Rome Statute in Focus: ICC Faces Duterte’s Latest Threats

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

A Brewing Storm

Former President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs has been a contentious issue both domestically and internationally. Since its inception, this campaign has been marked by widespread allegations of extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has taken an interest in investigating these allegations, seeing potential violations of international law.

A Voice for the Injured

Lawyers representing the victims of Duterte’s drug war have cited his recent threats against the ICC as further evidence of his culpability and a violation of the Rome Statute. Kristina Conti, an ICC-accredited lawyer, highlighted Duterte’s statements made on June 30 in Tacloban City, where he threatened ICC officials with violence. Conti argues that such threats not only undermine the court’s integrity but also constitute offenses against the administration of justice as per Article 70 of the Rome Statute.

Rome Statute and International Laws

The Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, includes provisions under Article 70 that criminalize acts intended to impede the court’s functions, such as threats or retaliation against court officials. Furthermore, Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute could hold Duterte individually responsible for crimes against humanity, should the court find sufficient evidence of his direct or indirect involvement in the drug war’s violent outcomes.

Philippine Laws and Supreme Court Decisions

Under Philippine law, particularly the Revised Penal Code, acts of murder and conspiracy are punishable offenses. The Philippine Supreme Court has also ruled in favor of international legal obligations in cases like Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary, underscoring the binding nature of treaties like the Rome Statute on domestic law. Therefore, if ICC actions align with these laws, they strengthen the argument against Duterte.

Duterte’s Likely Rebuttals

Former President Duterte and his legal team could argue several points to counter the ICC’s jurisdiction and charges. Firstly, they might assert that the Rome Statute lacks jurisdiction because the Philippines formally withdrew from the ICC in 2019. Duterte could argue that acts committed during his tenure should not be subject to the court’s purview post-withdrawal.

Secondly, invoking the principle of complementarity under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, Duterte could argue that the Philippine judicial system is capable of handling any allegations of wrongdoing, thus negating the need for ICC intervention. He may also contend that his statements were hyperbolic and not meant to be taken literally, aiming to dismiss them as inadmissible evidence of actual intent.

Measuring Success: A Two-Sided Look

Victims’ Lawyers:

Strengths: The continued documentation of threats and Duterte’s explicit statements provide compelling evidence of a pattern of behavior that undermines the rule of law and supports the charges under Article 70.
Weaknesses: The ICC’s ability to enforce its mandate is complicated by the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute, potentially limiting jurisdiction and cooperation.

Duterte’s Defense:

Strengths: The withdrawal from the ICC and the principle of complementarity present substantial legal hurdles for the prosecution to overcome.
Weaknesses: The overwhelming international and domestic evidence against Duterte’s administration’s conduct during the drug war creates a challenging defense environment, particularly if the ICC decides it retains jurisdiction.

Recommendations

For the ICC and Victims’ Lawyers:

Continued Documentation: Maintain a meticulous record of all statements and actions by Duterte that may violate the Rome Statute.
International Cooperation: Seek support from other international bodies and states to reinforce the ICC’s jurisdiction and mandate.

For Duterte’s Defense:

Legal Strategy: Focus on the jurisdictional argument and demonstrate the adequacy of the Philippine judicial system in addressing these issues.
Public Relations: Mitigate the impact of Duterte’s statements by framing them within the context of political rhetoric rather than actual intent.

Conclusion

The legal battle between the ICC and former President Duterte is a complex interplay of international and domestic law. Both sides present compelling arguments, but the ICC’s challenge will be in asserting jurisdiction and enforcing its mandate against a backdrop of political resistance and national sovereignty claims. The outcome will significantly impact international criminal law’s scope and the accountability of state leaders.