The Philippines has long struggled with crime, corruption, and a justice system that often fails those who need it most. Former President Rodrigo Duterte came to power with the promise of eradicating crime, primarily through his controversial war on drugs. While many Filipinos initially supported his strongman tactics, the consequences have been brutal: thousands of extrajudicial killings (EJKs), broken families, and a justice system that turned a blind eye to human rights abuses.
Now, with Duterte in custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, the debate over justice, sovereignty, and accountability has reached a historic moment. What does this mean for the Philippines, and why did it take international intervention to bring him to justice?
Duterte’s Arrest: A Turning Point for Justice
Duterte’s arrest marks a significant step in global accountability. While some argue that only Filipinos should decide Duterte’s fate, the reality is that the Philippine justice system failed to act on thousands of extrajudicial killings. The ICC exists precisely for situations where national institutions refuse or are unable to prosecute crimes against humanity.
For years, Duterte and his allies dismissed the ICC’s investigation. He even pulled the Philippines out of the ICC in 2019—a move that only reinforced suspicions that he was trying to avoid accountability. But withdrawal does not erase crimes already committed while the country was still under ICC jurisdiction. His surrender (or capture) proves that international justice can still prevail, even against powerful leaders.
A Broken Justice System: Why the ICC Stepped In
The ICC does not randomly interfere in a country’s affairs. It only investigates when a government is unwilling or unable to prosecute crimes against humanity. In Duterte’s case, his administration systematically dismissed, denied, or outright justified EJKs, calling them necessary for national security.
Filipinos who lost family members in the drug war have long sought justice. But when their own government ignored their cries, where else could they turn? The ICC became the last resort, ensuring that justice is served even when a country’s own system is compromised.
Sovereignty vs. Justice: A False Dilemma?
One of the biggest arguments against Duterte’s ICC trial is that it violates Philippine sovereignty. Critics claim that the Philippines should not allow foreign courts to decide the fate of a former leader. But sovereignty should mean protecting Filipino lives and upholding justice—not shielding a former president from accountability.
Sovereignty is not a license for impunity. If Duterte’s administration had properly investigated and prosecuted the killings, there would have been no need for the ICC to step in. The fact that international justice was necessary shows that the Philippines failed to serve its own people.
Putin, Netanyahu, and Duterte: Why This Case Is Different
Some argue that leaders like Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu also have ICC warrants, yet their governments have not handed them over. So why should the Philippines treat Duterte differently?
Here’s why this argument fails:
- Russia and Israel do not recognize the ICC. The Philippines did—until Duterte withdrew in 2019 when the investigation began.
- Russia and Israel have stronger geopolitical influence. They can resist international pressure in ways the Philippines cannot.
- The Philippines has a clear track record of failing to prosecute EJK cases. If justice worked in the Philippines, the ICC wouldn’t have stepped in.
Duterte’s case is not about foreign meddling. It’s about whether Filipinos will allow impunity in their own country or demand accountability, regardless of international involvement.
What If You Were the Victim?
For many, this debate is theoretical. But for those who have lost family members to EJKs, it is deeply personal. Imagine if it was your home that was broken into, your loved one falsely accused and executed without trial. Would you still argue against seeking justice through the ICC?
Leaders are supposed to protect their people. When they instead enable state-sanctioned killings, justice must find a way. Duterte himself admitted to ordering killings. Should that be ignored just because he was once a public official?
His arrest is not a foreign attack on the Philippines—it is an opportunity for justice, proving that even the most powerful can be held accountable.
What Happens Next?
Now that Duterte is in ICC custody in The Hague, here’s what to expect:
- Confirmation of Charges – The ICC will review evidence and determine whether to proceed with a full trial.
- Trial Proceedings – If charges are confirmed, Duterte will have to defend himself. Witnesses, victims, and experts will present evidence.
- Verdict and Sentencing – If found guilty, Duterte could face a long prison sentence in a designated ICC facility.
The outcome will shape the future of global justice and Philippine democracy.
Final Thoughts: What Kind of Country Do We Want?
At the heart of this issue is a simple choice: Do we want a Philippines where leaders are accountable for their actions, or one where the powerful act without consequences?
Justice is not a foreign concept. It is a universal right. Duterte’s arrest proves that no leader is above the law. The ICC case is not an attack on Philippine sovereignty—it is a reminder that true sovereignty lies in protecting the people, not in shielding the powerful.
History is watching. The question is: Will we stand for justice, or will we allow impunity to define us?
