The International Criminal Court’s arrest of former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte represents nothing short of a political “big bang” moment in his home country.
In February, after months – if not years – of delay, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Mr Duterte, one of Asia’s most prominent politicians, on charges of crimes against humanity. The charges stem from his having overseen a scorched-earth “war on drugs” during his time in office, from 2016 to 2022. It reportedly claimed tens of thousands of lives, and suspected drug dealers were often killed under suspicious circumstances.
Halfway into Mr Duterte’s six-year term in office, police operations against suspected drug dealers had reportedly killed more than 100 children. Thousands of other people are thought to have been killed by death squads and mercenaries. To avoid accountability, Mr Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the ICC in 2019 – though that does not stop the court from prosecuting for crimes committed before the withdrawal. The Philippine Supreme Court affirmed that position in a ruling in 2021.
Mr Duterte’s successor, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr had rejected the ICC’s jurisdictional claim for a long time. He and Mr Duterte were once allies; Mr Marcos Jr won the presidency in 2022 with Mr Duterte’s daughter Sara as his running mate. In 2023, he even threatened to expel any ICC investigators from the country.
But last year, when the Dutertes began to directly challenge his rule, Mr Marcos Jr’s position on the ICC softened. Ms Duterte, her siblings and their father’s rhetorical attacks on Mr Marcos Jr have grown steadily worse; last year, amid a congressional investigation into her alleged corruption in her previous role as education secretary, Ms Duterte even publicly threatened the President’s life.
Last month, Mr Marcos Jr’s allies in the lower house of Congress impeached Ms Duterte, by twice the number of votes required. The next step, a trial in the Senate, has yet to proceed.
Although no longer at the top of the power structure in the Philippines, the Dutertes remain deeply popular among Filipinos overseas as well as those in the historically marginalised island of Mindanao. Crucially, the Dutertes also enjoy huge support among powerful evangelical Christian groups, including one that launched a million-strong “peace rally” in January against any potential Senate conviction of Ms Duterte.
With such a strong support base, it was perhaps no surprise that Mr Duterte decided to return to the Philippines on Tuesday from an overseas trip in Hong Kong even after an Interpol “red notice” against him – arising from the ICC warrant – was issued a day earlier.
It is unclear whether Mr Duterte had ever seriously considered political exile in China, a strategic patron throughout his six-year term in office. What is clear is that he had incorrectly assumed he could seamlessly return home and defy any international warrant.
The soft-spoken President Marcos Jr’s plan to ensure a clean arrest was ingenious. The Philippine authorities apprehended Mr Duterte immediately on arrival and quickly escorted him to the country’s main military airbase.
Within hours, before his allies could mount any effective campaign of resistance, Mr Duterte was whisked away on a jet to the Netherlands, where the ICC is based, with a brief stop for medical treatment in Dubai. There was no time for Mr Duterte’s allies to secure a temporary restraining order from domestic courts and, down the road, take the case to the Supreme Court.
Shellshocked by the developments, Duterte supporters have vowed to stage a “people power” rally, harkening to the popular revolt that toppled the dictatorship of President Marcos Jr’s father four decades ago, while Ms Duterte has flown to The Hague to support her father. Over the coming weeks, the ICC will conduct pre-trial hearings to assess the former president’s competence to stand in court, likely in the third quarter of this year.
It is an important trial for the ICC. The prosecutor’s office will see this trial as a major opportunity to redeem itself and regain a measure of relevance and credibility on the international stage. In recent years, the Court has failed to execute its arrest warrants for the leaders of Russia and Israel, while also facing sanctions from America.
But in the Philippines, the impact cannot be overstated. Mr Duterte’s arrest represents an existential crisis for his family’s once seemingly invincible political dynasty. Mr Marcos Jr’s decisive actions are likely to be followed by growing pressure on the Senate, including on numerous senators running under the pro-administration slate in upcoming midterm elections, to press ahead with a trial of the Vice President. Other Duterte family members and their allies could also face more criminal charges.
Crucially, Mr Duterte’s trial may finally offer the often voiceless and neglected victims of any extrajudicial killings that took place during the Philippines’ drug war proper recognition of their suffering – if not a measure of justice, depending on the trial’s findings.
In any case, given the scale of Duterte’s alleged mass atrocities, his penchant for political drama and his legions of supporters all around the world, what is probably in store is nothing less than the “trial of the century”.
