By Manny Mogato
(March 22, 2025) – The latest episode in the Philippines’ biggest and most popular soap opera shifted to the Senate this week as the former president’s political allies lined up to question his arrest and immediate transfer to The Hague, Netherlands.
Former president Rodrigo Roa Duterte faced an investigation on crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the systematic killings of petty criminals and street-level drug offenders.
Since the late 1980s when he was mayor of Davao City in the southern island of Mindanao until he rose to become president in 2016, he seemed invincible and untouchable.
There were times Duterte taunted the ICC to get him, saying he would slap and kick the investigators. He defended his actions to clean up streets of criminals and drug peddlers, couriers, and users.
However, his war on drugs campaign for six years did not make a dent in ending the drug menace. Instead, billions of pesos worth of illegal drugs were smuggled into the country, not by criminal syndicates, but allegedly by his son and son-in-law working with some Chinese businessmen.
A drug smuggling case was filed against his eldest son, Paolo Duterte a sitting Davao City congressman, and the husband of his daughter, Mans Carpio.
From the time he was sworn in as president on June 30, 2016, until he stepped down on June 30, 2022, the Philippine National Police (PNP) acknowledged close to 7,000 people died in the campaign against illegal drugs.
Police killed drug suspects in almost identical manner when they resisted arrest and chose to shoot it out at undercover police in sting operations. The operative word was “nanlaban”.
The Presidential Communications Office (PCO), on the other hand, said close to 30,000 people were killed, some by rival gangs and vigilantes who usually masked men in motorcycles. They were widely known as “riding in tandem”.
For decades Duterte was in power, he did not face investigations and no criminal cases was filed against him, allowing the ICC to step in and hold him accountable.
The Justice Department even wrote the ICC asking for a deferment of its inquiry and promising to look into the extrajudicial killings (EJK) in the country.
The ICC got tired of the government’s excuses because Duterte did not face an investigation and criminal case in a local court.
Thus, on February 10, the ICC prosecutor sent an application for a warrant of arrest against Duterte. Nine others were implicated in the case of murder and crimes against humanity.
The warrant was granted and unsealed on March 10. It was immediately sent to Interpol. It was around 3 a.m. on March 11 when Interpol’s national contact bureau in Manila received the request to arrest Duterte based on an ICC warrant.
The timing of the warrant was perfect. Duterte was returning to Manila from Hong Kong on March 11. He booked five flights that day but took the second flight, arriving at Terminal 3 of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport at past 9 a.m.
A private plane was waiting for him in Manila to fly to Davao. He was trying to mislead authorities when he announced he was returning on an afternoon flight but went early to beat the warrant that was expected to be issued and sent to Manila.
If he returned to Davao City that Tuesday morning, the police would have a problem getting him without the necessary force.
Pres. Bongbong Marcos Jr’s elder sister, Sen. Imee Marcos, led the charge of pro-Duterte lawmakers in questioning the legality of the former president’s arrest.
The pro-Duterte senators, including Vice Pres. Sara Duterte who joined the public inquiry through video call, argued the arrest was illegal because the judicial processes were not observed.
She also asked the Presidential Security Command (PSC) to explain why it allowed the police to arrest her father.
She had forgotten that Duterte was no longer in power and was an ordinary citizen. He was accorded courtesy and retained some PSC personnel for his safety and security.
He was no longer in the chain of command.
During the inquiry, Justice Secretary Crispin Remulla sufficiently explained the basis of the arrest and handover to the ICC detention facility in The Hague.
Remulla said Republic Act 9851, enacted in 2009, two years before the Philippines joined the ICC, allowed two options for the government to arrest and turn over a criminal facing an ICC inquiry – either through a tedious process of extradition or through the surrender of a person subject of an ICC warrant of arrest.
The government took the second option, which does not require a judicial process in Manila.
Remulla also explained the government did not surrender its sovereignty but surrendered an individual who faces an ICC investigation.
He said the ICC has no jurisdiction over the Philippines as a state after it withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019. However, the ICC has jurisdiction over an individual who has committed crimes against international humanitarian law (IHL).
Besides, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government has a residual obligation to cooperate with the ICC because the cases being investigated happened during the period the Philippines was a member, from 2011 to 2019.
A presidential press officer Atty. Claire Castro, said the government has cleared up the public’s doubt on the legality of Duterte’s arrest.
Sen. Imee is still pondering whether to continue the inquiry or end the public hearing because no amount of street protests and public inquiry would bring Duterte back to the country.
The political drama would end soon unless something comes up next week or in the months ahead.
Duterte’s allies would return to the drawing table to plan the next steps, hoping to stir up the ex-president’s supporters to come out in the streets and unseat Pres. Marcos, or destabilize his government.
How to sustain the mass actions would be problematic because Duterte’s next pre-trial court appearance is six months away.
Watching what will happen on March 28 when Duterte celebrates his 80th birthday inside the ICC detention center is interesting. His supporters will surely gather, hoping to gain a critical mass and oust Marcos in another peaceful uprising.
The views expressed by the columnist do not necessarily reflect that of the media organization.
