An Editorial on the ICC Controversy and National Sovereignty
By: DONG MY
Date: October 29, 2025
Former President Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest and transfer under an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant has stirred intense debate across the Philippines. While human rights groups celebrate it as a long-awaited step toward accountability, many Filipinos — including legal scholars and former government officials — insist that Duterte should face justice under Philippine courts first, not in The Hague.
Rule of Sovereignty
The 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly states that the country is a sovereign and independent state, with full control over its own judicial system. Legal experts emphasize that Duterte, as a Filipino citizen and former president, remains subject to Philippine law.
> “Our Constitution grants jurisdiction to our courts, not to any foreign tribunal,” said one constitutional lawyer. “Any case involving Duterte must start in the Philippines.”
Under this principle, Philippine courts — such as the Department of Justice, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Sandiganbayan — are expected to conduct investigations before any international court steps in.
The Complementarity Principle
The ICC operates on what is called the principle of complementarity, meaning it can only intervene if national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute serious crimes like crimes against humanity.
Supporters of Duterte argue that the Philippines has a functioning judicial system, capable of handling any case involving alleged abuses during his war on drugs.
They claim that by arresting Duterte under an ICC warrant, international authorities have violated the spirit of Philippine sovereignty and ignored the rule that local remedies must come first.
Philippines’ ICC Withdrawal
In 2019, during Duterte’s term, the Philippines officially withdrew from the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the ICC.
This withdrawal, according to Duterte’s legal team, ended any ICC authority over Filipinos.
However, ICC prosecutors counter that the withdrawal does not cancel jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed before March 17, 2019 — the date the withdrawal took effect.
This legal gray area fuels the ongoing conflict between the ICC’s claims of global justice and the Philippines’ assertion of its national independence.
The Legal and Moral Divide
While Duterte’s critics say the ICC’s actions bring long-overdue accountability, his supporters describe the arrest as a “legal kidnapping” — claiming it bypassed Philippine judicial authority.
> “He should have been tried in Manila, not in The Hague,” said a former senator. “No Filipino, no matter how powerful, should be taken by foreign powers without going through our courts.”
Meanwhile, rights advocates insist that local mechanisms have failed to deliver justice for thousands of drug war victims, and the ICC serves as the last resort to uphold human rights.
A Clash of Justice and Sovereignty
The situation exposes a painful truth: Philippine sovereignty and international justice are on a collision course.
On one hand, Filipinos value independence and due process under national law.
On the other, the global community seeks accountability for grave crimes that local systems allegedly ignored.
The question remains:
Can a nation claim to be truly sovereign if it fails to deliver justice to its own people — or can justice truly be served if sovereignty is ignored?
Conclusion
Under Philippine law, the first and proper venue for any case against Rodrigo Duterte should indeed be the courts of the Republic of the Philippines.
However, the ICC’s ongoing action reminds the world that international justice will step in where national systems are seen as silent.
Whether one views Duterte’s case as a defense of sovereignty or a pursuit of justice, one thing is certain — it has reignited a crucial debate about the balance between independence and accountability in the Philippines.
