Composite image of former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte. Photos from Reuters/ICC/PNA/AP/INQUIRER files
| Published July 12, 2025
Two prominent lawmakers have weighed in on the possibility of former President Rodrigo Duterte facing house arrest if the Philippines had remained a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC)—a scenario that now stirs debate as ICC investigators continue pursuing alleged crimes linked to his bloody war on drugs.
Duterte’s ICC Exposure and Jurisdiction Questions
House Deputy Minority Leader France Castro of the ACT Teachers party-list stated that Duterte could have already been under house arrest by now had the country not withdrawn from the Rome Statute in 2019. Castro emphasized that the ICC’s jurisdiction still applies to crimes committed while the Philippines was a member (2011–2019), and withdrawal doesn’t erase accountability for those past actions.
“If we hadn’t pulled out from the Rome Statute, the ICC could have ordered Duterte’s arrest and he might now be under house arrest pending trial,” said Castro.
The ICC has been investigating Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, which left thousands of suspected drug offenders dead. Rights groups claim the campaign encouraged summary executions and human rights abuses. Duterte and his allies, however, maintain that the crackdown was legal and necessary.
Proposal to Place Duterte Under House Arrest
In a surprising turn, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman has suggested the domestic application of house arrest in cooperation with the ICC. Lagman’s call comes amid growing concern about the Philippines’ refusal to cooperate with the Court and its rejection of the ICC probe.
He believes the Philippines can domestically detain Duterte in his residence, akin to “house arrest,” in compliance with potential ICC processes—even without being a member of the Court.
However, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla has dismissed such proposals, asserting the ICC no longer has jurisdiction. He reiterated the administration’s position that the Philippines is a sovereign nation with a functioning justice system, which disqualifies the ICC from intervening.
Political Reactions and Public Sentiment
The possibility of a former Philippine president being subjected to ICC procedures has divided public opinion. Some civil society groups welcome accountability mechanisms for extrajudicial killings, while Duterte loyalists see the ICC’s actions as a violation of Philippine sovereignty.
Former President Duterte has previously called the ICC “a bunch of white idiots” and vowed never to cooperate. Despite mounting pressure, he continues to enjoy considerable support from sectors who view his anti-crime policies as a success.
🎥 What You’ll See in This Video:
🔹 1. The House Arrest Proposal: Where Did It Come From?
The video begins by outlining who is calling for Duterte’s house arrest and why now. It references key political figures—including Albay Representative Edcel Lagman—who argue that the Philippines should comply with ICC mechanisms even if no longer a member state, particularly through a domestic application of house arrest.
The discussion points out that this suggestion is not necessarily about guilt or innocence yet—but about cooperating with an ongoing international investigation concerning human rights abuses during Duterte’s war on drugs.
🔹 2. Legal Basis for ICC Action Against Duterte
The hosts and legal experts delve into the Rome Statute, explaining that although the Philippines officially withdrew in 2019, the ICC retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed while the country was still a member (from 2011 to 2019).
They clarify that withdrawal does not erase obligations for actions committed during that period. The idea of Duterte facing accountability under international law—even through house arrest—is legally plausible, depending on cooperation from the Philippine government.
🔹 3. Can House Arrest Be Ordered by the ICC?
The video explains that the ICC has used house arrest or restricted movement in previous cases—like in the cases of Sudanese and Kenyan leaders. It discusses the technical and diplomatic hurdles in implementing such a measure without full state cooperation.
Experts argue that a domestic implementation, where the Philippine government voluntarily enforces house arrest in alignment with ICC intentions, could serve as a middle ground—especially if extradition is unlikely.
🔹 4. Duterte’s Defiance and Public Support
The panel also reviews Duterte’s public stance, recalling his previous statements mocking and rejecting the ICC. They weigh this against the continued support he enjoys from certain sectors of Philippine society, and whether such a move (house arrest) would be politically feasible or spark public backlash.
⚖️ Implications of Duterte’s Possible House Arrest under the ICC
🔹 1. Legal Precedent for International Accountability
-
House arrest, if implemented—even domestically—would mark the first instance of a former Philippine president being subjected to international legal restrictions.
-
It would set a powerful precedent showing that ICC jurisdiction can reach national leaders for alleged crimes committed while in office, even after a country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute.
🔹 2. Sovereignty vs. International Law
-
The proposal raises constitutional and diplomatic questions: Would enforcing house arrest at the ICC’s behest violate Philippine sovereignty?
-
It may create tension between domestic laws and the Rome Statute, particularly if the ICC issues an arrest warrant without local cooperation.
🔹 3. Strained Diplomatic Relations
-
If the Philippines refuses to cooperate with the ICC or ignores potential warrants, it could face international criticism, especially from human rights bodies and Western governments.
-
On the flip side, enforcing a house arrest could alienate Duterte allies and widen political divides within the country.
🔹 4. Impact on Future Leaders and Policy
-
This development might influence future presidents to tread more carefully regarding human rights and international commitments.
-
It may also discourage strongman-style leadership, knowing there could be international consequences long after their term ends.
🔹 5. Domestic Political Fallout
-
Duterte remains popular among certain voter bases. A move to arrest or restrict him could provoke mass protests, polarization, or unrest.
-
The administration’s stance—whether to cooperate with the ICC or not—could define its legacy on justice, accountability, and global image.
🔹 6. Relevance of ICC Membership
-
Even though the Philippines withdrew in 2019, this case shows that ICC jurisdiction persists for crimes during the membership period.
-
It might prompt legal scholars and lawmakers to reconsider rejoining the ICC—or push for further isolation from international mechanisms.
Overall Takeaway:
The prospect of placing former President Rodrigo Duterte under house arrest as part of the ICC’s investigation into the drug war underscores a historic crossroads for the Philippines—between international accountability and national sovereignty.
While legal experts argue that the ICC retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed during the country’s membership, Duterte’s defenders frame the move as a political attack and an affront to Philippine independence.
Ultimately, whether or not house arrest becomes reality, this development signals that no leader is immune from global scrutiny. It challenges the Philippines to confront uncomfortable questions about justice, human rights, and the rule of law, both at home and on the world stage.
