The DILG’s Hail Mary to Swear in Duterte: A Legal, Ethical, and Political Circus

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — May 26, 2025

THE Department of Interior and Local Government’s (DILG) audacious plan to let Rodrigo Duterte take his oath as Davao City mayor from an ICC detention cell isn’t just a long shot—it’s a constitutional clown car speeding toward a brick wall. Below, we dissect the legal quagmire, ethical facepalm, and political soap opera of this proposal, with a sharp Above the Law lens. Buckle up.

1. The Backstory: A Mandate Marooned in The Hague

On May 26, 2025, GMA News dropped a bombshell: DILG Secretary Jonvic Remulla wants to coordinate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) to allow former President Rodrigo Duterte, detained in The Hague for crimes against humanity tied to his drug war, to swear in as Davao City’s mayor. Duterte, elected with a whopping 662,630 votes in the May 2025 midterms, was proclaimed mayor by COMELEC the day after the polls. But his March 11, 2025, arrest and detention at Scheveningen Prison for alleged murder, torture, and rape under the Rome Statute throws a wrench into his plans. Remulla floated sending a Philippine consul to administer the oath, admitting Vice Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte would lead in his absence due to the need for physical presence.

This clash pits Duterte’s electoral triumph against his ICC shackles, igniting a firestorm over whether a mayor can govern from a prison cell 6,000 miles away. Add the Marcos-Duterte feud, and it’s a recipe for chaos.

2. Legal Breakdown: A House of Cards Built on Sand

Rome Statute: No VIP Pass for Mayoral Duties

The Rome Statute is crystal clear: ICC detainees aren’t moonlighting as city officials. Article 60 covers detainee rights like interim release hearings but doesn’t mention external duties like oath-taking. Article 63 demands physical trial presence, and ICC detention rules—no internet, limited communication—make remote governance a pipe dream ICC. The ICC’s detention center isn’t a WeWork for mayors; it’s a lockup for alleged war criminals.

The Philippines’ 2019 ICC withdrawal adds a twist. The ICC claims jurisdiction over 2011–2019 crimes, but the DILG’s request risks signaling cooperation, clashing with the Marcos administration’s anti-ICC stance and Duterte allies’ cries of “sovereignty violation” Council on Foreign Relations.

Philippine Law: You Can’t Zoom In as Mayor

The Local Government Code (RA 7160) is brutal on this. Section 43 mandates elected officials assume office in person at term’s start. Duterte’s Hague detention makes this a nonstarter. An embassy oath, as suggested, lacks clear backing in the Code, and ICC restrictions muddy the waters further Facebook post by Race Del Rosario.

Section 46 kicks in for temporary incapacity, like detention, handing duties to the vice mayor—here, Sebastian Duterte. The Supreme Court’s Aldovino v. COMELEC (2010) backs this, affirming succession for incapacitated officials. If detention drags past six months, Section 44(d) could trigger constructive abandonment, making Sebastian mayor and elevating a councilor.

People v. Jalosjos (2001) is the knockout punch: a detained congressman couldn’t serve, as election doesn’t trump incarceration. Duterte’s not under house arrest like Arroyo in 2013; he’s in a high-security ICC cell, far from Davao’s city hall.

Procedural Pitfalls: Oath or Farce?

Even if the ICC greenlights an embassy oath, its validity under RA 7160 is dubious. The Code assumes physical governance, and Jalosjos suggests detention voids this. A symbolic oath without duties is political theater, risking a COMELEC-declared vacancy if absence persists. The DILG’s plan is less a legal strategy than a stunt destined to flop.

3. Ethical and Political Firestorm: Trust Torched, Power Plays Exposed

Public Trust: A Middle Finger to Accountability

Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution declares public office a public trust, demanding integrity. Swearing in Duterte, who faces charges for extrajudicial killings, while he’s unable to govern, is a slap in the face to Davao’s voters. It’s not just misleading—it violates the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards (RA 6713), which demands public officials uphold trust, not stage symbolic stunts Respicio & Co. Law Firm.

Sovereignty Shenanigans: A Diplomatic Dumpster Fire

The DILG’s ICC outreach is a head-scratcher for a Marcos administration that’s shunned ICC cooperation. Coordinating with The Hague risks legitimizing ICC jurisdiction, contradicting Duterte allies like Salvador Medialdea, who called the arrest a “kidnapping” ABS-CBN News. It’s a sovereignty tightrope, and Remulla’s walking it blindfolded.

Political Puppet Show: Marcos vs. Duterte, Round 472

The Marcos-Duterte rift, once an uneasy 2022 alliance, is the elephant in the room. Vice President Sara Duterte’s push for oath-taking options and her “sovereignty violation” rhetoric scream political maneuvering ABS-CBN News. Remulla’s proposal could be a sly Marcos move to highlight Duterte’s incapacity, weakening the Duterte dynasty’s Davao stronghold. X posts, like @bobitiglao’s claim that Marcos “condemned Duterte to a biased court” , show the public’s split: half see Duterte’s mandate as sacred, half see his detention as justice. This isn’t law—it’s a telenovela with gavels.

4. Fixing the Fiasco: Three Steps to Sanity

Hand the Gavel to Sebastian Duterte: The DILG should ditch the ICC pipe dream and follow Aldovino v. COMELEC, letting Vice Mayor Sebastian Duterte take over as acting mayor per Section 46. This ensures Davao’s governance doesn’t stall.
Congress, Get Your Act Together: Pass a law clarifying oath-taking and succession for detained officials. RA 7160’s vagueness on extraterritorial oaths and incapacity fuels this circus. Define “temporary incapacity” and close the loopholes.
ICC, Stay in Your Lane: The ICC should slam the door on this request. Its Rome Statute mandate is justice, not enabling political pageantry. Saying no preserves its credibility.

Conclusion: Governing from a Cell? That’s a Hard Pass

The DILG’s bid to swear in Duterte from The Hague is a legal dead-end, an ethical trainwreck, and a political power grab dressed in bureaucratic drag. Philippine law demands presence, the ICC prioritizes prosecution, and voters deserve better than a mayor who can’t show up. With Sebastian Duterte ready to step in, this proposal is a distraction from the real issue: governance, not grandstanding. So, should a mayor govern from a prison cell, or is this a constitutional absurdity?