Jailed in The Hague, Ruling Davao: Duterte’s Defiant Bid to Govern from a Cell

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — May 11, 2025

RODRIGO DUTERTE, former Philippine president and Davao’s eternal strongman, is pushing the boundaries of law and logic. Detained in The Hague on International Criminal Court (ICC) charges for crimes against humanity, he’s gunning for an eighth term as Davao City mayor in the May 12, 2025, elections. If he wins, he’d be proclaimed in absentia, with son Sebastian as acting mayor and grandson Rodrigo II primed to keep the family’s throne warm. This brazen scheme—legally possible but morally bankrupt—lays bare the Philippines’ legal loopholes, dynastic stranglehold, and crumbling democratic norms. Below is a razor-sharp analysis of the legal, practical, and ethical chaos.

Can Duterte Pull Off a Mayor’s Coup from a Dutch Prison?

Philippine law rolls out the red carpet for Duterte’s audacious bid. Here’s the legal scaffolding holding up this farce.

Proclamation in Absentia: Comelec’s Free Pass

The Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) governs elections and, per Comelec Chair George Garcia, allows winners to be proclaimed in absentia. Section 231 mandates swift proclamation, with no clause barring absent candidates. Precedents like Gloria Arroyo’s 2013 congressional victory while under hospital arrest for electoral sabotage Philippine politicians who have run for election behind bars confirm that detention, absent a final conviction, doesn’t disqualify. Duterte, yet to be convicted by the ICC, sails through. Comelec’s job ends with the proclamation, dumping the fallout on others.

Oath-Taking Behind Bars: Swearing Allegiance from a Cell

To assume office, Duterte must take the oath, per Section 43, Local Government Code (RA 7160). Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code) permits oaths by authorized officials, like embassy staff, with no venue restrictions. Former Justice Secretary Silvestre Bello’s claim that Duterte can swear “anywhere with notice to ICC” aligns with Dean Antonio Arellano’s view that the administrator’s authority trumps location. Duterte could oath-take via video or at the Philippine Embassy in The Hague, ICC permitting. The Supreme Court’s People v. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875, 2000 supports this, noting detention doesn’t inherently void duties if formalities are met.

Passing the Baton: Sebastian’s Ready-Made Regency

If Duterte swears in but can’t govern, Section 46(b), RA 7160 activates: the vice mayor—Sebastian Duterte—becomes acting mayor for temporary incapacity. Casimiro v. Rood, G.R. No. 204579, 2014 clarifies that succession ensures continuity without a permanent vacancy, as seen in disputes over local executive absences. If Sebastian steps up, the top councilor—likely Rodrigo II, strategically positioned—acts as vice mayor, per Section 46(c). The Dutertes have choreographed a legal relay race to keep power in the family.

The law is Duterte’s accomplice, enabling proclamation, oath-taking, and delegation. But legality doesn’t equal legitimacy, and the cracks are glaring.

Governing from a Cage: A Mayor’s Mission Impossible

Even if Duterte clears legal hurdles, running Davao from The Hague is a logistical disaster. ICC detention means tight communication controls, monitored interactions, and no guarantee of governance tools. The Local Government Code demands hands-on leadership: budgets, policies, public engagement (Sections 17, 444). Can Duterte sign ordinances from a cell? Will the ICC allow Zoom for council meetings? The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) lacks answers for this unprecedented scenario.

Oath-taking, while legally viable, depends on ICC cooperation. The Philippine Embassy could administer it, but Duterte’s detention complicates access. Unlike Arroyo’s domestic detention, his international status—tied to the Philippines’ 2019 ICC withdrawal—adds diplomatic thorns. The ICC’s Rome Statute prioritizes detainee rights but doesn’t account for mayors running cities.

Sebastian as acting mayor eases some issues but spawns others. His unopposed 2019 and 2022 vice-mayoral runs reflect a machine that crushes competition. Elevating Rodrigo II, a 27-year-old novice, as top councilor screams nepotism. Tarpaulins urging voters to “make Rigo first” reveal a family banking on loyalty, not competence. With Duterte’s ICC case—next hearing September 23, 2025—potentially spanning years, Davao risks administrative limbo under a shadow mayor.

Dynastic Desks and Democratic Decay: Ethical Landmines

The Duterte dynasty’s grip—34 of 37 years as Davao mayors since 1988—is a dynastic dynasty on steroids. The 1987 Constitution’s anti-dynasty clause (Article II, Section 26) condemns dynasties but lacks teeth without enabling laws (Miranda v. Abaya, G.R. No. 136351 July 28, 1999). Five Dutertes running in 2025, plus a party-list nominee, turn Davao into a family empire. This isn’t governance; it’s a hereditary heist.

Ethically, Duterte’s bid violates RA 6713 (Code of Conduct for Public Officials), which demands integrity and trust. Electing a mayor detained for alleged crimes against humanity—tied to his drug war—mocks accountability. Jalosjos warned that public office isn’t a personal fiefdom. Duterte’s candidacy, propped by a family ready to inherit, spits on this.

Can Duterte govern effectively from The Hague? No. A mayor needs presence, engagement, and real-time decisions—impossible under ICC rules. Sebastian’s proxy role smells of puppetry, eroding democratic legitimacy. Voters choose a mayor, not a figurehead. The Marcos administration’s apparent backing of opponent Karlo Nograles and Duterte’s airport arrest signal a political showdown, yet tarpaulins tying the election to “saving VP Sara” frame it as a loyalty test, not a policy debate.

Fixing the Fiasco: Reforms to Stop the Duterte Playbook

This saga demands systemic overhaul:

Crush Dynasties: Pass legislation for Article II, Section 26, capping family members’ simultaneous or successive office-holding to break dynastic monopolies.
Bar Jailed Officials: Amend RA 7160 to declare vacancies for officials detained abroad beyond six months, preventing proxy rule.
Tighten Ethics: Update RA 6713 to disqualify candidates facing serious international charges, balancing due process with trust.
Empower Comelec: Revise the Omnibus Election Code to require Comelec to assess detained candidates’ governance feasibility before proclamation.
Demand Transparency: Mandate acting officials like Sebastian to report decisions, ensuring voters know who’s calling the shots.

Verdict: A Legal Loophole, a Democratic Disgrace

Duterte’s bid to rule Davao from an ICC cell is legally viable but democratically deplorable. The Omnibus Election Code, Local Government Code, and Administrative Code enable his proclamation, oath, and delegation to Sebastian, with Rodrigo II as backup. Cases like Arroyo’s 2013 win Philstar and Jalosjos back this, but ICC restrictions make governance a fantasy. The Duterte dynasty’s chokehold, unchecked by Article II, Section 26, and ethical breaches under RA 6713 expose a democracy in distress.

The law may allow this travesty, but voters and lawmakers must slam the brakes. Davao needs a mayor in City Hall, not a dynasty ruling by remote. Without reforms, the Philippines risks cementing governance as a family dynasty, not a public trust.

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.