ICC overreach equals injustice

An open letter from the International Career Support Association (ICSA) to the International Criminal Court (ICC) president, Judge Tomoko Akane, made sobering points about the proceedings on the crimes against humanity charges against former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte.

It cut through the fog of international legal posturing with blunt clarity. Days before the court’s scheduled ruling on jurisdiction yesterday, the letter demanded the immediate and unconditional release of Duterte and a formal decision not to exercise ICC jurisdiction.

The arguments raised were grounded in black-letter law, basic humanity and hard political reality.

First, the humanitarian imperative: Duterte is 81 years old and suffers from serious medical conditions. He had endured more than 13 months of pre-trial detention without a single day in court. That is not justice; it is punishment by process.

The letter cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Nelson Mandela Rules, all of which the ICC claims to uphold.

The prolonged detention of an elderly man without trial violates every one of them. Humanitarian decency alone requires his release.

It also underscored that the principle of complementarity, as set out in Article 17 of the Rome Statute, is not optional.

The ICC exists as a court of last resort, not a first resort, and the Philippines maintains a functioning three-tiered judiciary fully capable of trying its own cases.

There is no “total collapse” of the national system. There is no evidence of shielding, unjustified delay engineered by the state, or lack of impartiality that would justify ICC intervention.

The letter stated the obvious: if the domestic courts are willing and able, the case is inadmissible before the ICC.

Selective enforcement exposes the tribunal’s credibility problem. The letter noted the ICC’s conspicuous failure to deliver results against sitting leaders in powerful states such as Russia or Israel, while it moves aggressively against a retired Philippine president now out of office.

When the powerful escape scrutiny and the politically vulnerable do not, the label “victor’s justice” or “political hit job” becomes hard to dismiss.

Targeting Duterte while the Marcos administration is in power looks less like impartial justice and more like choosing the softer target.

The political subtext is imprinted, with Duterte retaining overwhelming popular support. His daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, faces her own impeachment proceeding, widely viewed as an attempt to block her 2028 presidential bid.

The letter branded the case as an attempt to neuter a political dynasty through an international court rather than the ballot box.

Filipinos did not elect the ICC to referee their domestic politics. Interference of this kind is precisely what the Rome Statute was written to avoid.

The ICSA concluded that the war on drugs allegations should be remanded to Manila’s courts, that Duterte be released immediately, and the Philippines must handle its own affairs.

For an institution that peddles itself as the “last bastion of human rights protection,” the ICC’s legitimacy rests on respecting sovereign judiciaries and staying out of internal political fights.

Ignoring that principle does not strengthen international justice — it erodes it.

Respect Philippine sovereignty. End the farce.