The arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte has ignited a firestorm of legal and political discussions about the Philippines’ commitment to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its legal obligations, especially after the country’s formal withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019.

The question now is whether the Philippines is still bound to cooperate with the ICC, despite the government’s stance of non-recognition, and how the current administration will handle this complex legal issue.

Ferdinand Topacio, a prominent legal expert, strongly argued that the Philippines has no obligation to enforce the ICC’s arrest warrant.

“Since the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute, the ICC cannot unilaterally acquire jurisdiction,” he told Daily Tribune. “This would require a re-entry into the treaty, which would need the Senate’s concurrence.”

Topacio emphasized that Duterte could challenge his arrest on jurisdictional grounds, as the ICC’s actions could be seen as exceeding its jurisdiction due to the Philippines’ withdrawal. He added that the Philippines, as a sovereign nation, is not obligated to cooperate with the ICC.

Topacio’s comments reflect a broader sentiment that the Philippines should uphold its sovereignty and not submit to the authority of a foreign body.

“Our country’s seeming subservience to the warrant issued by the ICC reflects poorly on how we view our sovereignty,” he remarked, highlighting the fact that other former Philippine presidents, such as Ferdinand Marcos Sr., Joseph Estrada, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Benigno Aquino III, had faced legal challenges that were handled by the country’s courts.

He pointed out that countries like the United States and China, which have declined to join the Rome Statute, continue to be successful and progressive nations precisely because they prioritize their sovereignty and protect their citizens from foreign jurisdiction.

Another legal expert, lawyer Edward Chico, however, said that while Duterte no longer enjoys immunity from arrest under international law, the ambiguity surrounding the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC complicates the situation.

“Duterte obviously does not have immunity from arrest, and state parties must arrest him immediately if he steps into their territory so he can be handed over to the ICC,” Chico said.

He acknowledged that the Philippine government is not legally bound to cooperate with the ICC, but the decision to do so rests with the current administration’s policies.

Chico said that if President Marcos did not want to cooperate, he could have asserted that the Philippines has no obligations to the ICC.

Lawyer Melvin Matibag, a Cabinet secretary under Duterte, highlighted the complex nature of this case, pointing to the contrast between those who argue that the arrest is invalid because the Philippines withdrew from the ICC and others who contend that the alleged crimes occurred while the country was still a member.

‘Our country’s seeming subservience to the warrant issued by the ICC reflects poorly on how we view our sovereignty.’

Matibag cited the Supreme Court ruling in Pangilinan v. Cayetano, which reaffirmed that the Philippines remains bound by the Rome Statute’s obligations for crimes committed when it was still a member.

“Until the withdrawal took effect on 17 March 2019, the Philippines was committed to meeting its obligations under the Rome Statute,” Matibag explained. He added that once jurisdiction is acquired, it remains intact, which means the ICC may still have jurisdiction over crimes committed during Duterte’s presidency, despite the withdrawal.

Matibag also emphasized the importance of international cooperation in enforcing ICC orders, as countries generally respect each other’s legal decisions.

“The current legal problem of former President Rodrigo Duterte is not caused by Philippine laws, but rather by laws enforceable by the ICC,” he said. He suggested that, if necessary, Interpol could play a role in enforcing the warrant, but stressed that the Philippine government’s cooperation is crucial for the process to be effective.

The political implications of Duterte’s arrest are significant, especially as the 2025 midterm elections approach.

Dennis Coronacion, a political science professor at the University of Santo Tomas, noted that this case could have far-reaching effects on the political landscape. He pointed out that Duterte’s political camp has often framed legal challenges as political persecution, a narrative that may resonate with many Filipinos.

“This is part of the broader political landscape where key figures from the previous administration are being challenged,” Coronacion observed. He noted that the arrest may influence public opinion and impact future political dynamics.