The question of whether the Philippines should rejoin the International Criminal Court (ICC) has resurfaced amid renewed calls to investigate alleged extrajudicial killings during former President Rodrigo Duterte’s anti-drug campaign.

In 2019, the Philippines withdrew from the ICC, a move defended by the Duterte administration as an assertion of sovereignty but criticized as an attempt to evade accountability. Rejoining the ICC is now a focal point of debate, with both potential benefits and serious concerns.

The primary argument for rejoining the ICC centers on justice for victims of alleged extrajudicial killings. Estimates vary, but the drug war reportedly led to thousands of deaths, raising concerns about human rights abuses. The ICC’s investigation could offer a path to justice, providing a forum that’s independent of domestic political influence. The families of the victims and human rights advocates argue that rejoining the ICC would show the government’s willingness to hold accountable those responsible for the abuses.

Rejoining the ICC could improve the Philippines’ image on the international stage. The country’s departure from the ICC in 2019 was met with disapproval from the international community, with some viewing it as a step back for Philippine democracy and human rights. Rejoining would signal a commitment to uphold international norms and restore the Philippines’ credibility as a nation that values justice, human rights, and the rule of law.

Supporters argue that ICC membership could act as a safeguard for domestic justice, complementing and strengthening local institutions. While the ICC only intervenes when national systems are unwilling or unable to prosecute serious crimes, its involvement can encourage the improvement of these institutions. With ICC oversight, the Philippines might feel greater pressure to strengthen its judicial system, reduce impunity and ensure fair investigations into alleged human rights abuses.

The most prominent argument against rejoining the ICC revolves around concerns over national sovereignty. Critics of the ICC claim that allowing a foreign court to investigate and prosecute individuals undermines the Philippines’ autonomy and legal independence. They argue that domestic issues should be handled by the Philippines’ own legal system, and any investigation by an international body would signal that the country is incapable of governing its affairs.

Some worry that rejoining the ICC could open doors for politically motivated cases. While the ICC is designed to be impartial, critics argue that international bodies are sometimes susceptible to political influence. They fear that the ICC’s focus on the Philippines could stem from a biased perception of the country’s policies and governance, leading to selective justice rather than true accountability.

Conducting an international investigation would require cooperation and resources that some argue could be better used elsewhere. Rejoining the ICC could strain the Philippines’ justice system, which would need to assist in providing evidence, facilitating investigations, and possibly even prosecuting cases. The administrative and financial burden of rejoining the ICC may detract from other national priorities, particularly as the Philippines faces pressing economic and social challenges.

The debate on rejoining the ICC ultimately boils down to a complex balancing act between safeguarding national sovereignty and addressing international calls for justice. While there are strong arguments on both sides, it’s essential to consider what’s at stake for both the victims of alleged human rights abuses and the broader interests of the Philippines.

From one perspective, rejoining the ICC could be seen as an important step toward accountability, a way to address past abuses, and a mechanism to prevent future ones. The argument here is that sovereignty should not shield human rights abuses and that rejoining could strengthen, not weaken, the rule of law domestically.

On the other hand, concerns about sovereignty and the possible politicization of international justice cannot be overlooked. Opponents argue that the Philippines should bolster its own legal system rather than relying on foreign intervention. For this side, the risks of opening the door to international investigations may outweigh the potential benefits.

Whichever path the Philippines takes, the pursuit of justice, whether domestically or internationally, must remain the guiding principle for the sake of both the victims and the nation’s democratic values.