THE arrest of former president Rodrigo Duterte on March 11, 2025, by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and his eventual involuntary surrender to The Hague in the Netherlands has divided the nation.
Human rights advocates and relatives of alleged victims of the Duterte administration’s war on illegal drugs rejoiced and called the event a day of reckoning. Meanwhile, those who believe that the campaign to rid the streets of the drug menace made them feel safe and the lives of their loved ones safer, condemned the “kidnapping” of the former president.
The administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. claimed that the arrest was legal, justified and in compliance with the Philippines’ treaty obligations under the Rome Statute. The country’s withdrawal from the treaty is of no consequence, since the arrest order pertains to the crimes allegedly committed when the country was still a member-state. Besides, the government added, Section 17 of Republic Act (RA) 9851, which is our own domestic law, allows the surrender of a person in question to an international tribunal in accordance with applicable extradition laws and treaties.
However, Duterte supporters argue that his surrender to the ICC is baseless, illegal and politically motivated.
Baseless, because local courts are functioning, as Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen contended in the oral argument challenging the government’s withdrawal from the ICC. He even assailed RA 9851’s constitutionality and the reverse complementarity interpretation when it favors the surrender of the jurisdiction of our local courts over cases it has original and exclusive jurisdiction. And notwithstanding the imperfections, our courts are open, willing and able to dispense justice, and no ICC intervention is necessary.
President Marcos himself has repeatedly declared that the Philippine legal and judicial system is very much alive, functional and fully capable of handling domestic issues. This is why it was widely believed that his complete turnaround and order for the outright and involuntary rendition of Duterte to The Hague intends to banish him to a foreign land to negate the latter’s political influence in the 2028 national elections.
Duterte’s surrender to the ICC was illegal because he was immediately flown to The Hague upon his arrest. He was denied of his rights that even Article 59 of the Rome Statute itself provides that the “person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority of the custodial state.” In so doing, he was not only deprived of all legal remedies available to him, but also his surrender to the ICC on our government’s own accord mooted all legal issues surrounding his arrest.
ICC warrant vs Bato
When the ICC issued a warrant for his arrest, Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa ran to the Supreme Court for judicial relief. But his interim petition was denied. The Court did not issue an injunction against respondent, former executive secretary Lucas Bersamin et al., and their agents and representatives, from arresting him by virtue of the ICC warrant.
However, dela Rosa’s — and Duterte’s — main issue is yet to be resolved by the Supreme Court. That is, whether or not the ICC warrant is constitutional and valid, even without a warrant issued by a Philippine court and without a Philippine judge determining the existence of probable cause.
As the issue of legality and constitutionality remains unsettled, heated debates ensued. Is Senator dela Rosa a “fugitive from justice” and can, therefore, be arrested, even with the pendency of a Supreme Court decision on the main issues? Can Sen. Robin Padilla be charged with obstruction of justice? Can Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano be charged with “harboring a fugitive from justice” for placing dela Rosa under “Senate custody”?
And the protagonists, both relying on the same statue and the same Constitution, are seen as either pro- or anti-Duterte. The proliferation of “legal luminaries” and “constitutional law experts” being interviewed or diligently posting their mostly colliding points of view on social media did not help at all. They only muddle the issue and add confusion to the already confused minds of the public.
That is why I say the ruling by the high court is of transcendental importance, not only for both the petitioners and respondents in this case, but also for the alleged co-perpetrators whose arrest warrants can be issued by the ICC anytime.
Lest we forget; let this sink in
At the heart of these legal controversies polarizing the nation is the clamor for the accountability of elected public officials.
Former president Duterte and his co-conspirator are charged with crimes against humanity and held to account for their acts in connection with the extrajudicial killings allegedly committed during his government’s anti-drug campaign.
The public demands accountability in the use of public funds. Or, to be precise, we want to hold public officials liable and responsible for the plunder of public funds that the government bled from every Filipino citizen through taxation.
This is why Vice President Sara Duterte stands trial before the Senate impeachment court for, among the four articles of impeachment, the alleged unlawful use and improper liquidation of over P612 million in confidential funds.
This is why we have every reason to demand a more resolute indictment, prosecution and conviction of the masterminds and the cabal who executed the plunder of some P1.089 trillion in the government’s climate-tagged project starting in 2023, per Greenpeace International. But except for former senator Ramon Revilla Jr., who was arrested on Jan. 19, 2026, not one “big fish” that Marcos had promised to have “no Merry Christmas” was placed behind bars in connection with the multimillion-peso flood-control scandal.
We must be vigilant and, with greater resolve, press forward to hold accountable public officials who betrayed our trust and violated their oath with the same dispatch and fervor, without fear or favor. Let the law be applied to all offenders, whether rich or poor, influential or inconsequential.
Only then can we do justice to the kin of a 53-year-old lady who died while in line to get aid through the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situation program; or to the relatives of that 73-year-old man who was run over by a pickup truck and died while seated on the sidewalk waiting to buy P20 rice; or to the families of motorcycle riders who collapsed and died under the scorching heat of the afternoon sun lining up for the release of their “ayuda.”
atty.edarevalo@gmail.com
