The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant of arrest for former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, citing alleged crimes against humanity linked to his administration’s controversial war on drugs.
This article explores the legal basis for the ICC’s arrest warrant, its jurisdiction over the Philippines, and the implications of Duterte’s apprehension under both international and Philippine law.
Does the ICC Have Jurisdiction Over Duterte?
The Rome Statute of the ICC is the international treaty that established the ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. The Philippines ratified the Rome Statute on November 1, 2011, making it legally bound by the ICC’s provisions.[1] However, President Duterte unilaterally withdrew the Philippines from the ICC after the ICC launched a preliminary examination into his anti-drug campaign.[2]
Does the ICC Still Have Authority Over Duterte?
Yes. Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute states:
“A withdrawal shall not affect any criminal investigations or proceedings that began before the withdrawal took effect.”[3]
Thus, the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed between November 1, 2011, and March 17, 2019, the period during which the Philippines was a full ICC member. The ICC’s formal investigation into Duterte’s drug war began in September 2021, allowing it to proceed despite the country’s withdrawal.[4]
Philippine Law and Its Obligation to the ICC
Although the Philippines is no longer an ICC member, domestic laws still recognize international criminal accountability. Republic Act No. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, 2009) criminalizes acts that also fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction such as crimes against humanity.
Section 17 of RA 9851 asserts that Philippine authorities are obligated to prosecute international crimes but also permits the ICC to intervene if the State is unwilling or unable to prosecute.[5] The ICC acted under the principle of complementarity, which allows it to intervene when a state fails to hold its own leaders accountable, because Duterte was never prosecuted domestically.
Duterte’s Arrest: A Shift in Philippine Policy?
On March 11, 2025, Duterte was arrested at Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Manila upon arrival from Hong Kong. Reports indicate that he was later transferred to The Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity.[6]
Duterte’s arrest marks a dramatic shift in the Philippine government’s stance on ICC jurisdiction because the Philippines withdrew from the ICC and resisted its investigations in 2018. Current President Marcos denied claims of political persecution and clarified that the government was simply complying with the ICC’s warrant. [7] By cooperating with the ICC’s arrest warrant, the Philippines may be signaling a renewed commitment to international law.
Global Implications and Legal Precedents
The ICC has continued to pursue investigations in states that have withdrawn from the Court, such as Burundi, where crimes committed before the country’s withdrawal remained under ICC jurisdiction.[8] The Philippines’ compliance with the ICC arrest warrant sets an international precedent, demonstrating that even non-member states can enforce such warrants.
Summary
The ICC had legal authority to issue Duterte’s arrest warrant because the alleged crimes occurred while the Philippines was an ICC member (2011-2019).
The Rome Statute allows the ICC to continue investigations and prosecutions initiated before a country’s withdrawal, making Duterte’s case valid.
Philippine law (RA 9851) upholds international criminal accountability, providing legitimacy to the arrest.
Duterte’s arrest marks a shift in Philippine policy.
Duterte will likely be transferred to The Hague for trial before the ICC. His case could set a major precedent for future international criminal prosecutions, influencing how the ICC enforces justice for crimes against humanity. As events unfold, the world will be watching how the Marcos administration navigates its relationship with the ICC and whether this signals a new era of international accountability in the Philippines.
[1] International Criminal Court. (2011, August 30). Press release: The Philippines becomes the 117th State Party to the Rome Statute of the ICC. International Criminal Court.
[2] G.R. No. 238875, Rodrigo R. Duterte v. The Republic of the Philippines, Supreme Court of the Philippines (March 16, 2021).
[3] International Criminal Court. (1998). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 127(2).
[4] Philippine Daily Inquirer. (2025, March 22). The fall of the punisher: Rodrigo Duterte’s path to the ICC.
[5] Philippine Congress. (2009). Republic Act No. 9851, Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity.
[6] Philippine Daily Inquirer. (2025, March 13). Live updates: Duterte ICC crimes vs humanity case.
[7] Philippine Daily Inquirer. (2021, March 14). Marcos: Arrest of Duterte not a political persecution.
[8] International Criminal Court. (2017). Preliminary examination: The situation in Burundi.
Comments