Dramatic Arrest and Allegations of Forced Removal

The arrest of Rodrigo Duterte, 79, at the main airport in Manila after his return from Hong Kong on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, has sent shockwaves through the philippines and the international community. He faces charges of crimes against humanity related to his controversial anti-drug campaign. Hours after the arrest, his daughter, Veronica Duterte, alleged that her father was being forcibly removed from the country.

According to a report by The Philippine Star, Sara Duterte, the country’s vice president and also Duterte’s daughter, stated that her father was being taken to The Hague. Veronica Duterte posted on Instagram, “they are taking him out on a plane by force without considering his health conditions.” Reuters also reported that Duterte had boarded a plane.

Sara Duterte, in her statement to The Philippine Star, expressed strong condemnation:

As I write this, he is being forcibly taken to The Hague tonight. This is not justice — this is oppression and persecution.

Sara Duterte, Vice President of the Philippines

The ICC Investigation and Duterte’s Drug War

The ICC, located in The hague, had previously announced its investigation into Duterte’s actions during his presidency. his administration’s crackdown on drug pushers led to the deaths of more than 6,000 people, according to police data. However, independent monitors suggest the number of extrajudicial killings could be significantly higher.

Duterte’s policies, while praised by some for addressing the country’s drug problem, drew widespread criticism from human rights organizations and international bodies. The campaign disproportionately affected impoverished communities, with many victims being young men from shanty towns.

The former leader oversaw what many considered a ferocious crackdown on drug pushers, targeting a criminal trade that had sparked widespread anger among his supporters. the crackdown killed more than 6,000 people based on police data, though independent monitors believe the number of extrajudicial killings could be much higher.

Supporter Response and Political Fallout

The arrest of Duterte has mobilized his supporters,some of whom confronted police outside the airbase where he was held for several hours. His detention marks a significant turning point in Philippine politics and raises questions about the country’s relationship with the ICC.

Duterte ruled the country of 115 million people for six years,and his unrelenting war on drugs left behind a bloody legacy. He remains popular among voters, particularly in Davao city, where he served as mayor for approximately two decades before becoming president.

Duterte’s History with the ICC

Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the ICC in 2019, a move widely seen as an attempt to evade accountability for his administration’s actions. Though, the ICC maintains jurisdiction over crimes committed during the Philippines’ membership period, specifically between 2016, when Duterte’s term began, and 2019, when the withdrawal became official.

Despite withdrawing from the ICC,the court retains jurisdiction over crimes committed during the membership period of a state – in this case,between 2016,when his term started,and 2019,when the Philippines’ pull

Duterte’s Hague Arrest: A Turning point in International Justice?

Is the arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on an ICC warrant a watershed moment for international accountability, or a politically charged spectacle?

Interviewer: dr. Anya Sharma, a renowned expert in international law and human rights, welcome to World Today News.Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest on an ICC warrant related to his administration’s “war on drugs” has sent shockwaves across the globe.Can you unpack the legal basis for this arrest, given that the Philippines withdrew from the ICC?

Dr. Sharma: The legal basis hinges on the principle of universal jurisdiction and the ICC’s retention of jurisdiction over crimes committed during the Philippines’ membership period. Even though the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019,the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes against humanity allegedly committed between 2016 and 2019,the period of the Philippines’ membership. The ICC’s investigation focused specifically on the high number of extrajudicial killings associated with the Duterte administration’s anti-drug campaign.This case presents a crucial test of the ICC’s ability to hold powerful individuals accountable for international crimes, regardless of their national status or attempts to evade justice.

Interviewer: The arrest has sparked considerable debate about national sovereignty versus international justice. How do these competing principles play out in this case?

Dr. Sharma: this case throws into sharp relief the ongoing tension between the principle of national sovereignty and the growing recognition of the international community’s responsibility to hold individuals accountable for human rights violations. The argument for national sovereignty centers on a state’s right to govern itself without external interference. However,crimes against humanity,by their very definition,transcend national borders and violate fundamental principles of international law. The ICC’s intervention is justified by the belief that when a state fails to prosecute such egregious crimes, the international community has a responsibility to step in. This is a complex issue, often debated within international relations, with strong arguments on both sides.

Interviewer: duterte’s daughter, Sara Duterte, claims her father was “forcibly taken” to The Hague. How might this allegation affect the proceedings?

Dr. Sharma: The allegation of forceful removal raises serious procedural concerns. The ICC operates under the principle of due process, guaranteeing fair treatment for all accused. Any allegations of unlawful detention or coercion could have significant legal repercussions and impact the admissibility of evidence or the fairness of the trial. Autonomous verification of claims regarding the circumstances of the arrest will be critical to ensuring procedural fairness. Such allegations underscore the complexities of international arrests and the importance of adhering to internationally recognised legal standards.

Interviewer: What are the potential long-term implications of this case for international criminal justice and the role of international courts?

Dr. Sharma: This case could set a significant precedent for the future request of international criminal law, especially concerning the accountability of high-ranking officials involved in mass atrocities. A successful prosecution would be a landmark victory for the ICC and a strong affirmation of the principle of international criminal accountability. Conversely, potential difficulties in reaching a conviction, or even procedural delays, could raise questions about the effectiveness of the ICC system and highlight the continuing challenges of achieving justice in cases involving powerful individuals involved in gross human rights violations. The outcome, regardless of conviction, may influence other nations’ cooperation with the ICC, impacting the future scope and effectiveness of international criminal justice.

Interviewer: What are the key takeaways from this complex legal and political situation?

dr. Sharma:

The ICC’s Jurisdiction: The case significantly underscores the ICC’s jurisdiction even after a state withdraws from the Rome Statute, for crimes committed during its membership period.

sovereignty vs. Accountability: The conflict between national sovereignty and international justice remains at the heart of this case and will undoubtedly impact future discussions on international criminal law and accountability.

Due Process Concerns: Any perceived procedural irregularities,such as allegations of forceful removal,highlight the need to adhere to internationally accepted standards of fair trial.

Long-Term Implications: The outcome will have far-reaching implications for international jurisprudence and the legitimacy and practical effectiveness of international courts in holding powerful figures accountable.

Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Sharma, for your insightful analysis.This is certainly a case that will continue to unfold and shape discussions on international justice for years to come. Readers, please share your thoughts and perspectives in the comments below, or join the conversation on social media using #DuterteICC and #InternationalJustice.