’ lawyer Atty. Kristina Conti described the development as a “desperate” and “calculated ploy.” According to her, Duterte could waive his right to be present at the trial and assign his lawyer to represent him.

With the continued political prominence and support enjoyed by Duterte and his allies, Sunga underscored the importance of keeping the truth alive and countering false narratives intensified by their camp.

Amid the current political turmoil fueled by both facts and disinformation, Filipinos and the international community await the uncertain future of the case and whether it will vindicate Duterte or bring the victims of his war on drugs one step closer to justice.