Amid the implementation of new standard operating procedures for terrorism and terrorism-financing cases — developed with help from international partners to improve the country’s stance — the Department of Justice (DoJ) became embroiled in the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest of one of the powerful people in the country.

The DoJ, under then-Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, introduced new protocols seeking to eliminate gaps in evidence collection and inter-agency coordination, two long-standing weaknesses in complex counterterrorism investigations. These reforms are part of an expanded effort to professionalize casework and reduce procedural errors that had previously weakened prosecutions.

However, before 2025 ended, the department underwent intense public scrutiny as it navigated a year marked by institutional reforms, politically charged investigations, and the revival of long-dormant cases involving corruption and enforced disappearances. Across its divisions, the department found itself at the center of some of the country’s most consequential legal and political developments.

After introducing the new guidelines, the DoJ realized a 78 percent conviction rate under the current administration, which was mainly due to stricter case screening and improved prosecutorial preparation and were described by officials as a sign of growing institutional discipline.

However, legal scholars warned that conviction statistics alone were an insufficient measure of the justice system’s performance, noting persistent court backlogs and uneven access to legal resources nationwide.

Then came the controversial execution of an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant against former president Rodrigo Duterte. Authorities, working with foreign counterparts, managed Duterte’s transfer to The Hague, Netherlands, to face charges of crimes against humanity stemming from the anti-drug campaign during his administration. This marked the first time a Philippine leader was brought into the custody of the ICC.

Despite numerous questions from many sectors, the DoJ stressed that it adhered strictly to procedure and international cooperation rules. But the government’s move provoked intense national debate; supporters of Duterte questioned the ICC’s jurisdiction and the government’s willingness to cooperate, while human rights advocates described the arrest as a watershed moment for accountability.

Analysts cited that the DoJ’s handling of the operation signaled a new willingness to engage with global justice mechanisms despite domestic political risks.