In a remarkable shift in stance, the Philippine government declared on Wednesday that it would not oppose former President Rodrigo Duterte’s potential surrender to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The government also conveyed its intent to cooperate with the court if Interpol were to issue a formal arrest request, as investigations into Duterte’s controversial anti-drug campaign continue to escalate. Duterte’s six-year presidency was marked by a brutal “war on drugs” that reportedly left thousands of Filipinos dead, sparking international outcry and accusations of crimes against humanity.
The development followed a congressional hearing where Duterte, known for his fiery rhetoric and defiant posture, reiterated that he had no fear of the ICC’s investigation, even daring the court to expedite its probe. In his address, he emphasized his readiness to confront any charges, stating that his actions were intended to protect the Philippine public from the scourge of narcotics.
The office of current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. issued a statement in response to Duterte’s comments, expressing the government’s potential willingness to cooperate with the ICC. The statement was significant as it marked the first time the Philippine government has suggested it would consider complying with an ICC request for Duterte’s handover. This position represents a departure from the country’s previous resistance to international interference in domestic affairs, particularly regarding the ICC.
Lucas Bersamin, the president’s executive secretary, clarified that if a red notice—a request for international cooperation—were issued, Philippine law enforcement would likely be bound to comply. “The government will feel obliged to consider the red notice as a request to be honoured, in which case the domestic law enforcement agencies shall be bound to accord full cooperation,” Bersamin said. His comments underscore a new readiness from the Marcos administration to cooperate with international legal institutions, despite Duterte’s withdrawal of the Philippines from the ICC during his presidency.
Appearing before lawmakers during the congressional hearing, Duterte maintained his characteristically unyielding stance. “ICC does not scare me a bit. They can come here anytime. I suppose that you would want to maybe make it easy for them to visit and start the investigation. I would welcome that,” he said. Duterte, who has always portrayed his anti-drug campaign as an act of public service, continued to defend his administration’s actions, insisting that his motivations were to protect future generations from the grip of drug addiction.
The 79-year-old former leader also expressed frustration at the prolonged nature of the ICC’s investigation, calling on the court to “hurry up” and urging investigators to begin their work “tomorrow.” His words highlighted an impatience with the proceedings and a willingness to face any consequences that may follow.
Duterte further asserted his responsibility for the actions of law enforcement during the campaign, which he described as a necessary measure to address the country’s “serious problem of drugs.” He acknowledged the human toll of the campaign but did not express regret, stating, “What I did, I did it for my country and for the young people. No excuses. No apologies. If I go to hell, so be it.”
Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, a cornerstone of his 2016 election platform, was one of the most contentious aspects of his presidency. Official police data reported that over 6,200 people were killed in anti-drug operations, with authorities often attributing the fatalities to self-defense in violent confrontations with suspects. However, human rights organizations and independent observers have contended that the true number of deaths may be much higher, estimating that tens of thousands of individuals, including small-time dealers and users, were killed in extrajudicial executions by unidentified assailants.
The campaign has faced extensive criticism from international human rights bodies, who argue that the government’s policies fostered a culture of impunity and encouraged vigilante-style killings. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, among others, have documented numerous cases in which suspected drug offenders were allegedly targeted without due process, many of them gunned down in impoverished urban neighborhoods. The scale and severity of the killings prompted calls for accountability and ultimately led to the ICC’s intervention.
The International Criminal Court initiated a preliminary examination into Duterte’s drug war in 2018, citing allegations of extrajudicial killings that could constitute crimes against humanity. In response, Duterte unilaterally withdrew the Philippines from the ICC in March 2019, a move that many interpreted as an attempt to evade accountability. Despite the withdrawal, the ICC has maintained that it retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed before the Philippines formally exited the court, particularly given that the initial inquiry began while the country was still a signatory.
The ICC’s decision to proceed with a full investigation in 2022 was met with strong opposition from Duterte’s administration, which claimed the court had no authority over the Philippines. However, Wednesday’s statements from the Marcos administration signal a potential pivot, possibly marking a departure from Duterte-era policies on international accountability and cooperation.
The Philippine government’s tentative stance on cooperating with the ICC raises questions about sovereignty, international justice, and the country’s role within the global legal framework. Duterte’s administration frequently rejected foreign interventions, emphasizing national sovereignty in response to external scrutiny of domestic policies. However, Marcos’ administration may be adopting a more pragmatic approach, potentially seeking to balance national interests with adherence to international legal standards.
Legal experts have noted that while the ICC’s investigation presents challenges to Philippine sovereignty, cooperation with the court could improve the country’s standing on the world stage and reaffirm its commitment to human rights. Political analysts suggest that the willingness to comply with a potential red notice could be interpreted as a broader attempt by the Marcos administration to distance itself from Duterte’s controversial legacy, while also demonstrating a commitment to the rule of law.
Human rights advocates have cautiously welcomed the Philippine government’s statements, urging full cooperation with the ICC to ensure accountability for the alleged atrocities of the drug war. Amnesty International Philippines issued a statement calling for the Philippine authorities to support a transparent and thorough investigation, with Executive Director Butch Olano stressing that “accountability for the victims of the drug war is long overdue.” Human Rights Watch echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that justice for the victims of extrajudicial killings cannot be delayed indefinitely.
Advocates have also stressed that justice for drug war victims should extend beyond any potential prosecution of Duterte himself. They argue that accountability must include other senior officials and police officers who were directly involved in implementing the campaign’s policies and who may have been complicit in extrajudicial actions.
Despite international criticism, Duterte remains a polarizing figure in the Philippines, enjoying strong support among segments of the population who view his drug war as a necessary measure to combat crime and narcotics. His tough-on-crime rhetoric and blunt style of governance have garnered a loyal base of supporters who appreciate his hands-on approach and perceive his actions as a defense of Philippine society.
Public opinion on the ICC’s investigation is mixed, with some Filipinos expressing distrust toward international institutions and questioning their relevance to Philippine affairs. However, younger generations and advocates for human rights are increasingly vocal in their calls for accountability, urging the government to address the historical legacy of the drug war and its impact on Philippine society.
