International Bar Association Welcomes Former Philippine President’s Arrest as Step Towards Justice
The arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on March 11, 2025, marks a pivotal moment in the global pursuit of justice. The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Duterte, charging him with crimes against humanity, including murder, tied to his controversial “war on drugs.” This historic development has been met with both celebration and controversy, as the world watches a former head of state face accountability for alleged human rights abuses.
Duterte’s “war on drugs,” launched during his presidency (2016–2022) and earlier as Mayor of Davao City (2011–2016), led to thousands of extrajudicial killings. While the Philippine government reports around 6,000 deaths, human rights groups estimate the toll could be as high as 30,000. These killings, often targeting poor communities, were described as systematic and state-sanctioned, meeting the ICC’s threshold for crimes against humanity.
The ICC’s jurisdiction in this case has been contentious. The Philippines withdrew from the ICC’s Rome Statute in 2019, but the court retains jurisdiction over crimes committed before the withdrawal, specifically between 2011 and 2019 when Duterte’s policies were in force.
Duterte’s arrest in Manila, followed by his extradition to The Hague, is the first time a former Philippine leader has been surrendered to the ICC. The Philippine government, under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., facilitated the arrest, reversing its earlier opposition to ICC cooperation. While Marcos cited obligations under Interpol agreements, political analysts suggest the decision may also reflect internal rivalries and Duterte’s past criticisms of Marcos.
Duterte’s initial ICC appearance on March 14, 2025, confirmed his rights under the Rome Statute and outlined the charges against him. A pre-trial hearing is set for September to assess whether the evidence warrants a full trial. If convicted, he could face life imprisonment.
The arrest has sparked mixed reactions. Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), praised the move as a significant step toward justice for victims of the “war on drugs.” They emphasized the need to hold other officials accountable for their roles in the abuses.
However, Duterte’s supporters argue the arrest is politically motivated and an attack on Philippine sovereignty. Vice President Sara Duterte, his daughter, condemned the arrest as an affront to the nation, while his legal team questioned the ICC’s authority, citing the Philippines’ withdrawal from the court.
The implications of Duterte’s arrest extend beyond the Philippines. It sends a powerful message that no leader is above international law, regardless of their status. The case is being closely watched as a test of the ICC’s ability to prosecute high-profile figures, including others like Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, who also face ICC warrants.
Despite its significance, the trial faces challenges. The ICC is known for slow proceedings and reliance on national governments for enforcement. Political fallout in the Philippines could further complicate domestic support for the ICC, as Duterte retains a loyal base of supporters. The lengthy trial process has left victims’ families and human rights advocates hoping for justice after years of impunity.
Duterte’s arrest is a landmark moment for international justice, demonstrating the potential of global mechanisms like the ICC to address impunity. It reaffirms the principle that even the most powerful leaders must answer for their actions, offering hope to victims of human rights abuses worldwide.
The ICC’s Case Against Duterte
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has charged former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte with crimes against humanity, including murder, stemming from his role in the widespread extrajudicial killings during his tenure as President (2016–2022) and earlier as Mayor of Davao City (2011–2016). Under his controversial “war on drugs,” thousands of individuals, primarily from impoverished communities, were killed in police operations or by vigilantes allegedly linked to law enforcement. While official Philippine government data cites about 6,000 deaths, some human rights organizations estimate the toll could be as high as 30,000. These killings have been characterized as deliberate, systematic, and state-sanctioned, constituting violations that meet the ICC’s threshold for crimes against humanity.
The ICC’s jurisdiction in this case has been a point of contention. Although the Philippines officially withdrew from the ICC’s Rome Statute in March 2019, the court retains jurisdiction over crimes committed before the withdrawal date, specifically between 2011 and 2019 when Duterte’s policies were in force.
Historic Arrest and Extradition
Duterte was arrested in Manila upon his return from Hong Kong and immediately transferred to The Hague in the Netherlands. This marked the first instance of a former head of state from the Philippines being surrendered to the ICC. His arrest was facilitated by the Philippine government under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who reversed his earlier opposition to ICC cooperation. Marcos cited obligations under Interpol agreements, although this decision has been interpreted as politically influenced, given Duterte’s past criticisms of the Marcos administration and internal political rivalries.
Duterte’s initial appearance at the ICC was held on March 14, 2025, where the court confirmed his identity, detailed his rights under the Rome Statute, and outlined the charges against him. The pre-trial process is ongoing, with a hearing set for September to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to proceed to a full trial. If convicted, Duterte could face life imprisonment.
Response and Implications
The arrest has drawn mixed reactions. Human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), hailed it as a monumental step toward justice for victims of the “war on drugs.” These groups emphasized the importance of prosecuting not just Duterte but also other officials who played roles in facilitating human rights abuses during his administration. Agnes Callamard of Amnesty International described the arrest as a “hopeful sign” for holding government leaders accountable for grave crimes.
Supporters of Duterte, however, view the arrest as politically motivated and an attack on the Philippines’ sovereignty. Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, condemned the arrest as an affront to the nation, while Duterte’s legal team argued that the ICC’s actions were invalid given the country’s withdrawal from the court.
The arrest also has broader implications for international justice and the ICC itself, signaling that no leader, regardless of their status, is immune from accountability. It serves as a cautionary tale for leaders implicated in human rights violations, including other figures currently facing ICC warrants, such as Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu. The case is being closely watched as a test of the ICC’s ability to navigate complex legal and political challenges in prosecuting high-profile defendants.
Challenges and the Road Ahead
Despite its significance, Duterte’s trial faces challenges. The ICC has often been criticized for the slow pace of its proceedings and its reliance on national governments for enforcement. Additionally, political fallout within the Philippines could complicate domestic support for the ICC, as Duterte retains a substantial base of loyal supporters. The trial process is expected to be lengthy, with victims’ families and human rights advocates hoping it will finally deliver justice that has eluded them for years.
Duterte’s arrest is a landmark event in international justice, showcasing the potential of global mechanisms like the ICC to address impunity. It underscores the principle that even the most powerful leaders must answer for their actions, offering a glimmer of hope to victims of human rights abuses worldwide.
