The complex legal battle surrounding former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte at the International Criminal Court (ICC) has taken several definitive turns, solidifying the court’s authority and spotlighting controversial statements made by the former president’s own camp. This unprecedented legal development, which has significant implications for Philippine sovereignty and international justice, was thoroughly analyzed in a revealing interview featuring Korina Sanchez and former ICC Judge Raul Pangalangan.

Judge Pangalangan, a Filipino lawyer, provided clarity on the two most recent and crucial decisions made by the court, emphasizing that the pathway for the prosecution of alleged crimes committed during the Philippines’ war on drugs is firmly set.

The Affirmation of Jurisdiction: Rejecting the Withdrawal Argument
The primary challenge leveled by the Duterte defense team centered on the argument that the ICC had lost its jurisdiction over the case due to the Philippines’ formal withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the court. According to the defense, this withdrawal should have resulted in an immediate dismissal of the case.

Judge Pangalangan detailed the defense’s position and the court’s powerful rejection:

“this is the uh the decision on uh jurisdiction of the court so uh the the position of the uh of the defense of the Duterte uh of Duterte’s council is that the court has no jurisdiction over the case and therefore the case uh should be dismissed mhm uh because he has withdrawn from the Rome statute and uh and that therefore the court has lost jurisdiction over uh over the case of president former president Duterte now I consider this very important karina because had had it been granted by the court and had the court agreed with the defense that there is no jurisdiction then the case is all over and it sets a precedent uh what it says sets a precedent for future cases”

The judge stressed the immense political and legal stakes involved:

“the important thing for especially for life in the Philippines is that if the court said yes there’s no we have lost jurisdiction therefore the case is dismissed and by today Duterte will be home in the Philippines already and uh you can um imagine the um you know the the political you know the sense of uh outrage of his followers that uh uh their uh their idol was uh was unfairly treated you know the the moral indignation mhm all the political theatrics that will follow and and of course as you can imagine in Philippine politics the how uh some groups might um uh Sirinc capitalize on on what on the on the dismissal of the case for their own political agenda”

The ICC’s ruling was based on a fundamental principle of international law: a state cannot use its withdrawal from a treaty to escape accountability for crimes committed while it was a member. Judge Pangalangan elaborated:

“the rule is that the court retains jurisdiction over all matters already under consideration at the time of the withdrawal right and also that the crimes in question were committed at that time were committed at the time that we were still members so that’s clear yes that is that was made clear by that decision that is correct”

This decision, the Judge noted, was a “biggest victory for the for the prosecution” because it affirmed that neither the government’s lack of cooperation nor the timing of the withdrawal could successfully frustrate the investigation into the alleged crimes.

Complementarity and the “Unwilling or Unable” Test
The interview also delved into the principle of complementarity, which dictates that the ICC only intervenes as a court of last resort when a member state is “unwilling or unable” to genuinely investigate and prosecute the crimes themselves.

Judge Pangalangan explained how the Philippine situation fits this criterion:

“the court says that we call the jargon of the ICC it’s called the principle of complimentarity that uh the ICC is a court of last resort it kicks in only if the um of the originating jurisdiction in this case the Philippines has uh shown itself to be and that jargon is unwilling or unable genuinely to to prosecute so um and the usual defense of um of the Duterte camp is that um this is an indictment of the entire Philippine legal system because we are our judicial system exists it continues to function the courts are still open”

“but as I love to emphasize those are there are two tests the test uh one test that they are responding to is that the courts are completely have collapsed that is um unable to prosecute but the other test is unwilling to prosecute so for me if uh if the argument is that um our courts are perfectly functioning then how come uh out of the uh more than 6,000 officially recorded victims very few cases have moved forward and that was the logic of the court in saying that the principle of complimentarity”

The Nationalist Card: Dispelling the Unpatriotic Label
The defense strategy has frequently involved manipulating nationalist sentiment, attempting to portray the ICC investigation as an attack on Philippine sovereignty or a foreign plot. Judge Pangalangan sharply dismantled this tactic.

Korina Sanchez set up the question by addressing the perception:

“so is it so is it necessarily unpatriotic to the um subscribing to to the um like the indictment of the Philippine justice system”

The Judge was emphatic in his rejection of the premise:

“short answer no it is not unpatriotic and I’m so glad you use that word uh uh Karina because um you know this element of patriotism has been really u how should I say this manipulated in this um in this discourse so it’s look it appears that um to side with the ICC is to join the condemnation of the of the Philippine judicial system well to the extent that it hasn’t moved of course it has to be condemned and called out for that and there’s nothing unpatriotic about you know stating the truth”

He also directly addressed the former President’s rhetoric, which often framed the ICC as a foreign-controlled body:

“I I I I have seen um videos of President Duterte when he was still an incumbent president saying that um uh you know he won’t be judged by this court of white men and so by that kind of of rhetoric plays upon the um the anti-colonial uh you know lineis I saw a video where he says that my loyalty is to the Filipino people and the Filipino alone um uh and therefore I will answer to um to a Philippine party will not answer to the to serve the people on drugsto It will be bloody when I will become the president innocent not unless at that time But good thing now why would I answer that because former president to the ICC in fact I recall Rapler at that time in reply just published a picture of the court i mean I was part of the court then uh there were other non-white people certainly non-white men uh in the court the president of the court was from Nigeria the prosecutor was from the Gambia um but u so uh the um this uh nationalist card has been uh overplayed yeah played to the hilt or misplayed yes indeed”

The Strongest Ammunition: The Denial of Interim Release
The second major decision discussed was the ICC’s denial of the defense’s motion for the former President’s interim release. In a highly unusual move, the court used the very public statements of the Duterte camp against them.

Judge Pangalangan revealed that the reason for the denial was the heightened risk of flight, citing the boasts and declarations of loyalty made by the former President’s family and followers:

“the court also denied the motion of the defense for interim release… and when the court uh rejected uh that motion what is uh significant it that is that the court relied upon the very statements of the duterte camp um itself”

“the test for um under the Rome statute uh for interiming release is that uh the accused um there must be no risk of a flight of of escaping and what the court did was just to quote all the statements from Duterte’s uh uh family uh saying that you know they will help him uh break from the from the jail at the Hague uh they actually said things like that yes there are direct quotes and uh I looked at the the citations of the court these were from uh from transcripts uh apparently translated um uh I imagine they were made either in Philippine or in in and also broadcast on television oh that is that is uh that is correct so uh the um like the strongest ammunition for the court were provided by the um by the by the family the family so they got their father in trouble i mean they got their their own uh um yes I you know early on uh I think the um uh the terrace lawyers already made an appeal uh to uh to his followers and I suppose that will include the family to desist from all these uh uh statements but anyway um uh well it’s too late for that”

This decision showcased the meticulous nature of the ICC, which meticulously documented public rhetoric as concrete evidence of intent to obstruct justice, affirming the court’s resolve to proceed without delay.

The conversation provided a rare and crucial legal dissection of the case, confirming that despite political rhetoric and procedural maneuvers, the ICC investigation against the former President is moving forward, grounded in established international law and ironically bolstered by the very loyalists who sought to protect him.