The arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte under an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant has sparked intense debate among Filipinos. A central question continues to divide public opinion: If the ICC is still gathering evidence, why was an arrest made? For many, this raises concerns about fairness, bias, and respect for Philippine sovereignty.
(ads1)
How the ICC Issues Arrest Warrants
The 0 follows a legal process that is different from Philippine courts. Under the 1, the ICC operates in stages, each with a different level of proof required.
- Investigation stage: Requires a “reasonable basis to believe” crimes may have occurred.
- Arrest warrant stage: Requires “reasonable grounds to believe” a person committed crimes and that arrest is necessary.
- Trial stage: Requires proof “beyond reasonable doubt” for conviction.
This means an ICC arrest can legally occur before all evidence is complete. Evidence gathering often continues even after a suspect is in custody.
Why Evidence Collection Continues After Arrest
The ICC’s 2 may continue investigations after arrest for several reasons:
- Some witnesses cooperate only after a suspect is detained
- New evidence becomes available through state cooperation
- Arrest is used to prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering
From a legal standpoint, this practice is allowed. However, it is also one of the most criticized aspects of international criminal justice.
Does This Automatically Mean the ICC Is Biased?
Legally speaking, no. The ICC applies the same arrest standards to all cases under its jurisdiction. Arrest without complete evidence is permitted by its rules.
However, the perception of bias arises because enforcement depends heavily on political cooperation. Leaders from powerful countries often remain untouched, while leaders from cooperative or less powerful states face arrest. This uneven enforcement creates a strong impression of selective justice.
The Philippine Context and Public Concern
Many Filipinos are troubled by the fact that:
- Philippine courts were not involved in issuing the warrant
- Local due process traditions appear bypassed
- The arrest involved an elderly former president
- Evidence is still being gathered after detention
These concerns do not automatically invalidate the case, but they raise legitimate questions about sovereignty, fairness, and equal application of international law.
(ads2)
Arrest Is Not Guilt
It is important to emphasize that an arrest warrant is not a conviction. Under ICC rules, a suspect remains innocent until proven guilty. Many ICC cases have been dismissed or collapsed due to insufficient evidence at trial.
Former President Duterte retains the right to:
- Challenge ICC jurisdiction
- Question the sufficiency of evidence
- Seek provisional or conditional release
Conclusion
The ICC’s decision to arrest before completing evidence does not, by itself, prove bias. However, the combination of early arrest, political cooperation, and unequal global enforcement creates a reasonable perception of unfairness. This tension between international justice and national sovereignty is at the heart of the debate.
Questioning the process is not a rejection of justice—it is a demand for transparency, consistency, and respect for the rule of law.
