Remulla vs. Impunity: No Exemptions, Not Even for Duterte

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — October 21, 2024

JUSTICE is knocking at Rodrigo Duterte’s door. After years of leading one of the bloodiest drug wars in modern history, the former president of the Philippines now finds himself at the center of an investigation that could redefine his legacy. Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla has made it clear: not even Duterte is above the law, as the nation seeks answers for thousands of extrajudicial killings.

This is more than just a cold case reopening. It is a test of whether the Philippines is prepared to hold powerful figures accountable for alleged crimes committed under the banner of public safety. The implications are seismic, both domestically and internationally. They also present an uncomfortable dilemma: can justice truly be achieved in a national investigation without triggering further intervention from the International Criminal Court (ICC)?

Quadcom’s Damning Testimonies: Accountability or Illusion?

The House of Representatives’ Quad Committee (Quadcom) has unearthed troubling testimonies that implicate high-ranking officials in the Duterte administration, exposing a network of complicity that enabled EJKs. The revelations go beyond isolated acts of rogue law enforcement—suggesting systematic and deliberate targeting of civilians, a hallmark of crimes against humanity. Witnesses have spoken of official directives to eliminate suspects without due process, placing the moral weight of these killings not just on individual officers, but on those who gave the orders from above.

It is here that Remulla’s promise to “spare no one” takes on both symbolic and practical significance. If the investigation reaches Duterte—and all indicators suggest it might—it will be the first time in Philippine history that a former president could face criminal liability for atrocities committed while in office.

The ICC’s Shadow: Complementarity at Play

The ICC has been investigating Duterte’s drug war since 2018, classifying the killings as potential crimes against humanity. However, Duterte’s government withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019, arguing that the Philippines no longer falls under ICC jurisdiction. Remulla has echoed this position, emphasizing the principle of sovereignty and asserting that domestic institutions are capable of delivering justice. This legal tug-of-war hinges on the ICC’s doctrine of complementarity—whether the national courts are “genuinely willing and able” to prosecute.

If the Philippines proceeds earnestly with the investigation, it could diminish the ICC’s justification to intervene. On the other hand, critics argue that the Philippine judiciary may lack the independence to convict Duterte. If the national probe is perceived as a political theater meant to shield him, the ICC could reassert jurisdiction.

Remulla’s Gamble: Law, Fairness, and Political Will

Remulla’s decision to pursue this investigation comes with profound legal and political stakes. Domestically, he must demonstrate that no individual is above the law—a principle embedded in both the Philippine Constitution and Supreme Court precedents on equal justice. The Revised Penal Code holds anyone who orders or enables a crime as equally liable as those who execute it. Furthermore, human rights treaties ratified by the Philippines compel the state to investigate and prosecute grave human rights violations.

By reopening these cases, Remulla signals a commitment to justice, but also makes himself a target of powerful interests. His declaration that even Duterte will not be spared, if evidence warrants it, is a bold assertion of independence. Yet, the success of this probe will depend not just on the law but on political will. Will the government allow Remulla to follow through if the investigation leads to Duterte’s door?

The legal landscape is intricate. If Duterte is implicated, he could face murder or homicide charges and even be held accountable under domestic laws for crimes against humanity, which mirror international standards. His refusal to cooperate with the ICC suggests a strategy to shield himself through domestic legal channels, where political allies could provide some cover. But if Remulla is sincere in holding all offenders accountable, even this legal insulation could crumble.

Duterte’s Counteroffensive: Sovereignty and Denial

Duterte has consistently denied involvement in EJKs, shifting responsibility to overzealous police officers and framing the campaign as a necessary response to a drug crisis. His legal team will likely argue that the war on drugs was a legitimate exercise of executive power—an emergency response to a national security threat. Furthermore, they may invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity, insisting that any charges related to his presidency must be handled domestically.

Their main thrust, however, will be challenging the ICC’s jurisdiction. They will argue that the national probe satisfies the principle of complementarity, rendering the ICC’s involvement unnecessary. Duterte’s legal defense could also focus on discrediting witnesses and evidence, portraying them as politically motivated attacks. This strategy aligns with his broader narrative of victimization at the hands of “bleeding-heart” human rights advocates.

The ICC’s Calculus: Will It Stand Down?

The ICC will be closely monitoring the progress of the Philippine investigation. If Remulla’s probe gathers credible evidence and proceeds with impartiality, the ICC may decide to step back. However, the court has a mandate to act as a last resort when national systems are unwilling or unable to prosecute serious crimes. If the investigation stalls or shows signs of bias, the ICC could push forward with its case against Duterte, including issuing an arrest warrant.

A key challenge for the ICC lies in enforcement. Even if the court pursues Duterte, it must rely on member states to arrest and extradite him—a daunting task for an institution that has struggled with compliance in the past.

The Ripple Effect: Justice or Political Fallout?

The outcome of this investigation could reshape the political landscape in the Philippines. A conviction would not only tarnish Duterte’s legacy but also deter future leaders from employing similar tactics. Conversely, an acquittal—whether by design or through lack of evidence—could embolden other leaders to skirt accountability under the guise of sovereignty.

Internationally, the case will be seen as a bellwether for the Philippines’ commitment to human rights and the rule of law. A credible investigation would bolster the country’s reputation and could ease international pressure. But if it fails, the Philippines risks becoming further isolated, with the ICC and human rights organizations intensifying their scrutiny.

Recommendations: A Path Forward

For Remulla: He must ensure that the investigation is transparent, thorough, and free from political interference. Building public trust in the process is essential. He should also engage international observers to enhance credibility and guard against accusations of bias.

For Duterte: If he believes in his innocence, Duterte should cooperate fully with the investigation. His willingness to be tried domestically could strengthen his claim that the Philippines is capable of handling the case without ICC intervention.

For the ICC: The court must remain vigilant but patient. It should monitor the Philippine investigation closely and intervene only if it becomes clear that justice will not be served. Flexibility in working with national institutions could foster greater accountability.

What happens next will shape the future of justice in the Philippines. Duterte’s fate—whether of guilt or innocence—will send ripples across the nation’s conscience, challenging its ability to face the darkest chapters of its past. As the investigation unfolds, one truth remains: justice must be blind to power, and no leader, not even Duterte, can be shielded from the reckoning that awaits.