listen to this article6 minutes
information
As global institutions teeter, The Hague unexpectedly becomes the scene of a reckoning long denied to the Philippines.
The case at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in late February offered a rare glimpse of accountability at a time when global norms feel increasingly fragile. The court held a hearing in the case against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to confirm charges of crimes against humanity committed during the so-called “war on drugs.”
For the families of those killed in the “drug war” who watched in tears from the public seating area, the hearing marked a real step toward justice after years of violence, denial, and dehumanization of their loved ones. “The truth is the antidote to the virus of impunity,” Joel Butuyan, a Filipino lawyer and representative for the victims, told the court.
The three-judge panel, made up of women from Romania, Mexico and Benin, heard arguments from prosecutors, victims’ lawyers and Duterte’s defense attorney. Their task was not to determine guilt but to assess whether there was enough evidence for Mr. Duterte to proceed to trial.
The case focuses on 49 alleged murder and attempted murder cases involving 78 victims, including children, that occurred between November 2011 and March 2019, when the ICC still had jurisdiction over the Philippines. In March 2018, shortly after a former ICC prosecutor announced a preliminary investigation into the situation in the Philippines, President Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the court’s membership, with final withdrawal a year later.
The lawsuit against Duterte covers his time as mayor of Davao City in the southern Philippines and the period after he was elected president in 2016. Prosecutors stressed that the specific cases they focused on were just a few of the thousands of killings committed by police and hired hitmen during Mr. Duterte’s anti-drug campaign.
I sat in the general gallery alongside victims’ families, activists, clergy, journalists, and lawyers who had traveled all the way from the Philippines to witness a moment many never thought possible. Supporters of Mr. Duterte also participated. However, President Duterte himself waived his right to attend and was absent. In his written statement, he denied the court’s jurisdiction and claimed he had been “kidnapped.” The defendant’s refusal to appear in court was clearly a disappointment to the victim’s family, who had hoped to see him in the dock.
Still, his voice echoed throughout the courtroom. Prosecutors released a series of videos of Duterte urging police to kill drug suspects and ignore legal restraints. In a chilling speech in 2016, he warned: “If I become president, I will order the military and police to hunt down and kill drug lords.” Mr. Duterte’s lawyers argued that prosecutors were selective in their response to the speech and missed important information that would exonerate Mr. Duterte, including references to the use of force in self-defense.
Human Rights Watch reported on Duterte’s “war on drugs” in 2009, detailing the activities of the Davao Death Squad, which targeted street children, petty criminals and drug suspects when Duterte was mayor. A 2017 Human Rights Watch report revealed how Duterte’s “war on drugs” escalated nationwide after he was elected president.
The commission now has 60 days to decide whether to proceed with the case. However, even as the ICC deliberates, drug-related murders continue in the Philippines, although they have declined from their peak during the Duterte administration.
Domestic accountability remains woefully inadequate. Nearly a decade after the nationwide “war on drugs” began, a total of nine police officers have been convicted in five cases. The majority of those responsible, including senior officials, have been left alone.
The political background is also complex. Sending President Duterte to The Hague may have suited the current president, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., to distance himself from the brutal excesses of his predecessor. However, several of Duterte’s alleged accomplices – top police officers and officials who helped transplant Davao City’s “neutralization” strategy onto the national stage – continue to exercise influence or remain in hiding.
The security architecture that enabled murders within the national police remains largely intact. If the political signals are wrong, violence could easily surge again.
Marcos now faces a decisive choice. He can continue to delegate justice to the ICC while tolerating the culture of impunity in the country. Or they can demonstrate a real commitment to accountability and the rule of law. Doing so would require a clear public repudiation of the decade-long policing that underpinned the anti-drug campaign, and clear assurances that the approach is no longer acceptable national policy.
Mr. Marcos should also authorize the Department of Justice to pursue full-scale investigations and prosecutions, and take steps toward returning to the ICC, which would in turn lead to greater domestic accountability. Without credible domestic action, promises of reform will ring hollow.
This is a time of reckoning for the Philippines. Families who have waited years for answers deserve more than political convenience. they deserve justice. Whatever the ICC decides in the coming months, the Philippine government does not and should not wait. Ending impunity and respecting the dignity of victims starts at home.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
