Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was flown to the Netherlands on March 12, 2025, to face charges of crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for his role in the deadly “war on drugs” during his tenure. While in office, Mr. Duterte openly encouraged the police to track down and kill individuals suspected of involvement in the illegal drug trade.
The case is expected to serve as a critical test of the court’s jurisdiction, given that the Philippines is not a signatory to the Rome Statute — the treaty that established the ICC.
What was Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’?
In a statement, the court said its Pre-Trial chamber had reviewed evidence from the Office of the Prosecutor and found reasonable grounds to believe he is “individually responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator for the crime against humanity of murder, allegedly committed in the Philippines between November 1, 2011, and March 16, 2019.”
The ICC’s investigation into extrajudicial drug-related killings under Mr. Duterte covers his tenure as Davao City mayor, starting in 2011, through his presidency, which ended in 2022. Rights organisations have long accused him of orchestrating a “death squad” in Davao—allegations he has consistently denied. His aggressive crackdown on drug syndicates became the defining theme of his victorious 2016 presidential campaign.
By the end of his term, human rights groups and the ICC prosecutor estimated that some 30,000 people had been killed by police and unidentified assailants. Mr. Duterte defended his anti-drug campaign as a necessary measure to curb street crimes. However, rights groups have accused police officers of widespread abuse, disproportionately targeting young men from the urban poor.
A 2017 Amnesty International report revealed that police officers admitted to receiving bounties of $150 to $300 per drug suspect killed, creating what the report described as an “incentive to kill.”
Where do domestic politics stand?
Despite its expansive mandate, the court lacks enforcement authority and relies on national governments to execute its warrants, rendering it vulnerable to domestic political considerations.
Mr. Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the ICC’s jurisdiction in 2019, yet prosecutors argued they retained authority to investigate alleged crimes against humanity committed before the withdrawal. A formal investigation was launched in 2021. Initially, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. refused to cooperate, but his position shifted following the dramatic collapse of the Duterte-Marcos alliance.
Mr. Marcos secured the presidency in 2022 through a political pact with Duterte’s daughter, Sara, now vice president. However, their alliance unravelled last year, escalating into a bitter feud. As the country nears regional and parliamentary elections, Ms. Duterte faces impeachment on charges that include an alleged assassination plot against the president.
Mr. Marcos has maintained that the Philippines was merely upholding its obligations to Interpol by facilitating the execution of the ICC warrant. Since taking office, he has made no effort to rejoin the court.
Also Read: Are Interpol’s notices being politically exploited? | Explained
Does the ICC have jurisdiction?
Mr. Duterte and his allies have long contested the ICC’s jurisdiction, citing the Philippines’ 2019 withdrawal from the Rome Statute. In January 2023, the ICC authorised its prosecutor to resume an investigation into the killings, reversing a 2021 suspension granted at the Philippines’ request. The Philippine government had argued that its institutions were capable of prosecuting the alleged crimes, invoking the principle of complementarity, which limits ICC intervention to cases where national courts are “unable or unwilling” to act. The Pre-Trial Chamber rejected this claim, ruling that the Philippines had not demonstrated sufficient efforts to warrant a deferral.
Under the Rome Statute, all 125 signatory states are required to arrest and surrender individuals facing ICC warrants if they enter their territory. In 2016, the court established an internal Arrest Working Group to strengthen cooperation and improve intelligence-sharing on tracking and executing warrants. However, compliance remains inconsistent. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, indicted in 2009 for genocide in Darfur, remained in power for a decade and travelled freely to several ICC member states without being apprehended.
Non-compliance with an ICC arrest warrant leads to a referral to the Assembly of States Parties, the court’s governing body, and ultimately to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). However, when the UNSC invokes the court’s jurisdiction, all relevant UN member states are obligated to cooperate, regardless of their status under the Rome Statute. For instance, in the cases of Darfur and Libya, the UNSC mandated cooperation from the respective states and urged broader international compliance.
What are the implications for the court?
Mr. Duterte’s indictment is a rare triumph for the ICC, unlike its largely symbolic arrest warrants for Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, which remain unenforced. Indicted leaders have historically evaded arrest not only due to the court’s jurisdictional constraints but also through realpolitik. States have wielded economic sanctions and even the threat of retaliation to shield their leaders and allies from prosecution.
However, the arrest is not without risks for the court. The ICC is an embattled institution these days, with the Trump administration threatening to arrest its top officials over investigations of Israel, a close U.S. ally. Nevertheless, by indicting Duterte—the first former Asian head of state to face ICC charges—the court has pushed back against long-standing criticism from African nations that it disproportionately targets their leaders.
China has also warned against politicising ICC cases. Though not a signatory to the Rome Statute, it is currently embroiled in a territorial dispute with the Philippines over the South China Sea. Beijing’s statement was a thinly veiled critique of how a case meant to ensure accountability for grave international crimes has instead become a battleground for domestic political rivalry.
What lies ahead for Duterte?
During the proceedings before the Pre-Trial Chamber, Mr. Duterte’s lawyer argued that his arrest and extradition from Manila to the Netherlands constituted “pure and simple kidnapping.” He also claimed that the former President’s “debilitating” medical condition made him unfit for trial. However, presiding judge Iulia Motoc dismissed these concerns and confirmed that proceedings would continue as scheduled.
The next step is a hearing to confirm the charges the Prosecutor intends to pursue, during which Mr. Duterte may also apply for interim release. Only after this hearing will the court decide whether to proceed with a trial, a process that could take months or even years. A trial, if approved, is unlikely to begin anytime soon.
Published – March 15, 2025 06:37 pm IST
