“Power, Politics, and the ICC: Conspiracy Theories Surrounding Duterte’s Arrest”

March 20, 2025 Diana Zapata News, Politics 0
Duterte was arrested in Manila in a dramatic turn of events / BBC images
| Published March 20, 2025
The arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte by the International Criminal Court (ICC) has ignited a flurry of conspiracy theories, reflecting deep-seated political tensions and raising questions about the interplay between international justice and domestic politics.

Allegations of Political Conspiracy

Supporters of Duterte, including his legal team, have labeled the arrest as a politically motivated act orchestrated by his adversaries. Salvador Medialdea, Duterte’s lawyer, characterized the arrest as “kidnapping” and suggested it was driven by political motives linked to President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and the ICC. He argued that the arrest and transport represented judicial and procedural abuses, driven by political motives tied to President Marcos and the ICC.
Further fueling these claims, reports have highlighted a significant political feud between the Duterte and Marcos families. Tensions escalated when Sara Duterte, the former president’s daughter, admitted to hiring a hitman to assassinate President Marcos Jr. and other officials. This backdrop has led some to perceive Duterte’s arrest as a strategic move by the Marcos administration to neutralize a political rival, especially with midterm elections on the horizon.

Claims of Illegal Arrest and Jurisdictional Issues

Critics of the arrest argue that it was conducted illegally, citing the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC in 2019 under Duterte’s administration. They contend that the ICC no longer holds jurisdiction over the Philippines, rendering the arrest warrant invalid. Petitions have been filed before the Philippine Supreme Court challenging the legality of the arrest and the ICC’s authority in this context.
Additionally, some legal experts assert that the arrest violates constitutional principles and state sovereignty. They argue that the Philippines’ membership in Interpol does not obligate it to enforce ICC warrants, especially after its formal withdrawal from the Rome Statute.

Perceptions of International Bias

Among Duterte’s supporters, there is a prevailing belief that the ICC’s actions are influenced by international bias against his administration’s policies, particularly the controversial war on drugs. They argue that the ICC is selectively targeting leaders from developing nations while overlooking similar actions by leaders from more powerful countries.

Insight: Navigating the Crossroads of Justice and Politics

The conspiracy theories surrounding Duterte’s arrest underscore the complex intersection of international justice, domestic politics, and public perception. While the ICC aims to uphold human rights and accountability, its interventions can be perceived as infringing on national sovereignty, especially when local political rivalries are at play.
For the ICC to maintain legitimacy, it must address concerns of impartiality and ensure that its actions are free from political influence. Simultaneously, domestic institutions should strengthen their legal frameworks to handle allegations of human rights abuses, reducing the need for external intervention.
Ultimately, the Duterte case serves as a pivotal example of the challenges faced by international bodies in enforcing justice without being entangled in the intricate web of local politics. It highlights the necessity for a balanced approach that respects national sovereignty while ensuring accountability for actions that violate fundamental human rights.
SOURCES:  REUTERS – Philippines defends ex-President Duterte’s transfer to ICC in Senate inquiry 
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL – The Epic Dynastic Feud Behind the Arrest of the Former Philippine President
THE TIMES – ‘Abducted’ Rodrigo Duterte charged with drug-war murders

RELATED: No red notice only ‘red diffusion’ from Interpol for Duterte’s arrest — PCTC

| Published March 20, 2025

During a Senate hearing on March 20, 2025, the Philippine Center on Transnational Crime (PCTC) clarified that the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) issued a “red diffusion,” not a “red notice,” for the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte. PCTC Executive Director Anthony Alcantara explained that while a red diffusion serves a similar purpose to a red notice, it is disseminated directly by a member country’s National Central Bureau to other member countries, bypassing Interpol’s General Secretariat. Senator Imee Marcos highlighted that a diffusion is not posted on Interpol’s website and does not undergo the same verification process as a red notice, characterizing it as an unverified request for assistance.

In related developments, legal experts have discussed potential sentencing scenarios should Duterte be convicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bayan Muna chairperson Neri Colmenares outlined three possible locations where Duterte could serve his sentence:

  1. A prison facility in the Philippines, as he is a citizen.

  2. A country that agrees to host the prison facility.

  3. The Hague, where the ICC is located.

Additionally, Deputy Majority Leader Francisco Paolo Ortega V noted that even a single conviction among the 43 cases against Duterte could result in a 30-year prison term, effectively leading to a life sentence given his age.

Currently, Duterte is detained at the United Nations Detention Unit (UNDU) in Scheveningen prison near The Hague. This facility, often referred to as the “Hague Hilton,” is known for its humane conditions, offering amenities such as a library, gym, and access to cable TV. However, if convicted, Duterte would likely be transferred to a prison outside the Netherlands under agreements between the ICC and the host country.

These developments underscore the complexities surrounding Duterte’s arrest and potential sentencing, highlighting both procedural nuances in international law enforcement and the logistical considerations of international criminal justice.

Insight:

These developments highlight the growing international legal pressure on former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, emphasizing both the procedural complexities and geopolitical sensitivities surrounding his case.

  1. Interpol’s “Red Diffusion” vs. “Red Notice” – The distinction between these terms is significant because a red diffusion is a direct request between countries without Interpol’s formal validation, making it less authoritative than a red notice. This suggests that Duterte’s arrest warrant is being handled with a degree of discretion, possibly to avoid overt political implications.

  2. Legal and Diplomatic Implications – The fact that Duterte is already in ICC custody and facing trial shows that international mechanisms can override national political maneuvering. However, the Philippines’ stance on cooperation remains crucial, as hosting his sentence domestically would require government approval.

  3. Potential Sentencing Outcomes – If convicted, Duterte could serve his sentence in The Hague, another country, or possibly in the Philippines. Given his age and the severity of the charges, even a single conviction could mean de facto life imprisonment. The international community will closely watch how the Philippines navigates this, balancing domestic political considerations with global legal commitments.

Overall, this case underscores the challenge of holding former heads of state accountable for alleged crimes while navigating international law, national sovereignty, and political alliances.

SOURCES : GMA NETWORK – No red notice only ‘red diffusion’ from Interpol for Duterte’s arrest — PCTC
THE DAILY TRIBUNE – No Interpol red notice yet on FPRRD — Santiago

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply