Introduction
In March 2025, the former President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte became the first Southeast Asian head of state to be arrested and transferred to the International Criminal Court pending trial. He faces charges of Crimes Against Humanity (Article 7 of the Rome Statute) in connection with thousands of extrajudicial killings that occurred during his highly controversial ‘war on drugs’ in the Philippines. The case is one of the most significant ones in the ICC’s recent history and has reignited global debate on the efficacy and reach of international justice, especially concerning acts of leaders and heads of state.
The War on Drugs and Alleged Crimes
Rodrigo Duterte’s rise to prominence began as mayor of Davao City, where he allegedly oversaw the Davao Death Squad (DDS), a vigilante group accused of killing suspected drug users and petty criminals. Upon becoming President of the Philippines in 2016, he expanded these policies into a nationwide campaign against drugs. While his administration claimed that the goal was to eliminate drug trafficking, reports state that killings in this context disproportionately affected those from marginalised backgrounds, poor people, and activists. Human rights organizations have estimated that about 30,000 people have been believed to have been killed in extrajudicial executions, without due process. As these incidents drew global condemnation, the ICC opened a preliminary examination into the situation in February 2018. Although the Philippines declared its withdrawal from the ICC in March 2018, it took effect only in March 2019. Therefore the Court began its investigation in September 2021 and is considered to have jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was a State Party to the ICC.
Arrest and Transfer to The Hague
On March 7, 2025, the ICC issued a sealed arrest warrant for Duterte, citing his role as an indirect co-perpetrator in committing crimes against humanity. He was arrested four days later by Philippine authorities and transferred to The Hague. A confirmation of charges hearing is scheduled for September 23, 2025. The charges center on systematic acts of murder committed between November 1, 2011, and March 16, 2019, covering Duterte’s time as both mayor and president.
Legal and Jurisdictional Considerations
A key issue in the case is the question of jurisdiction. While the Philippines formally withdrew from the Rome Statute in March 2019, the ICC retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes that occurred during the country’s period of membership between 2011 and 2019. The Court also relies on the principle of complementarity, which allows it to intervene in situations only when national judicial systems are unwilling or unable to prosecute. In Duterte’s case, Philippine institutions have largely failed to investigate or prosecute high-level officials involved in the killings. Only a handful of low-ranking police officers have so far been convicted in domestic courts. This lack of accountability opened the door for the ICC to proceed with its investigation and arrest.
However, considering the seniority of the accused, the prosecution would face legal and logistical challenges including securing witness testimonies, ensuring the safety and unbiasedness of victims and witnesses, cooperation of Philippine authorities, and combating attempts to undermine the Court’s legitimacy.
Current Status and Potential Outcomes
Duterte is currently detained in The Hague, and pre-trial proceedings are ongoing. If the judges confirm the charges, a full trial will follow as per the procedure of the Court. A conviction could result in imprisonment, while an acquittal would release Duterte from ICC custody. Despite his detention, Duterte remains a significant political figure in the Philippines, even having announced his candidacy for Mayor of Davao City. This dual reality, of international prosecution alongside ongoing political relevance, illustrates the complexity of holding former leaders accountable.
Alternative Avenues for Justice
Considering the legal, political, and procedural challenges, the ICC is not the only possible mechanism for justice for those affected by Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’. Alternative or complementary approaches may include:
- Domestic Prosecutions: If political will shifts, Philippine courts could reopen or expand criminal cases against other individuals involved. This may even extend to Duterte himself.
- Truth and Reconciliation Commissions: Non-judicial mechanisms as a method of Transitional Justice may provide victims a platform for recognition, memorialization, and reformation.
- Universal Jurisdiction: Countries like Germany and Spain have domestic laws that allow them to prosecute grave international crimes committed abroad, regardless of nationality. This case might allow other states to take on the issue as universal jurisdiction cases in the spirit of ‘international community’ to bring to an end impunity for gross violations of international law.
Together or individually, these avenues can provide a multi-layered framework for accountability, particularly in cases where the ICC may be limited by resources, jurisdictional constraints, or political resistance, especially considering powerful persons holding political and legal relevance and power.
Broader Implications: Prosecution of Heads of State and the Future of International Criminal Law
The Duterte case represents a critical juncture for the global justice system. It reaffirms the principle that no individual, regardless of rank or office, is above the law, giving rise to profound implications.
- Strengthening Norms Against Impunity
Duterte joins a short but growing list of former leaders prosecuted or pursued by international tribunals, including:
- Slobodan Milošević (Serbia): Tried by the ICTY for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
- Charles Taylor (Liberia): Convicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in 2012.
- Omar al-Bashir (Sudan): Indicted by the ICC but yet to face trial due to political protection.
Each of these cases, including Duterte’s, chips away at the longstanding tradition of sovereign or head of state immunity. They affirm that international legal norms can and should be enforced even against powerful political figures, upholding the equality of the rule of law.
- Impact on Other Leaders and States
The case is likely to send a strong signal to current and future leaders having committed or currently engaged in repressive policies or state-sponsored violence. It establishes a precedent that immunity from international criminal prosecution is not guaranteed. However, selective enforcement by the ICC remains a challenge. The ICC’s perceived bias, particularly the overrepresentation of African and now Asian defendants with a noticeable lack of consideration of issues in the west, raises questions about fairness and the influence of global politics on international prosecutions.
- Efficacy and Legitimacy of the ICC
The ICC has faced criticism in recent years for being slow, politically influenced, and ineffective. Duterte’s arrest and prosecution could bolster its credibility, especially if the trial is perceived as fair, transparent, and grounded in strong evidence. Even the fact that the case was taken up by the Court will boost the perception that the ICC takes such issues seriously. However, cooperation of states is crucial for any case to be undertaken by the Court. Without similar cooperation shown by the Philippines, cases may remain unconsidered, stagnant, and legally weak.
The Duterte case may also inspire reform and accountability efforts within national legal systems. Knowing that international tribunals may act in the absence of domestic justice could pressure governments to undertake their own responsibilities more seriously, without double standards.
Conclusion
Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest and prosecution before the International Criminal Court represent a watershed moment in international justice. The case stands out not only as a pursuit of accountability for thousands of victims in the Philippines, but also as a test for the capacity of international institutions to hold powerful individuals accountable. Its broader significance, however, lies in its deterrent effect, its potential to reinvigorate global support for the ICC especially in today’s polarised world order, and the message it sends to leaders around the world.
As the trial unfolds, a lot is at stake in front of and behind the curtain – not just for Duterte, his team, and his victims, but also for the future of the ICC, international law, and the evolving landscape of global justice and international politics.
Amnesty International. (2025, March 12). Philippines: Former President Duterte’s arrest a monumental step for justice. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/03/philippines-former-president-dutertes-arrest-a-monumental-step-for-justice/
Cacciatori, Mattia. (2024) The International Criminal Court and the Prosecution of Sitting Heads of State https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-54646-4
Human Rights Watch. (2023, February 13). International Criminal Court’s Philippines investigation. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/13/international-criminal-courts-philippines-investigation
Just Security. (2025, April 15). Time to revisit the ICC’s position on head-of-state immunity?. https://www.justsecurity.org/109590/time-to-revisit-the-iccs-position-on-head-of-state-immunity/SpringerLink+3Just Security+3Just Security+3
Just Security. (2023, July 18). The elephant in the courtroom: ICC temporal jurisdiction over the situation in the Philippines. https://www.justsecurity.org/88924/the-elephant-in-the-courtroom-icc-temporal-jurisdiction-over-the-situation-in-the-philippines/Just Security+1Just Security+1
Lowy Institute. (2025, March 14). Duterte’s ICC arrest: A day of reckoning. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/duterte-s-icc-arrest-day-reckoningLowy Institute
Reuters. (2025, May 9). In custody in The Hague, on ballot at home: Philippines’ Duterte runs for mayor. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/custody-hague-ballot-home-philippines-duterte-runs-mayor-2025-05-09/Reuters
Verfassungsblog. (2025, April 20). The price of getting Duterte. https://verfassungsblog.de/icc-duterte-philippines/Verfassungsblog
