Sara Duterte’s ICC Math Doesn’t Add Up—And Neither Does Her Defense

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — March 31, 2025

VICE President Sara Duterte has once again raised the bar for legal scholarship—by setting it on fire and dancing on the ashes. Standing defiantly near The Hague on her father’s 80th birthday, she dismissed 181 pieces of evidence and 43 murder counts as if they were an annoying grocery list. Her bold demand? That the ICC provide proof of 30,000 drug war deaths—because apparently, anything less than a stadium full of corpses is just a rounding error.

“Where’s the system of killing thousands?” she sneered, calling the prosecution’s lawyers “bobo” (stupid). Spoiler alert: The law doesn’t work like she thinks it does—and her argument’s about as sturdy as a house of cards in a typhoon.

As Rodrigo Duterte sits in custody, facing an ICC arrest warrant for crimes against humanity, Sara’s rhetoric is less a legal critique and more a political flare gun. But let’s dissect this mess with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer, and figure out what’s really at stake—legally, politically, and for the thousands of families still grieving.

Law 101 for Sara: How the ICC Rules Without a Victim Roll Call

First, the ICC isn’t playing a numbers game. Sara Duterte’s demand for a list of 30,000 victims—presumably with names, addresses, and notarized death certificates—fundamentally misreads Article 7 of the Rome Statute. Crimes against humanity don’t require a body count to match every activist’s estimate; they need proof of a “widespread or systematic attack” on civilians. The ICC’s 43 murder counts aren’t the whole case—they’re a sample, a snapshot to show a pattern.

Think of it like a chef tasting a spoonful of soup: You don’t need to drink the pot to know it’s poisoned.

Precedent backs this up. In Prosecutor v. Ntaganda (2019), the ICC convicted a Congolese warlord using representative incidents—not a census of every victim—to prove systematic violence. As ICC spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah told GMA News, even one murder can qualify as a crime against humanity if it’s part of a broader plan.

The 181 pieces of evidence Sara mocks? They’re preliminary, per Atty. Kristina Conti—think logistics, not the full dossier. Under ICC Rule 121, the confirmation of charges (set for September 23, 2025) doesn’t need a trial-ready filing cabinet yet. Conti’s right: If “naming all victims” were the standard, the Nuremberg trials would’ve needed a phonebook—and Hitler’s defense would’ve been “prove it, corpse by corpse.”

Contrast this with Philippine law, where Sara’s logic also flops. The Revised Penal Code, Article 248 defines murder, but there’s no specific statute for extrajudicial killings (EJKs)—a gap human rights groups have long decried. Domestic courts don’t demand a victim roll call to prove a crime spree; they look at intent and act. Sara’s “30,000-name fetish” is a strawman—neither the ICC nor Philippine law requires it. Worse, the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Pangilinan v. Cayetano (Rappler) nails the Philippines to its ICC obligations, even post-2019 withdrawal. The message? Cooperate or bust.

“Accountability isn’t a math test—it’s about patterns of power.”

The Deflection Dance: Sara Channels Dad, Courts Disaster

Sara’s not just wrong—she’s playing a familiar game. Her father, Rodrigo, mastered the art of bombast-as-defense: Recall his 2016 quip likening his drug war to Hitler’s genocide (BBC), a soundbite that thrilled supporters and horrified critics. Sara’s “where’s the 30,000?” echoes that bravado, doubling as a shield for her dad and a jab at the Marcos administration, which arrested him on March 11, 2025.

The Marcos-Duterte feud—think Sara’s 2024 cabinet exit and her charming “cut his head off” threat (NYT)—is the subtext here. She’s not just defending a legacy; she’s firing a warning shot ahead of the 2025 midterms.

The timing’s no accident. With Marcos Jr.’s allies polling strong (Reuters), Sara’s rhetoric could galvanize Duterte loyalists—or backfire if it alienates moderates tired of dynastic drama. Her Hague stunt, surrounded by birthday banners, reeks of political theater, not legal substance. But it’s a gamble: If the ICC case gains traction, the Dutertes’ brand of defiance could crumble under global scrutiny.

“The Marcos-Duterte feud is a distraction from the real issue: State-sponsored violence.”

Fixing the Mess: Real Moves for the ICC, Manila, and Beyond

This isn’t just a courtroom circus—it’s a chance to break the Philippines’ cycle of impunity. Here’s what needs to happen:

For the ICC Prosecution

Expand Witness Protection: The drug war’s survivors are scared silent. Beef up protection programs—safe houses, relocation, anonymity—to get more testimonies on record. The ICC’s Witness Protection Programme has the framework; use it.
Debunk the Numbers Myth: Issue a clear, public explainer on why 30,000 names aren’t needed. Counter Sara’s misinformation with facts—think infographics, not legalese—to win the PR war.

For the Philippine Government

Honor Pangilinan v. Cayetano: Full cooperation with the ICC isn’t optional—it’s law. Stop waffling and hand over evidence, or risk looking like a rogue state.
Revive Accountability: The DOJ’s drug war review panel, launched in 2021, is a ghost. Resurrect it with teeth—subpoenas, prosecutions—to show domestic justice isn’t a pipe dream.

For Human Rights Advocates

Document Like It’s 1945: Systematically catalog killings, cross-referencing with ICC samples. Think Nuremberg-level rigor—databases, not press releases.
Push for an EJK Law: Lobby Congress to define and criminalize extrajudicial killings. Close the loophole that lets cops shrug and say, “Just murder, your honor.”

For Media & Public Discourse

Drop the Body Count Debate: Stop haggling over 6,000 vs. 30,000—it’s systemic impunity that matters. Frame it as a power grab, not a stats quiz.
Draw the Line to History: Link this to Nuremberg or Pinochet’s Chile (The Conversation). Context beats soundbites.

Tables for Clarity

Comparison of Legal Standards: ICC vs. Philippine Law

**Comparison of Legal Standards: ICC vs. Philippine Law**
Aspect	ICC (Rome Statute)	Philippine Law
Definition	Widespread/systematic attack (Art. 7)	Murder (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code)
Evidence Threshold	Sample-based, pattern-focused	Case-by-case, no EJK statute
Victim Naming	Not required	Not required, but no systemic lens
Jurisdiction	2011-2019 (pre-withdrawal)	Domestic only, post-2019 gaps

**Stakeholder Recommendations**
Stakeholder	Action	Goal
ICC Prosecution	Expand witness protection, clarify standards	More evidence, public trust
Philippine Gov’t	Cooperate with ICC, revive DOJ panel	Legal duty, domestic accountability
Human Rights Groups	Document killings, push EJK law	Evidence base, legal reform
Media/Public	Focus on impunity, historical parallels	Shift narrative, educate

Stakeholder Recommendations

StakeholderActionGoalICC Prosecution Expand witness protection, clarify standards More evidence, public trust Philippine Gov’t Cooperate with ICC, revive DOJ panel Legal duty, domestic accountability Human Rights Groups Document killings, push EJK law Evidence base, legal reform Media/Public Focus on impunity, historical parallels Shift narrative, educate

TL;DR Bullet Points

Legal Flaw: Sara Duterte’s 30,000-victim demand ignores ICC standards—patterns, not totals, win cases.
Political Ploy: Her defiance apes her father’s tactics, risking midterm fallout amid Marcos tensions.
ICC Strength: Sample evidence (43 murders) suffices; Philippine cooperation is mandatory (Pangilinan).
Next Steps: Protect witnesses, enforce accountability, and reframe the debate beyond numbers.

Sara Duterte’s ICC takedown flops harder than a B-movie sequel. Legally, it’s nonsense; politically, it’s a desperate flex. The real fight isn’t about counting corpses—it’s about dismantling a system that let them pile up. Time for the Philippines, the ICC, and the world to stop arguing over spreadsheets and start delivering justice.