Justice on Trial: The ICC Case Against Former President Duterte

By Government of the Philippines, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=118391205

The arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte by the International Criminal Court (ICC) has sent ripples across the globe. This landmark case, rooted in allegations of crimes against humanity, marks a pivotal moment in the pursuit of justice for victims of extrajudicial killings (EJKs) during Duterte's administration.

The Legal Foundation

The ICC's jurisdiction over Duterte's case stems from the Rome Statute, an international treaty establishing the court. Although the Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2019, the court retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was still a member. The charges against Duterte include murder, torture, and enforced disappearances, all tied to his infamous "war on drugs" and alleged operations of the Davao Death Squad during his tenure as mayor and president.

The ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber issued the arrest warrant under Article 59 of the Rome Statute, citing the necessity to ensure Duterte's appearance in court, prevent obstruction of justice, and halt the continuation of alleged crimes. This move underscores the principle that no one is above the law, regardless of rank or influence.

The Human Cost

Duterte's anti-drug campaign left a trail of devastation. Official records cite over 6,000 deaths during police operations, but human rights groups estimate the toll to be as high as 30,000. Victims included suspected drug users, petty criminals, and even innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. Families of the deceased have long sought justice, their grief compounded by the lack of accountability.

The arrest has reignited hope among these families. Many see it as a step toward justice, though they acknowledge that the road ahead is long and fraught with challenges. Their stories serve as a poignant reminder of the human cost of policies that prioritize force over due process.

A Global Message

Duterte's case is more than a legal proceeding; it's a statement to the world. It signals that international mechanisms can hold leaders accountable for actions that violate fundamental human rights. For the Philippines, it is a moment of reckoning, a chance to confront the past and reaffirm its commitment to justice and the rule of law.

As the case unfolds, the world watches, not just for the verdict but for the broader implications it holds for justice, accountability, and the enduring fight against impunity.

What are the cases against the former President?

The ICC's case against former President Rodrigo Duterte primarily revolves around allegations of crimes against humanity during his administration's "war on drugs." Here are the key details:

1. Crimes Against Humanity

The charges include murder, torture, and enforced disappearances. These are tied to the thousands of extrajudicial killings (EJKs) that occurred during anti-drug operations. Human rights groups estimate the death toll to be as high as 30,000, though official records cite over 6,000 deaths.

2. Davao Death Squad Allegations

Before his presidency, Duterte was accused of overseeing the Davao Death Squad during his tenure as mayor of Davao City. This group allegedly carried out targeted killings of suspected criminals and drug users.

3. Legal Basis

The ICC's jurisdiction is based on the Rome Statute, which the Philippines was a party to until its withdrawal in 2019. The court retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was still a member.

4. Victims' Complaints

Families of victims and human rights groups have filed multiple complaints with the ICC, accusing Duterte of orchestrating a campaign of violence that violated fundamental human rights.

5. Pre-Trial Chamber's Role

The ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber issued the arrest warrant under Article 59 of the Rome Statute, emphasizing the need to ensure Duterte's appearance in court and prevent further crimes.

This case is significant for international justice as it underscores the principle that no leader is above the law. 

Is the arrest legal if the Philippines has already withdrawn its membership from ICC  in  March 2019?

The arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is rooted in the principle of residual jurisdiction under the Rome Statute. While the Philippines officially withdrew from the ICC  in March 2019, the court retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was still a member. This is outlined in Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute, which states that withdrawal does not take effect until the ongoing investigation or proceedings before the withdrawal took effect.

The ICC's case against the former president focuses on alleged crimes against humanity during his administration's "war on drugs" tie to the Davo Death Squad. These alleged crimes occurred during the period when the Philippines was a state party to the Rome Statute from 2011 to 2019.

Is there a due process in arresting the former President?

Yes, due process was observed during the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte. The Department of Justice (DOJ) ensured the arrest adhered to legal protocols. Upon his arrival at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Duterte was informed of the charges against him, including crimes against humanity and murder. His rights were read to him, and the process was conducted peacefully and orderly.

The arrest was based on a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Philippine authorities. Cooperated with Interpol to enforce it. The DOJ emphasized that all procedural safeguards were observed to protect Duterte's rights, ensuring compliance with both local and international standards.

Is INTERPOL connected with this?

Yes, INTERPOL played a role in the arrest of former President Duterte. After the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant, INTERPOL Manila received an official copy and coordinated with Philippine authorities to enforce it. This collaboration highlights the Philippines' commitment to its obligations as a member of INTERPOL, ensuring international cooperation in cases involving serious crimes.

Presidential, Parliamentary, & Federal - What Are They?

     The Philippine National Election on May 9 has shown that people are becoming excited about who would win the election and the changes that might occur once the popular becomes the president. People are clamoring for changes and sensitivity that they wanted from someone in authority who would overturn the increasing crime, yet approachable that can be easily reached and mindful of the people's plight. Questions as to "would he stand by his promise, when is he going to do it, and how he would do it" are being asked by people. What could be his first task at hand?

     One declaration that elected President Rodrigo Duterte had stated during his campaign, is to change the present form of the Philippine government. There are as numerous as a public classroom students list varied forms of government in the different parts of the world. We mostly hear the anarchy, oligarchy, communist, socialist, Marxist, imperialist, parliamentary, and federal, to name a few. Actually, the different systems or forms of government are being taught as early as grade 4 or 5.

     At present, the Philippines is a republic with a Presidential form of government. Under the Presidential form, our country is divided into three (3) branches with equal powers but separate from each other, as illustrated below.

1) Legislative Division is responsible for making laws and altering or repealing them. The Senate and the House of Representatives or Congress are under this division. Elected by people.

2) Executive Division is responsible for executing and implementing the laws. The President and his Vice President, along with the mayoralty are under this division and elected by the people. The President, however, appoints his own cabinet members (department secretaries) as granted by the Constitution.

3) Judiciary Division is responsible for settling controversies that are legally demandable and enforceable. The Supreme Court and Lower Court are under this division. It has also the power as granted by the Constitution to declare a treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or unconstitutional regulation. Appointments are made by the President based on a list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council under the supervision of the Supreme Court.

Parliamentary on the other hand consists of two organizing bodies that are closely related and dependent upon each other. The two organizing body share their powers. See the illustration below:

1) Legislature may either be called an assembly, congress, or legislators. It is the law-making body of a government that has the power to amend and repeal public policy; observes and steers governing actions in a government system. Depending on certain countries or states, it may be in the form of unicameral or bicameral.
2) Executive consists of the head of state, it may be a President or Monarchy. As the case may be, they are the head of state but not the head of the government. The majority party that wins the election for Legislature is appointed Prime Minister, also called Premier or Chancellor. The Prime Minister possesses much greater power and status than the other ministers. The President or Monarchy appointed Cabinet Ministers with the advice of the Prime Minister. However, the Cabinet of Ministers is responsible to the legislature for all its activities and policies. The President is elected while a Monarchy is inherited.

A federal system of government is a division of power between a central national government and local governments that are connected by one another by the central national government. See the illustration below to have a clear grasp of how federalism works.

     There are powers designated to the Central/National government and powers reserved for the Regional/State government, but there is also the same shared power depending on what the constitution states. Each regional/state government elected a governor aside from its mayoralty. And just like in the presidential system, the central national government has Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary divisions with separate powers. The idea behind Federalism is to better suit the needs of each area in the country. The smaller branches of government from each region/state could deal with true things that need to be changed.

** images are created by Emily for April Brews, send a message for permission to use.

LINKS for more info:

http://www.bloomp.net/articles/benefits_federalism.htm

http://www.gov.ph/about/gov/

http://www.importantindia.com/12408/features-of-parliamentary-form-of-government/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_Philippines