Imee’s Legal Clown Show: Probing Duterte’s Arrest to Steal the Marcos Spotlight

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — April 29, 2025

Senator Imee Marcos’ crusade to unleash the Ombudsman on Cabinet officials over former President Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest isn’t a quest for justice—it’s a political assassination cloaked in Interpol’s badge. The charges—graft, misconduct, usurpation, arbitrary detention—are a prosecutor’s fever dream, collapsing under the weight of legal reality. The Philippines bolted from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2019, yet here we are, with officials like Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla and PNP chief Gen. Rommel Francisco Marbil cast as villains for doing their jobs. This is less about law and more about the Marcos-Duterte dynasty war, with Imee’s probe as the latest salvo in a saga that makes Game of Thrones look like a family picnic. Let’s shred the allegations with a skeptical scalpel, champion the targeted officials, and expose the rickety legal and political stagecraft behind this farce.

Jurisdiction Junkyard: The ICC’s Toothless Tirade

The Philippines’ 2019 exit from the ICC was supposed to slam the door shut. Yet, Duterte’s March 11, 2025, arrest on an ICC warrant for crimes against humanity suggests someone kicked it back open. The targeted officials followed Interpol’s lead, but the legal footing for enforcing an ICC warrant in a non-member state is shakier than a Manila skyscraper in an earthquake.

No Domestic Lifeline: The Supreme Court’s Bayan Muna v. Romulo (G.R. No. 159618, 2011) ruling is a steel trap: international treaties need domestic laws to bite. The ICC’s 2019 exit was sealed tighter than a Manila vault, with Pangilinan v. Cayetano (G.R. No. 238875, 2021) slamming the door on Senate concurrence gripes. No domestic law—Presidential Decree No. 1069 (Philippine Extradition Law) or otherwise—greenlights ICC warrants, and Pangilinan’s musings on ‘cooperation’ are as binding as a politician’s promise. The officials’ trust in Interpol’s red notice was a good-faith stab at global teamwork, not a lawless coup. Imee’s probe, chasing ICC ghosts, is just dynastic noise.
Interpol’s Paper Tiger: Interpol’s red notices are suggestions, not sledgehammers, and can’t trump domestic law. In Astorga v. People (G.R. No. 154130), the Supreme Court backed detentions grounded in lawful authority, even under contentious conditions. The officials reasonably saw Interpol’s request as part of their duty under Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which embraces international law’s broad strokes.
ICC’s Borderline Banditry: The ICC claims jurisdiction over crimes from 2011-2019, when the Philippines was in its fold (ICC Philippines). But chasing warrants in a sovereign state that quit the club in 2019 is jurisdictional hubris. Human Rights Watch may clap like trained seals (HRW), but their cheers don’t rewrite Philippine statutes. The officials were pawns in a global chess game, not masterminds of a sinister plot.

The jurisdictional quagmire torpedoes the allegations. If the arrest lacks domestic legs, blame the ICC for issuing toothless warrants, not the officials for acting in good faith.

Charges That Flop: A Legal Dumpster Fire

Senator Marcos’ smorgasbord of charges—graft, misconduct, usurpation, arbitrary detention—sounds like a legal horror flick but fizzles under a spotlight. Let’s torch each one, fiercely defending the officials’ corner.

Usurpation of Judicial Functions: Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) slaps those who hijack judicial roles without a badge. Arresting Duterte was pure executive muscle, not courtroom cosplay. The Supreme Court in Pacis v, Pamaran (G.R. No. L-23996) made it clear: executive officers following lawful orders don’t steal judges’ robes. The officials acted on what they saw as a legit Interpol-backed warrant, not as wannabe justices. Labeling this usurpation is like accusing a chef of piracy for slicing fish.
Arbitrary Detention: Article 124 of the RPC (RPC) demands detention without legal roots. The ICC warrant, issued March 7, 2025, gave a seemingly solid foundation, even if its local enforceability is a gray zone. Astorga v. People confirms that detention tied to a perceived lawful order isn’t arbitrary. The officials moved under Interpol’s global glare, not a vendetta. Calling this “arbitrary” is a buzzword, not a brief.
Graft and Grave Misconduct: Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft Law) needs proof of pocket-lining or corrupt schemes. Where’s the cash? The news report shows no trace of bribes or perks (ABS-CBN). Grave misconduct implies brazen defiance of duty, but the officials’ moves sync with Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct), which champions public interest and global cooperation. This charge is a witch hunt, not a prosecution.
Ethical Fortress: The officials’ reliance on Interpol reflects their duty to uphold the rule of law, not sabotage it. R.A. 6713 demands integrity, not omniscience. Defying Interpol could’ve exiled the Philippines from global law enforcement, as President Marcos Jr. warned: “If we don’t help Interpol, they won’t help us with Filipino fugitives abroad.” The true ethical foul is weaponizing the Ombudsman for political theater.

Table 1: Charges vs. Legal Defenses

Charge

Legal Basis

Defense

Likelihood of Success

Usurpation of Judicial Functions

Article 177, RPC

Arrest was executive, not judicial (

G.R. No. L-23996

)

Low—within official duties

Arbitrary Detention

Article 124, RPC

Detention based on ICC warrant, good-faith reliance (

G.R. No. 154130

)

Low—facially valid grounds

Graft

R.A. 3019

No evidence of personal gain or corrupt intent

Very low—no proof

Grave Misconduct

R.A. 6713

Actions aligned with public interest, international duty

Very low—duty-bound

Dynasty Deathmatch: The Marcos-Duterte Cage Fight

Imee Marcos’ probe isn’t a legal reckoning; it’s a front-row seat to the Marcos-Duterte blood feud, where loyalty is a myth and power is the prize. Duterte’s arrest, as the father of Imee’s ally Sara Duterte, is the spark in a rivalry that’s more about thrones than truth.

Feud Flashpoints: The Marcos-Duterte pact imploded when Sara Duterte ditched the Vice Presidency in 2024, slamming Marcos Jr.’s regime. Imee’s probe, kicked off in March 2025, aligns with her reelection hustle, fishing for Duterte loyalists’ votes. Her “group effort” conspiracy talk is pure drama, with no receipts—just hot air.
Smoke and Mirrors: Imee’s jab that the administration is dodging scrutiny by hyping the China maritime spat is peak hypocrisy. Her probe’s “additional findings” are a sequel nobody asked for, timed to steal the spotlight. Malacañang’s denial of a Hague-orchestrated plot (CNN) holds up—Duterte’s transfer was Interpol’s playbook, not a Marcos manifesto.
Puppet Masters’ Playbook: Imee’s cries of political motivation boomerang. If Marcos Jr. orchestrated the arrest, where’s the proof? Imee’s the one milking Duterte’s plight to rally populists. Human Rights Watch’s ICC fanfare (HRW) hands her a “foreign interference” card, a Philippine political ace.

Table 2: Timeline of Marcos-Duterte Feud

Date

Event

Significance

June 2022

Marcos Jr. elected President, Sara Duterte as VP

Alliance intact, uniting two dynasties

2024

Sara Duterte resigns as VP

Public split, tensions escalate

March 11, 2025

Duterte arrested on ICC warrant

Flashpoint, Imee launches Senate probe

April 29, 2025

Imee calls for Ombudsman probe

Political escalation, reelection posturing

Closing: Justice or Joker’s Wild?

The case against Remulla, Marbil, and their cohort is a legal sandcastle, washed away by the tide of reason. The ICC’s warrant lacks domestic claws post-2019, and the officials’ good-faith dance with Interpol shields them from blame. The charges—usurpation, detention, graft—are either misaimed or baseless, folding under legal pressure. Politically, Imee Marcos’ probe is a sideshow in the Marcos-Duterte cage match, more about headlines than honor. When law turns into a vendetta’s tool, even the guilty deserve sharper blades—and the accused deserve truth. This isn’t a trial; it’s a tantrum, and the director’s motives shine brighter than the legal flaws in her script.

Hyperlinks:

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.