Back in 2021, the International Criminal Court (ICC) launched a formal investigation into alleged crimes against humanity committed during the so-called “war on drugs” under former President Rodrigo Duterte. For many, this signaled light and hope—not just for truth, but for those who have long been denied justice. With domestic accountability mechanisms repeatedly failing, many see the ICC as the last resort for thousands of families who lost loved ones to state-led violence.
This intervention is not an attack on Philippine sovereignty. It is a necessary response when a state is either unable or unwilling to provide justice. Under international law, and especially within the framework of the Rome Statute, the ICC acts only when national legal systems fail. The Court is not foreign interference—it is one of the international community’s key mechanisms for accountability.
The Role of the ICC
The International Criminal Court is the first and only permanent court with jurisdiction over the world’s gravest crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. It functions on the principle of complementarity—states have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute these crimes. The ICC can only step in when those states fail to act. It relies on cooperation from all countries, not just its members.
As of 2025, the ICC has issued 60 arrest warrants and convicted 11 individuals, including Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga, who was convicted for war crimes involving the conscription and use of child soldiers; Dominic Ongwen, the Ugandan commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army, who was found guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, torture, enslavement, and sexual slavery; and Ahmed Al Faqi Al Mahdi, and Islamist militant from Mali, who was convicted for war crimes related to the intentional destruction of religious and historic monuments in Timbuktu. The ICC has also issued warrants for powerful world leaders like Vladimir Putin, for war crimes involving the unlawful deportation of children from Ukraine; and Benjamin Netanyahu, for war crimes and crimes against humanity related to attacks on civilians and the use of starvation as a method of warfare in Gaza.
| NAME | COUNTRY/ORGANIZATION | CHARGES | STATUS/OUTCOME |
| Thomas Lubanga Dyilo | Democratic Republic of Congo – Former President of Union des Patriotes Congolais (UPC) | War crimes, enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15 to use as child soldiers | Convicted (2012) – First person convicted by ICC; sentenced to 14 years |
| Omar al-Bashir | Former President of Sudan | Crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide | Arrest warrants issued (2009 & 2010) – Remains at large |
| Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz | Mali – Alleged member of Ansar Eddine and de facto chief of Islamic Police | Crimes against humanity of torture, persecution, and other inhuman acts | Convicted and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment |
| Ahmed Al Faqi Al Mahdi | Mali – Alleged member of Ansar Eddine | War crime of intentional directing attacks on historic monuments and buildings dedicated to religion | Convicted (2016) and sentenced to 9 years in prison |
| Vladimir Putin | Incumbent President of Russia | War crimes (unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children) | Warrant issued (2023); remains in office, evading arrest |
| Benjamin Netanyahu | Incumbent Prime Minister of Israel | War Crimes, Crimes against humanity (murder and persecution, starvation as a method of warfare, direct attacks on civilian population) | Arrest warrant issued (21 November 2024) |
| Rodrigo Duterte | Former President of the Republic of the Philippines | Crimes against humanity (killings in anti-drug campaign) | Arrested (2025) |
Source: International Criminal Court
In the case of the Philippines, the ICC’s investigation covers the period from November 1, 2011 to March 16, 2019. This includes not only Duterte’s presidency (2016-2022) but also his time as mayor of Davao City, where thousands were allegedly killed in anti-drug operations. The ICC’s interest in the case was sparked by several complaints: one filed in 2017 by lawyer Jude Sabio (representing hitman Edgar Matobato), another by former Senator Antonio Trillanes, and a third in 2018 by human rights group Rise Up for Life. Even though Sabio later withdrew his complaint, the ICC did not accept the withdrawal, asserting its obligation to act on received communications.
A Trail of Death and a Failure of Justice
According to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), 6,235 drug suspects were killed as of February 2022. But this number is widely seen as a gross underestimate. UN figures estimate at least 8,663 deaths, including children, human rights defenders, and journalists. Human rights groups estimate the real death toll to be between 12,000 and 30,000.
The Duterte administration did not limit its crackdown to alleged drug offenders—it also targeted human rights defenders (HRDs), activists, and humanitarian workers. The Court of Appeals even dismissed pleas for protection from HRDs, stating there was “no evidence” of extrajudicial killings or harassment. This failure to acknowledge attacks on defenders left them with nowhere to turn to.
Organizations like Karapatan, Gabriela, and the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines were slapped with legal charges, including perjury and terrorism financing. UN Special Rapporteur Mary Lawlor condemned the use of counter-terrorism laws to harass civil society and described it as retaliation. In 2021, during the “Bloody Sunday” raids, nine activists and trade unionists were killed in coordinated operations, yet the government failed to respond meaningfully to UN inquiries.
Over the years, Karapatan has documented hundreds of cases of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and disappearances. According to Deputy Secretary General Atty. Maria Sol Taule, over 12,000 people were killed in the first 14 months of the anti-drug campaign alone. Moreover, more than 660 HRDs were killed over a span of 16 years (2001-2017).
The killings were not random—they followed patterns. Victims were often identified as drug suspects and killed either by state forces, vigilantes, or unknown armed men believed to be working with or protecting state actors. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch revealed that nearly all the victims were poor: pedicab drivers, vendors, porters, slum dwellers—people who had no access to justice. Police were allegedly paid for each kill, creating an “economy of murder.”
Despite over 345,000 arrests made during the anti-drug campaign, only 52 cases were reviewed by the Department of Justice for possible criminal liability. As of July 2024, this has resulted in just four convictions: the 2018 conviction for the killing of Kian delos Santos; the 2022 and 2023 convictions in the case of Carl Angelo Arnaiz and Reynaldo “Kulot” de Guzman; and the 2024 conviction of four police officers for the killing of Luis Domingo and his son Gabriel Domingo. However, the pursuit of justice in these cases has been severely hampered by the harassment and even murder of key witnesses, as well as threats against prosecutors and judges—further eroding trust in the justice system and reinforcing the climate of impunity.
The Philippines and the ICC: What the Law Says
The Philippines joined the ICC in 2011 under President Benigno Aquino III. In 2018, Duterte announced the country’s withdrawal, claiming the ICC disrespected national proceedings. This withdrawal took effect in 2019. However, under Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute, withdrawal does not remove ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was still a member.
In the 2021 Pangilinan v. Cayetano ruling, the Philippine Supreme Court upheld the withdrawal but clarified that the President’s discretion is not absolute—opening the door for future reconciliation with the ICC. Importantly, it also noted that international crimes like those committed in the drug war could still be prosecuted under domestic laws like RA 9851, the International Humanitarian Law. But no significant domestic cases have been filed, justifying the ICC’s intervention.
On March 7, 2025, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber issued a warrant of arrest for Duterte. He was arrested on March 11, 2025, upon arriving at NAIA by the Philippine National Police and Interpol. Predictably, his supporters called it a violation of sovereignty. But justice is not a domestic matter when a state system protects perpetrators over victims.
Why the Philippines Must Rejoin the ICC
Rejoining the ICC should not be debatable. The Court offers a mechanism for justice when domestic courts are paralyzed by political power or fear. While some claim this is foreign interference, the reality is that the Philippines has ratified numerous international human rights treaties. The ICC is not an imposition—it is a commitment we made to humanity and to our own people.
The ICC is not a political tool. It is a legal mechanism built on facts and evidence. When survivors are silenced, when witnesses are killed, and when the state closes its doors to justice, the international community must act.
Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest after nearly a decade and an estimated 30,000 deaths is proof that justice can still prevail. The Philippines rejoining the ICC can contribute to this never happening again. At the very least, it is an explicit State commitment to accountability, human dignity, and the rule of law.
We call on the Philippine government to stop shielding perpetrators. Cooperate with the ICC. Stand with the victims—not with the machinery of impunity. And we urge our fellow Filipinos: do not be misled. This is not about foreign intervention. This is about making sure that never again will the poor be hunted, that human rights defenders will not be silenced, and that no one—no matter how powerful—can escape justice.
Justice delayed must not become justice denied.
Written by John Brennick Ascan and Kayla Nicole De Quiroz