Tribunal proves irrelevance

Its desperate need to survive was all over the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision denying former president Rodrigo Duterte an interim release, insisting that his presence was needed and would be hard to ensure since he is a flight risk.

The refusal to grant Duterte an interim release betrayed the ICC’s desperate need for relevance. The ruling hinged on the claim that Duterte must remain in detention because his presence “cannot be guaranteed,” casting him as a flight risk.

But beneath that reasoning lies a more telling implication: the ICC has no intention of letting Duterte go under any circumstance, having turned him into a symbolic trophy to shore up an institution struggling against its own fading credibility.

The ICC has given up trying to be an impartial upholder of international law amid questions on its integrity and the sexual scandal involving its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan.

The ICC’s crimes against humanity case against Duterte was also heaven-sent to his political enemies, who struck a tacit arrangement with the tribunal in which Duterte surrendered, even if it meant insulting the judiciary, which was totally shoved aside to make way for the ICC’s interference.  

The ICC appears to be leveraging Duterte’s high-profile case to rebuild its battered image following unprecedented criticism and even US sanctions.

Willem van Genugten, professor of International Law at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, said Duterte’s arrest and handing over were a gift to the ICC at “an important moment in time.”

The ICC had recently suffered a string of monumental setbacks, including the acquittal of former Ivory Coast president Laurent Gbagbo, the successful appeal of former DR Congo vice president Jean-Pierre Bemba, and the dismissal of all charges against former Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta.

US President Donald Trump had imposed sanctions on the ICC, denouncing what he called its “illegitimate and baseless actions” targeting the United States and its close ally, Israel.

This after the court had issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict.

Against this backdrop, if the trial of Duterte proceeds and ends in a conviction, the ICC would see it as vindication, a reaffirmation of the court’s very reason for being.

The strongest accusations against the ICC, which was initially a war crimes tribunal, were that most of its investigations were focused on Africa.

The Duterte case thus helps to convince nations to continue supporting its existence.

Duterte’s former spokesperson, Harry Roque, an international law expert, cited during an assembly of member states of the Rome Statute that the ambassador of Japan, the ICC’s biggest donor, had expressed disappointment over the court’s performance.

Roque said he still hoped the international tribunal could deliver justice, even amid “political pressures,” by deciding that the ICC’s jurisdiction over the Philippines no longer had effect after the country left the Rome Statute.

“I still want to believe that justice can still be done in the ICC, so let’s wait for the decision on the jurisdiction issue before we speak and conclude that justice is truly elusive in this court,” he said.

The tribunal’s effort to reel in Israel was another futile attempt at relevance and to deflect the backlash from the sordid sexual scandal involving Khan.

It opened the case into alleged Israeli crimes in 2021. In 2024, the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, abruptly cancelled a follow-up trip to Israel and sought arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

It was subsequently reported that Khan was facing allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse of authority by a subordinate, raising questions about his timing and motivation in racing ahead against Israel. A second woman has since come forward, also accusing Khan of sexual misconduct.

The tales of sexual misdeeds, anti-Americanism and anti-semitism contributed to the perception that the tribunal is not an impartial judicial institution.

The Duterte decision reflected an ICC vulnerable to political pressures that cripple its objectivity, thereby adding to its irrelevance.