The implications of the former President of the Philippines, the arrest of Rodrigo Duterte on the Mandate of ICC

FPresident of Philippine Omer Rodrigo Dutete was flying in the Netherlands On March 12, 2025, to deal with charges of crime against humanity before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for its role in the “drug war” during its mandate. While he was in office, Mr. Dutete openly encouraged the police to follow and kill people suspected of involvement in illegal drug trade.

It is expected that the case will serve as a critical test of the court jurisdiction, given that the Philippines is not a signatory of the Statute Rome – the Treaty that established the ICC.

What was Dutete’s “drug war”?

In a statement, the court stated that his pre-process Chamber examined the prosecutor’s office and found reasonable reasons to believe that he is “individual responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator for crime crime, alleged in the Philippines between November 1, 2011 and March 16, 2019.”

The ICC investigation on extrajudicial drugs related to drugs under the Duterte Mr. covers the mandate of mayor of Davao, starting in 2011, through his presidency, which ended in 2022. The rights organizations have long accused him of orchestrated a “death team” in Davao-Allegations he has refused. His aggressive repression on drug unions has become the defining theme of his victorious presidential campaign in 2016.

By the end of his term, human rights groups and ICC prosecutor estimated that about 30,000 people were killed by the police and unidentified attackers. Mr. Dutete has defended his anti-drug campaign as a necessary measure to reduce street offenses. However, the groups of rights accused the police of large -scale abuses, disproportionately aiming young people from the poor.

A Amnesty International Report 2017 They revealed that the police officers acknowledged that they received $ 150 at $ 300 per suspect of drugs, creating what the report described as a “stimulant for killing”.

Where is the internal policy?

Despite its expansive mandate, the Court has no application authority and is based on national governments to execute its mandates, which makes it vulnerable to internal political considerations.

Mr. Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the ICC jurisdiction in 2019, however, the prosecutors claimed that they kept the authority to investigate the alleged offenses against humanity committed before withdrawal. An official investigation was launched in 2021. Initially, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. refused to cooperate, but his position changed after the dramatic collapse of the Dutete-Marcos Alliance.

Mr. Marcos assured the Presidency in 2022 through a political pact with the daughter of Dutete, Sara, now vice president. However, their alliance revealed last year, climbing into a bitter feud. As the country approaches the regional and parliamentary elections, Mrs. Dutete faces of accusation To accusations that include an alleged plot of assassination against the president.

Mr. Marcos claimed that Philippines only respect their interpol obligations by facilitating the execution of the ICC mandate. Ever since he took over the position, he has made no effort to return to court.

Read also: Are Interpol notifications exploited politically? | explicitly

Does ICC have jurisdiction?

Mr. Dutete and his allies have long challenged the ICC jurisdiction, citing the withdrawal from the Philippines of 2019 from the Statute of Rome. In January 2023, the ICC authorized his prosecutor to resume an investigation into the killing, reversing a 2021 suspension granted at the request of the Philippines. The Philippine government has argued that its institutions are capable of pursuing the supposed prosecution of crimes, invoking the principle of complementarity, which limits the intervention of ICC to cases where national courts are not “incapable or who do not want” to act. The Pre-Process camera rejected this statement, deciding that the Philippines did not demonstrate sufficient efforts to justify a postponement.

In accordance with the Statute of Rome, all 125 signatory states are obliged to arrest and teach people facing ICC mandates if they enter their territory. In 2016, the court set up an internal work group for arrest to strengthen cooperation and improve the exchange of information to track and execute mandates. However, compliance remains inconsistent. Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir, charged in 2009 for Genocide in Darfur, remained in power for a decade and traveled freely in several ICC Member States, without being retained.

Failure to comply with an ICC arrest warrant leads to a referral to the assembly of the States, to the Court’s management body and, finally, to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). However, when I UNC invokes the court jurisdiction, all the relevant Member States of the UN are obliged to cooperate, regardless of their status in accordance with the status of Rome. For example, in cases in Darfur and Libya, UNSC has imposed cooperation in the respective states and demanded a wider international respect.

What are the implications for the court?

The indictment of Mr. Dutete is a rare triumph for the ICC, as opposed to his largely symbolic arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin in Russia and Benjamin Netanyahu, from Israel, who remain uninformed. The defendant leaders historically escaped the arrest not only because of the court’s jurisdictional constraints, but also through Realpolitik. The states have carried economic sanctions and even the threat of reprisals to protect their leaders and allies of criminal prosecution.

However, the arrest is not without risks for the court. ICC is a worse institution these days, the Trump administration threatening to arrest its top officials on Israel’s investigations, a near US ally. However, by indicating Duterte-the first former head of Asian state facing the accusations of ICC-Instance pushed back against long-term critics from African nations, that they disproportionately concern their leaders.

China also warned the politicization of ICC cases. Although not a signatory of the Statute in Rome, it is currently included in a territorial dispute with Philippines in the South China Sea. The Beijing statement was a thin veiled criticism of the way in which a case meant to ensure responsibility for serious international crimes has instead became a fight for domestic political rivalry.

What is before for Duterte?

During the procedure prior to the Pre-Process Chamber, Mr. Dutete’s lawyer claimed that his arrest and extradition from Manila to the Netherlands was “pure and simple abduction”. He also claimed that the “debilitating” medical status of the former president made him improper for the trial. However, the president of Judge Iulia Motoc rejected these concerns and confirmed that the procedures will continue as programmed.

The next step is a hearing to confirm the accusations that the prosecutor intends to follow, during which Mr. Dutete can also request for provisional release. Only after this hearing will the court decide whether it will continue with a process, a process that could take months or even years. A process, if approved, is unlikely to start soon.