I have just returned from Manila, where I attended a program on reimagining the university that included a session on extrajudicial killings. Survivors shared harrowing testimonies: stories of family members taken in the dead of night, of justice denied, and of children caught in the crossfire of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s “war on drugs.” Their grief was palpable, and their demands for accountability were unwavering. A few days later, news emerged that Duterte had been arrested by Philippine police, acting on a warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC), upon his return from Hong Kong. Duterte has since been transferred to The Hague, where he is now in the custody of the ICC.
The timing was striking, almost poetic. Yet, beyond its symbolic weight, Duterte’s arrest signifies a historic reckoning for the Philippines, Southeast Asia, and the global order.
Duterte’s presidency (2016-2022) was founded on a promise: to eradicate drugs, crime, and corruption from the Philippines. However, his anti-drug campaign swiftly escalated into a violent crackdown, resulting in the loss of thousands of lives to extrajudicial killings. While police records document approximately 7,000 deaths, independent estimates suggest that the actual number could be as high as 30,000. The killings primarily targeted the impoverished, occurring with little to no due process.
Human rights organizations spent years documenting the abuses and demanding accountability. Duterte’s response was defiant: he withdrew the Philippines from the ICC in 2019, dismissing its investigations as Western interference. Yet, international justice has proven to be more resilient than political maneuvering. The ICC said that it retained jurisdiction over crimes committed before the withdrawal, culminating in Duterte’s arrest this week.
A Political Reckoning in the Philippines
The arrest of Duterte has plunged the Philippines into political turmoil. His daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, swiftly denounced the action, labeling it a foreign assault on Philippine sovereignty. Her statement underscores the widening political divide in the nation, where Duterte’s influence remains robust, particularly in his home city of Davao. Nevertheless, his arrest indicates that even the most entrenched political dynasties are not beyond scrutiny.
Locally, Duterte’s arrest has deepened the political divide between the Duterte and Marcos factions. This development poses a challenge to the nation’s sovereignty and heightens concerns about potential unrest among Duterte’s supporters. The situation emphasizes the delicate balance President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. must maintain in fulfilling international legal obligations while navigating domestic political dynamics.
For human rights activists and victims’ families, this moment represents vindication. For years, they have fought against a system that has normalized violence and state impunity. The arrest of a former president sends a clear message: accountability is achievable, regardless of how powerful the accused may be. However, the Philippine judiciary now faces a challenge of its own. Will it cooperate with the ICC or obstruct the process in the name of national sovereignty? The outcome will determine Duterte’s fate and the credibility of the country’s legal institutions.
Implications for Southeast Asia
Duterte’s arrest also carries broader implications for the region. Southeast Asia has long been a stronghold of authoritarian-leaning leadership, where state violence is justified in the name of maintaining order. Over the past decade, the region has witnessed a rise in authoritarian tendencies that operate with little regard for external accountability.
The ICC’s action challenges this impunity. For the first time, a leader from Southeast Asia has been held accountable for human rights violations in a manner that transcends national borders. This precedent may compel other strongmen to reconsider their actions. Leaders who have relied on violence and repression to maintain power may now face an uncomfortable reality: international justice, although slow, remains a persistent force.
However, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is likely to remain passive. The bloc’s longstanding principle of non-interference has historically shielded member states from external scrutiny. Duterte’s arrest disrupts this norm; however, whether ASEAN will respond meaningfully to human rights issues remains uncertain. Should it ignore such violations, its credibility as a regional body will be further undermined.
A Test for International Justice
Similarly, Duterte’s arrest represents a significant moment of reckoning for the ICC. The court has frequently faced criticism for its lack of enforcement power, particularly as major global players such as the United States, China, and Russia refuse to acknowledge its jurisdiction. Critics contend that the ICC disproportionately targets leaders from weaker states, raising concerns about selective justice.
However, this case illustrates that the ICC can still operate effectively, even when confronted with leaders attempting to evade its jurisdiction. Duterte’s arrest shows that international law is not entirely subject to the political whims of national governments. It may also encourage the ICC to adopt a firmer stance in other ongoing investigations, whether in Myanmar, Sudan, or Ukraine.
The most significant challenge to Duterte’s prosecution is likely to be the argument regarding state sovereignty. His supporters assert that the ICC’s actions represent an overreach and violate the Philippines’ right to self-governance. This is a familiar defense: authoritarian leaders frequently invoke sovereignty to justify repression and avoid accountability.
However, Duterte’s case serves as a reminder that sovereignty is not absolute. It does not empower states to violate fundamental human rights with impunity. The principle of international human rights law asserts that crimes against humanity concern not just the state, but all of humanity. Duterte’s war on drugs was not simply a failure of domestic policy; it was a systematic assault on human dignity. The ICC’s intervention reinforces that sovereignty cannot be wielded as a shield to protect perpetrators of mass atrocities.
The Road Ahead
Duterte’s legal battle is far from over. His arrest represents merely the first step in what could be a lengthy and contentious process. The response of the Philippine government will be crucial, and the coming months will test the resilience of the country’s democratic institutions.
This case should prompt serious introspection at the regional level. ASEAN must recognize that human rights violations within its member states cannot remain unchecked forever. The longer it resists meaningful engagement with justice and accountability, the more irrelevant it risks becoming in the global order.
Ultimately, this moment transcends Duterte. His arrest symbolizes a shift in Southeast Asia’s political and moral landscape. It challenges the notion that power grants immunity and underscores the growing influence of international institutions in shaping global norms concerning justice and accountability.
For the survivors I encountered in Manila, Duterte’s arrest is not merely a matter of legal proceedings; it signifies recognition. It represents finally being heard after years of silence. Whether this moment will lead to lasting change remains uncertain, but one truth is clear: no leader, regardless of their power, is beyond the reach of justice.