The International Criminal Court (ICC) is set to confirm the charges lodged by its prosecutor against former president Rodrigo Duterte following his turn over to the pre-trial chamber in The Hague, Netherlands.
(Read ICC issues arrest warrant for Duterte)
The ICC issued a sealed warrant on March 7, coursed through the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol). Officials from the Philippine National Police (PNP) served the warrant on Duterte on March 11 upon his arrival from a short visit to Hong Kong. Hours later, the former president was enroute to The Hague, headquarters of the ICC.
(Read PH govt can turn over Duterte to ICC; Duterte may ask Hague tribunal for ‘interim release’)
On what grounds was the arrest warrant issued for Duterte? What are the crimes levelled against him? Here are three things you need to know:
What crimes did Duterte allegedly commit? What criminal responsibilities is he facing?
The Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) I issued a warrant of arrest for Duterte for the alleged crime against humanity of murder. It said that when the Philippines was a state-party to the Rome Statute, it found “reasonable grounds” to believe that:
- an “attack” took place against a civilian population, commanded by Duterte as founder and head of the Davao Death Squad (DDS), and his policy as mayor of Davao City and later as president of the Philippines
- the attack was both widespread and systematic, taking place over several years with thousands of Filipinos appearing to have been killed
- the attack shared similar features, such as the location, method of how the victims were killed and the profiles of perpetrators of the killings and their victims
- Duterte is individually responsible for the crime against humanity of murder […] as an indirect co-perpetrator during the period covered by the probe.
Duterte’s criminal responsibility, according to the warrant, was based on his establishment of the DDS and as mayor of Davao City, and later as Philippine president who controlled the DDS and law enforcement officers who perpetrated the alleged extrajudicial killings.
The chamber pointed out that he instructed and supported the [Davao] citywide and, later on, nationwide killings of alleged criminals. It noted that Duterte made public speeches assuming and accepting responsibility for these killings.
(Watch #VERAfied: Duterte somersaults on ‘non-existence’ of Davao Death Squad)
The PTC also said Duterte supplied necessary equipment to implement the killings and promised police officers immunity from prosecution, should there be one.
Why did the ICC serve Duterte a warrant of arrest?
The PTC I agreed with the ICC prosecutor that there is “no reasonable expectation” that Duterte would cooperate with a summons to appear at The Hague and thus, had to ensure his appearance at the court through a warrant of arrest.
It observed that Duterte, even though he is no longer Philippine president, “appears to continue to wield considerable power.” They considered his arrest necessary with the risk of Duterte’s interference with the drug war probe, and the security of the probe’s witnesses and victims.
In a March 13 statement, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan described the arrest as an important moment as he underscored the judges’ decision in issuing the warrant. He said:
“The judges have found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Duterte has committed the crime of murder as the founder, as the head of the so-called Davao Death Squad, as the mayor of Davao City and then later as the president of the Philippines between 2011 and 2019.”
Source: ICC, ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC on the arrest of former Philippine president Duterte, March 13, 2025, watch from 00:37 to 01:02
Khan also emphasized the importance of partnerships in executing the warrant on Duterte and in conducting the probe into the drug-related killings. He said:
“Many say that international law is not as strong as we want and I agree with that but as I also repeatedly emphasized, international law is not as weak as some may think when we come together, when we work, when we build partnerships. The rule of law can prevail. Warrants can be executed.”
Source: watch from 01:23 to 01:46
Quick Review: Does the ICC have jurisdiction over the drug war probe?
Duterte and his camp are rehashing the false narrative that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the drug-related killings in the country.
The Philippine Supreme Court has affirmed the ICC’s jurisdiction to conduct the probe into the killings while the country was still a member of the Rome Statute, the founding treaty that created the ICC.
In a March 16, 2021 decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the High Court said:
“…The International Criminal Court retains jurisdiction over any and all acts committed by government actors until March 17, 2019. Hence, [Philippines’] withdrawal from the Rome Statute does not affect the liabilities of individuals charged before the International Criminal Court for acts committed up to this date.”
Source: Supreme Court E-library, G.R. No. 238875, March 16, 2021
The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber noted in the warrant that the court retains jurisdiction over the alleged crimes that occurred in the country while it was a State Party from Nov. 1, 2011 to March 16, 2019.
When the Philippines ratified the Rome Statute, the country “explicitly accepted the jurisdiction of the court, within the limits mandated by the treaty […]. These provisions and the ensuing obligations remain applicable, notwithstanding (regardless of) the Philippines[’] withdrawal from the Statute,” part of the warrant reads.
VERA Files Fact Check has extensively debunked the claims that ICC’s investigation into the Philippine situation violates its complementarity function and encroaches on the country’s sovereignty.
(Read VERA FILES FACT CHECK YEARENDER: The Phantom of Duterte’s Disinformation Opera)
These narratives are once again making rounds on social media platforms, following Duterte’s arrest on March 11.
In its Jan. 26, 2023 decision to resume the probe on drug-related killings, the ICC noted that the government’s own investigation had investigated only the physical, low-ranking police officers and it did not extend to any high-ranking officials in the country.
It pointed out that the Philippine government has failed to look into patterns of criminality or the systematic nature of the killings, nor did it investigate individuals who would appear to be most responsible.” A part of the decision reads:
“The Chamber is therefore not satisfied that the Philippines is undertaking relevant investigations, or is making a real or genuine effort to carry out such investigations and any subsequent criminal prosecutions, that would warrant a deferral of the Court’s investigations as per article 18(2) of the Statute.
Source: International Criminal Court, Public Redacted Version of “Authorisation pursuant to article 18(2) of the Statute to resume the investigation”, Jan. 26, 2023