The arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte marks a historic and deeply polarizing moment in Philippine politics. Long hailed by his supporters as a strongman who brought order through his brutal war on drugs, Duterte now faces the full force of international law.

His arrest, allegedly facilitated by the Marcos Jr. administration through cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC), has sparked a fierce battle of narratives — one between Duterte loyalists who see him as a victim of political persecution and human rights advocates who view this as long-overdue justice for the victims of extrajudicial killings (EJK).

For years, Duterte’s tough-on-crime stance defined his presidency. His war on drugs, which resulted in thousands of deaths, was defended as a necessary evil by his camp but condemned as state-sponsored murder by human rights groups and the international community.

The ICC’s warrant for crimes against humanity signals an attempt to hold him accountable for these actions. However, to his supporters, this move reeked of foreign interference and a betrayal by the Marcos administration, which they expected would shield him from legal repercussions.

Duterte’s arrest has ignited massive protests by his base, which includes politicians, military figures, and ordinary citizens who believed in his iron-fisted governance. They argue that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the Philippines, as Duterte withdrew the country from the international court in 2019.

For them, the arrest is not about justice but about erasing Duterte’s legacy and preventing his political resurgence. This fuels the belief that the Marcos Jr. administration played a pivotal role in enabling the ICC to act — a claim that further strains the already fragile alliance between the two powerful political clans.

On the other side of the divide are the families of the EJK victims and human rights advocates, who see this moment as a triumph for justice. For years, they have fought an uphill battle, struggling against a political system that largely dismissed their plight. They argued that Duterte must answer for the thousands of lives lost under his leadership, many of whom were poor individuals denied due process.

Their position is clear: no leader, no matter how popular, should be above the law. This is a reckoning that the Philippines must face if it is to truly uphold justice and human rights.

Marcos Jr. now finds himself in a precarious position. By not blocking the ICC’s action, he has alienated Duterte’s base, a significant portion of whom supported him in the 2022 elections. However, siding too openly with Duterte could damage his international standing and invite scrutiny from the global community. His administration must navigate this political minefield carefully, as any misstep could cost him valuable political capital heading into the 2028 elections.

The battle of narratives is now in full swing, with both sides trying to sway public opinion. Duterte’s camp is framing him as a nationalist leader being humiliated by a government willing to bend to foreign powers, while human rights advocates see this as a rare moment of accountability in a country where powerful figures often escape justice.

The question remains: will Duterte’s arrest signal the beginning of real justice for his alleged crimes, or will it only deepen the political divisions that have long plagued the Philippines?

In the end, this moment will define the country’s trajectory — whether it moves toward greater accountability or remains a nation where the powerful can always rewrite history to their advantage.

What is clear is that the battle is far from over, and the Filipino people will once again be caught in the crossfire of clashing political forces.