Fact or Fiction? Confronting Disinformation around Duterte’s Arrest and the ICC
The arrest and surrender of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in March 2025 marked a milestone toward the pursuit of accountability for alleged crimes committed during the so-called “war on drugs” in The Philippines—a campaign that killed thousands of people.
The ICC Prosecutor alleges that Duterte, as founder and head of the Davao Death Squad, then Mayor of Davao City, and subsequently as President of The Philippines, is criminally responsible for the crime against humanity of murder committed in The Philippines between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019. Duterte is alleged to have committed these crimes as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population. In March 2018, The Philippines notified the Court that it was withdrawing as a State Party to the ICC.
Since Duterte’s arrest there have been wide-scale and organised disinformation campaigns in the media and on social media attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the ICC, mislead the public about the legal basis for the proceedings, and intimidate victims and civil society actors engaged in the case. This risks impacting victims’ ability to exercise their rights before the Court, especially their right to participate in the proceedings.
This blog aims to address some of those false claims by clarifying key aspects related to the proceedings.
False claim: The ICC has no jurisdiction over crimes committed in The Philippines, because The Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2018.
Truth: The ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed in The Philippines between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019, because The Philippines was still a Member State of the ICC.
False claim: Victims should not pursue justice before domestic Philippine courts, because this will result in the ICC ‘losing’ jurisdiction over these crimes.
Truth: The ICC is exercising its jurisdiction in relation to Duterte because the national legal system failed to do so, under the Court’s “principle of complementarity.”
This principle provides that States have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute international crimes, and only when they are inactive, unwilling or unable to genuinely investigate and prosecute the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction.
The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber already ruled that The Philippines has not been conducting concrete, genuine, and effective investigations into Duterte’s responsibility for the same crimes the Court is investigating.
Complementarity can only prevent the ICC from trying Duterte if a genuine case is brought against Duterte in The Philippines or another country, and if that case relates to the same crimes as those charged at the ICC.
While the ICC only prosecutes very few, high-ranking alleged perpetrators, there are many others who may be criminally responsible for crimes committed during the “war on drugs”. Victims should therefore not hold back from filing complaints in The Philippines.
False claim: The killing of 43 people (the number in the arrest warrant) cannot constitute a crime against humanity.
Truth: Under the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the Court, the crime against humanity of murder is defined as the killing of “one or more persons” committed as part of “a widespread or systematic attack against civilians.” This context is one the elements that will need to be proved by the ICC Prosecutor and eventually determined by the judges during the trial proceedings. The Prosecutor does not need to show that the killings themselves were “widespread or systematic,” only that the broader “attack” was.
In the statement announcing the arrest of Duterte, the Court said the Chamber had taken into account that the attack on civilians had taken place over several years and resulted in thousands of deaths, and the arrest warrant focused only on a representative sample of those alleged incidents. There may be many reasons why the Prosecutor would bring a narrow case, for example, to ensure that the trial proceeds quickly.
False claim: Charges against Duterte are limited to the killing of 43 individuals and cannot be expanded.
Truth: While the Prosecution could, in principle, present more evidence and request a widening of charges, it is rare that ICC judges allow new charges to be added after an accused arrives in The Hague.
The Court often limits charges to a representative sample of incidents to ensure that the Prosecution has enough time to gather sufficient evidence. However, victims can still submit their views regarding the scope of charges to the ICC judges through their legal representatives.
False claim: The names of participating victims will be disclosed to Duterte’s lawyers.
Truth: The names of participating victims are not disclosed to the Defence. Only the identities of the small number of victims who volunteer to testify as witnesses for the Prosecution would be disclosed to the Defence.
For witnesses, the Court may put in place protection measures, if necessary. Protection measures can include steps to hide the identity of the witness from the public while testifying in Court and wider measures to protect the individual’s security or wellbeing.
False claim: Sara Duterte, if she is elected as President, will try to negotiate or exert pressure on the ICC, which can result in Duterte’s release.
Truth: The ICC is an independent judicial institution established by States to pursue cases independently of political influence. Even if governments attempt to put pressure on the Court to drop charges or discontinue a case, it does not engage in negotiations with governments about cases it decides to pursue.
Photo: ICC-CPI