Pushing political expediency is becoming costly for the administration and may cause diplomatic friction and isolation in the region to a certain extent.

Two high-profile legal cases — the International Criminal Court (ICC) custody of former President Rodrigo Duterte to answer for a crime against humanity charge and Timor-Leste’s exercise of jurisdiction over expelled lawmaker Arnolfo Teves — strike a contradiction in the country’s approach to international justice, sovereignty, and judicial cooperation.

The approaches taken in the two cases showed inconsistencies that touch on principles of national autonomy and the application of legal obligations, raising questions about fairness and political motivations.

In the case of Duterte, the government facilitated his arrest and transfer to The Hague in March 2025 to face complaints linking him to extrajudicial killings during his “war on drugs.”

Duterte’s surrender to the ICC happened despite the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute that created the tribunal in 2019.

Enablers of Duterte’s extradition attributed the need to put him under ICC jurisdiction to fulfill obligations to the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), which executed the ICC warrant, rather than directly endorsing ICC jurisdiction.

The action, however, was interpreted by many as compromising sovereignty since the country has a functioning judicial system that should handle such cases instead of a foreign court, particularly one the government no longer recognizes.

Despite prior rejection of its authority, the swift cooperation with the ICC suggests a willingness to bend sovereignty claims when politically expedient.

Meanwhile, the government has expressed frustration with Timor-Leste’s refusal to extradite Arnolfo Teves, who is accused of masterminding the 2023 assassination of Negros Oriental Governor Roel Degamo.

Despite initial approvals, Timor-Leste’s Court of Appeals rejected the extradition request on 20 March 2025, prompting local law enforcement officials to publicly criticize the regional peer for undermining trust and cooperation.

The Department of Foreign Affairs even hinted this could affect Timor-Leste’s membership bid in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Here, the government insists on the extradition of a citizen facing serious domestic charges, emphasizing Timor-Leste’s obligation to cooperate despite the absence of a formal extradition treaty.

The disparity lies in the willingness to surrender jurisdiction over Duterte to a disavowed international body and the demand for Timor-Leste to yield Teves, decrying its hesitation as a betrayal of regional solidarity.

In one instance, it cedes control to a foreign tribunal, while in the other, it asserts its authority uncompromisingly.

The inconsistency paints a concept of sovereignty and judicial independence that is selective, shaped more by political context than principle.

Former Timor-Leste Foreign Minister Dionisio Babo Soares said his country has no obligation to comply with another nation’s demands, particularly when such actions could undermine its sovereignty and the integrity of its judicial system.

Soares argued that Manila’s pressure reflects an expectation of compliance that overlooks Timor-Leste’s sovereign right to adjudicate extradition requests through its courts.

The Timorese judiciary’s decision to protect Teves, possibly due to concerns over due process or political motivations in the Philippines, asserts judicial independence, a principle the administration ceded when it relented on ICC oversight.

Linking the Teves rift to ASEAN membership was a clear expression of a threat to the nascent nation.

Timor-Leste is accused of non-cooperation in violation of the bloc’s values of mutual respect and collaboration.

Sovereignty is traditionally sacrosanct in the region. This principle fueled friction between Asian nations and institutions accused of propagating Western norms.

The government portrays itself as a victim of Timor-Leste’s intransigence, yet dismisses similar sovereignty arguments regarding Duterte’s circumstances.

Such selective application sparks accusations of political opportunism over legal integrity.

Obliquely, the frustration over Teves’ case is just desserts for the operation to take down Duterte.