"Drug War" Killings and the Quest for Justice: The Case of President Duterte

Accountability Beyond Borders: The Role of International Criminal Law

The recent developments in the case of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte have once again brought to light the evolving nature of international criminal law. Raul Pangalangan, a former judge at the International Criminal Court (ICC), emphasized that global justice systems have progressed significantly to hold even the highest-ranking officials accountable for their actions. Pangalangan, who served at the ICC from 2015 to 2021, clarified that the concept of head of state immunity does not shield leaders from being investigated or prosecuted for alleged crimes. This principle applies to President Duterte, even though he was the head of state during his tenure from 2016 to 2022.

Duterte’s legal journey took a significant turn when he arrived in The Hague, the seat of the ICC, aboard a chartered plane. He is set to appear before an ICC judge in the coming days for an initial hearing, where the allegations against him will be detailed. This marks a critical step in the long-standing investigation into the violent campaign he spearheaded during his presidency—the infamous “war on drugs.”

The ICC’s Jurisdiction and the Legal Battle Ahead

As the case progresses, the next pivotal stage will be the confirmation of charges, where Duterte’s legal team is expected to challenge the allegations. The defense is likely to contest the ICC’s jurisdiction over the alleged crimes. This is not the first time the Philippines has grappled with the ICC’s authority. In 2018, the ICC prosecutor opened a preliminary investigation into the killings linked to Duterte’s drug war, prompting the Philippine leader to announce the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. However, as Pangalangan explained, the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member, even after its withdrawal.

Duterte, in a video posted on his Facebook page, expressed his readiness to accept responsibility for his actions. While this statement may signal a willingness to confront the allegations, it remains to be seen how his legal team will navigate the complex legal landscape. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how international law addresses state-sponsored violence and the accountability of leaders who initiate such campaigns.

The Philippine Drug War: A Legacy of Violence

The "war on drugs" defined Duterte’s presidency and became a hallmark of his governance. Between 2016 and 2022, Philippine police reported that approximately 6,200 drug suspects were killed in anti-drug operations. However, human rights groups and activists have long argued that the actual number of casualties is significantly higher, with estimates ranging into the tens of thousands. These extrajudicial killings, often carried out by police and vigilantes, were justified by Duterte as necessary to combat the scourge of illegal drugs.

The campaign was marked by widespread violence, with reports of innocent civilians being targeted. Families of the victims have consistently demanded justice, but their calls were often met with indifference or hostility by state authorities. The ICC’s investigation has provided a ray of hope for these families, offering an avenue for accountability that the Philippine legal system has failed to deliver.

The Road to The Hague: A Long and Winding Path

The ICC’s involvement in the Philippine situation is not a recent development. The preliminary investigation was launched in 2018, following allegations of crimes against humanity. The probe was met with fierce resistance from Duterte, who not only withdrew the Philippines from the Rome Statute but also publicly criticized the ICC, labeling it a “fraud” and claiming that the court had no authority to interfere in internal affairs.

Despite these challenges, the ICC has pressed forward with its investigation. The court’s decision to summon Duterte for a hearing marks a significant milestone in the case. While it is still early in the legal process, the willingness of the ICC to pursue justice in the face of political opposition underscores the growing influence of international law in addressing human rights abuses.

The Broader Implications: Justice Beyond National Borders

The case of President Duterte raises important questions about the limits of national sovereignty and the role of international institutions in upholding human rights. The ICC’s ability to hold leaders accountable, even after they leave office, sends a powerful message about the universality of justice. While critics of the ICC argue that it oversteps its mandate by intervening in domestic affairs, proponents see it as a necessary check on state power and a safeguard against impunity.

For the Philippines, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences. If the ICC proceeds with formal charges and a trial, it could underscore the country’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and respecting international institutions. For Duterte, the proceedings represent a moment of reckoning—one that could define his legacy and determine whether he can evade accountability for the violence unleashed during his tenure.

In the end, the case of Rodrigo Duterte is not just about one man; it is about the global struggle for justice, the resilience of international law, and the enduring hope that those who preside over violence will one day be held to account. As the world watches, the ICC’s handling of this case will serve as a test of its ability to deliver justice to the victims of state-sponsored violence and to uphold the principles that underpin human dignity.