THE International Criminal Court (ICC), conceived by the Rome Statute as a court of last resort for countries that do not have the capacity to prosecute those committing crimes against humanity or having such capacity to go after them refuses to do so, has of late come under a barrage of criticism owing to its assuming jurisdiction over countries that are nonmembers, like the United States, Israel, Russia and the Philippines.
In the case of the US and Israel, the ICC has conducted investigations into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan and the Gaza Strip, and issued warrants of arrest against Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant. The US views such actions as a politically motivated assault on national sovereignty. The US asserts that the ICC is acting beyond the scope of its mandate, thereby setting a “dangerous precedent” because it is targeting countries with functioning legal systems. It treats the ICC’s intrusive acts as a direct assault on its sovereignty.
As a consequence of the ICC’s acts, the US imposed financial sanctions against the prosecutors and judges of the foreign tribunal. These included financial penalties, visa restrictions and travel bans.
In the case of Russia, the ICC issued an arrest warrant against President Vladimir Putin in connection with his war on Ukraine.
The ICC’s latest assault on the sovereignty of a non-member is on the Philippines.
Despite the Philippines’ effective withdrawal as an ICC member, it has unlawfully assumed jurisdiction over it and over the person of its former president, Rodrigo Duterte.
Of course, the ICC’s exercise of jurisdiction over the Philippines is not without the shameless sanction and cooperation of the present dispensation, which engineered Duterte’s arrest, detention and rendition, which is a flagrant violation of our Constitution, and the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Blatant violation
The current administration’s action of arresting and detaining the former president on March 11, 2025, at Villamor Air Base upon his arrival from Hong Kong, at the behest of the ICC and in conspiracy with the current powerholders, was in blatant violation of the Constitution, as there was no valid warrant of arrest issued by a competent court as directed by the fundamental charter. Duterte was absolutely denied due process. His rendition was politically motivated, pure and simple. It was as brazen as it was shameful. The current president’s action was a surrender of the country’s sovereignty and a betrayal of the public trust, an impeachable offense.
The ICC, on the other hand, violated the Rome Statute that gave birth to its existence.
Under that statute, before it can exercise jurisdiction over its member-countries to prosecute and try those who commit crimes against humanity, it must follow the fundamental principle of complementarity enshrined in it.
Simply stated, under the aforesaid basic principle, the ICC cannot assume jurisdiction over any country that has the resources to prosecute an individual who is accused of committing crimes against humanity, mass murder and the like. Or if it has the wherewithal to prosecute the offenders and, for whatever reason, incapacitates itself to pursue the judicial action, the ICC can legally assume jurisdiction. In such a case, the ICC is commanded under the Rome Statute to bring the arrested person to local judicial authority, which will determine the validity of the arrest order. Both the requirements of due process to be accorded the accused as mandated by the Constitution, as well as the intervention of the member-country’s domestic court as directed by the Rome Statute, were deliberately ignored in the case of Duterte.
The ICC proceeded to incarcerate Duterte, denied his request for an interim release despite the presence of circumstances entitling him to temporary liberty, refused to grant his petition not to face trial due to cognitive and health concerns. Duterte’s motion to dismiss the case against him for lack of jurisdiction was denied; his appeal on the jurisdiction ruling was also turned down. Despite the fact that the issue of jurisdiction was still pending resolution by the ICC appeals court, the pre-trial chamber proceeded to hear the confirmation of charges, giving the inevitable impression that the ICC has prejudged the case against Duterte.
Jurisdiction
The issue of jurisdiction is the heart and soul of any judicial proceeding.
A court that exercises jurisdiction to hear a case or try a person over which it has no jurisdiction is fatal. All its actions are null and void. A court exercising jurisdiction without authority is a travesty of justice and an assault on the rule of law. It has no reason to exist in a civilized society. It brings chaos and disorder instead of maintaining peace and order. It creates injustice instead of rendering justice.
Following the ruling by the ICC that it has jurisdiction over Duterte’s case, it handed a decision confirming the charges against the latter.
As this columnist articulated on the last day of the hearing on the confirmation charges at The Hague on Feb. 27, 2026, when asked by the reporters covering the event that if the decision would be based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, no court would not dismiss it for utter lack of evidence. All that the prosecution presented before the pre-trial chamber were speculations, hearsay, double hearsay, hyperbolic speeches of Duterte, and news items.
Given that there are external considerations that the ICC could not dis-attach itself from, to wit:
– The ICC assumed jurisdiction over the case despite the absolute absence of jurisdiction because the Rome Statute creating the ICC was unenforceable in the country not having complied with the mandatory publication in the official gazette as required by the Civil Code as well as following the Supreme Court ruling in the Tuvera case, where it held that no law shall be enforceable and without effect if it is not published in the Official Gazette.
– The fact that the Philippines had already withdrawn as a member of the ICC, assuming that the Rome Statute was enforceable, plus the other circumstance that the special prosecutor commenced the preliminary investigation on the charges two years after the prescribed period of investigation, which removed the Philippines from any residual obligation, assuming again the ICC had jurisdiction over it.
– The ICC, despite the pendency of jurisdiction as questioned by Duterte’s defense team, has not yet been finally resolved; it proceeded to hear the confirmation of charges.
The inevitable logical conclusion by the aforementioned circumstance would be that the ICC has prejudged the case; hence, such a ruling was not only unsurprising but expected as well.
Indeed, the confirmation of charges against Duterte was a foregone conclusion.
Should the defense team appeal the ruling, the likelihood of it being denied by the ICC is almost a certainty, and the trial of the former president will proceed to its inevitable conclusion, which by now should be obvious, unless a lightning of enlightenment strikes the ICC judges.
