It is becoming apparent that the series of sanctions imposed by the US government on the International Criminal Court (ICC) will have a substantial impact on the case of former President Rodrigo Duterte.

The administration of President Donald Trump imposed sanctions on four ICC judges, including Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou of Benin, who is among the judges handling the crimes against humanity charge that led to Duterte’s arrest and his surrender by the Marcos administration to the ICC.

The action against the judges followed broad restrictions in the United States on ICC prosecutors, including Karim Khan, who investigated the case against Duterte.

Khan is also involved in a different mess due to allegations of sexual misconduct that are now being probed by an independent United Nations body.

The judges were penalized in retaliation for the tribunal’s issuance of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a past decision to open a case into alleged war crimes by US troops in Afghanistan.

“As ICC judges, these four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC’s illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel. The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said.

The barrage of US retaliations has impacted the daily operations of the tribunal, potentially leading to delays in the prosecution of cases, including Duterte’s.

The investigation of Sudan was reportedly stalled due to the impact of the sanctions on prosecutor Eric Iverson’s ability to perform his legal functions, suggesting that the Duterte investigation, which requires extensive coordination and evidence gathering, faces similar delay.

The wording of the imposition of sanctions was indicting of the ICC. In the opening statement to announce the sanctions, the US State Department said: “Today, the United States is sanctioning four individuals, currently serving as judges of the International Criminal Court. We do not take this step lightly. It reflects the seriousness of the threat we face from the ICC’s politicization and abuse of power.”

The view that the court is partial to specific powerful forces that dislike populist leaders like Duterte, who openly challenge liberal democratic norms, is widely held among Filipinos.

Another issue that is chipping away at the court’s claim of the moral high ground in the prosecution of Duterte are the allegations of misconduct against Khan, who has been accused of harassing a female aide and retaliating against staff who supported her.

The mischief, if proven, could further erode the ICC’s credibility and operational focus, thereby compounding the impact of the sanctions.

Duterte’s counsel can seize the opportunity on the ICC’s operational difficulties to argue that domestic courts should best handle the drug war cases against Duterte.

The ICC is becoming a compromised institution, complicating its efforts to enforce accountability.

The US measures against the ICC manifest broader implications for cases like the investigation into Duterte’s alleged crimes against humanity.

It only serves to highlight the ICC’s inability to hold powerful figures to account in an increasingly polarized global landscape, while using Third World leaders like Duterte to retain a measure of credibility.

The implosion at the ICC is expected to contribute to Duterte booking a flight back home sooner than expected.