By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article details the controversial campaign against illegal drugs waged by Rodrigo Duterte during his time as city mayor and subsequent presidency. Human rights organizations report that this campaign resulted in the extrajudicial killings of tens of thousands of individuals accused of drug-related offenses. Prosecutors from the International Criminal Court (ICC) have alleged Duterte’s involvement in at least 76 murders and have formally charged him with three counts of crimes against humanity.
Read the original article here
The wheels of justice, it seems, are finally beginning to turn for former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, as he now faces court for alleged crimes against humanity. For years, victims and their families have waited, enduring the pain and loss inflicted during his controversial presidency, and the prospect of accountability is a moment many believed might never arrive. The sheer relief and a sense of overdue justice are palpable, with many expressing a profound “about damn time” sentiment that he cannot evade reckoning forever.
Duterte’s tenure, particularly his notorious “war on drugs,” was characterized by a relentless crackdown that, according to critics and now the International Criminal Court (ICC), resulted in widespread extrajudicial killings and other severe human rights abuses. While his supporters lauded his tough stance on crime, often portraying him as a decisive leader, the narrative now shifts to the devastating human cost of his policies. It’s been pointed out that his campaign primarily targeted street-level dealers and drug users, the “little people,” rather than dismantling major criminal organizations, leading some to question the long-term effectiveness and framing it as largely for show.
Indeed, the very act of Duterte facing an international tribunal highlights a perceived failure of the domestic justice system to adequately address the scale of alleged atrocities. The Philippines itself was a signatory to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, during the period when many of the alleged crimes were committed. This membership is crucial because it allows the ICC to step in as a court of last resort when national judiciaries are unable or unwilling to prosecute. The fact that the case has progressed to this point suggests a belief that local avenues for justice were insufficient.
The legal pathway to the ICC for Duterte is complex, particularly when contrasted with discussions about holding other international figures accountable. Unlike the United States, which is not a party to the Rome Statute and has laws that could even authorize military action against the Hague if its citizens were indicted, the Philippines’ historical membership is a key factor. This distinction is significant because it explains why the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over Duterte, even though the Philippines has since withdrawn from the Statute. The argument is that his alleged crimes occurred while the nation was still bound by its obligations.
A critical component of any ICC prosecution, as highlighted by the complexities of international law, is the evidence. For Duterte, the case hinges on a substantial collection of documented evidence, reportedly around 50 cases, that form the bedrock of the charges. This meticulous documentation is what allows the ICC to move forward, contrasting sharply with situations where evidence might be more fragmented or politically contentious. The ICC’s role as a court of last resort means it intervenes only when national courts are unable to provide justice, and the Philippines’ proactive engagement with the ICC signals an acknowledgment of this necessity.
Adding another layer of intrigue to Duterte’s legal predicament is the narrative surrounding his apprehension and transfer to the Netherlands. Reports suggest a degree of self-sabotage fueled by arrogance. Rather than attempting to evade capture entirely, his movements, including a planned visit to Hong Kong, were reportedly met with a swift and decisive international legal process. Some accounts detail a betrayal by his own party or associates, leading to his arrest upon arrival at a Philippine airport, a far cry from the image of invincibility he often projected. This suggests that even those who operate with a high degree of perceived impunity can find themselves cornered by the legal system.
The political machinations behind Duterte’s transfer also merit attention. It appears that a falling out between his daughter, who served as Vice President, and the current Philippine president played a significant role. Faced with the complex political landscape and Duterte’s enduring support base within the Philippines, a decision was made to hand him over to the ICC, bypassing a potentially volatile domestic trial. This move, while seemingly resolving the immediate accountability issue, also raises questions about the compromised nature of justice within the Philippines itself and the shadow cast by past authoritarian regimes, including the Marcos dictatorship, whose son now leads the country.
The journey to this court appearance is a long and arduous one, marked by years of advocacy, fear, and hope for those who suffered under Duterte’s rule. The ICC’s intervention represents a global effort to uphold fundamental human rights and ensure that leaders are not above the law, even when domestic systems falter. The proceedings are expected to be closely watched, not only for the fate of Rodrigo Duterte but also as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle for justice and accountability in the face of widespread human rights violations.