Duterte’s Get-Out-of-Jail Card: Will the ICC Let a Warlord Walk?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C

Biraogo — June 26, 2025

In a Davao City slum, Maria clutches a faded photo of her son, gunned down in Rodrigo Duterte’s merciless “war on drugs.” Her whisper cuts through the humid air: “He’s still out there, controlling everything.” She doesn’t fear the frail 80-year-old Duterte claims to be in his plea for interim release from the International Criminal Court (ICC). She fears the man whose shadow, even from a cell in The Hague, silences witnesses. A March 2025 video shows him thrashing against ICC agents, snarling, “You’ll have to kill me!”—no hint of the feeble elder his lawyers paint. As the ICC weighs his bid to be freed to a secret country, it teeters on a razor’s edge: will it chain a butcher or let him slip through justice’s grasp?

The Punisher’s Defiant Snarl

Duterte’s defense, led by Nicholas Kaufman, peddles a fiction of compliance, claiming the former president poses no flight risk and will obey conditions like avoiding public engagement or witness contact. They dangle the promise of a Rome Statute signatory nation to monitor him. But the prosecution’s searing 15-page filing on June 23, 2025, obliterates this façade. It cites Duterte’s violent resistance during his March arrest in Manila, where he dared officers to kill him rather than take him to The Hague. His common-law wife, Honeylet Avanceña, assaulted an officer with a cellphone, while his daughter Veronica fueled a “kidnapping” narrative on social media, branding his transfer an abduction. This defiance, Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang argues, reveals a man who scorns the ICC’s authority and would bolt at the first chance.

Duterte’s own words betray him. Before his arrest, he vowed a “shootout” if the ICC came, a threat documented in the prosecution’s filing. Kaufman’s claim that the arrest was a “political hit-job” and a “collusion” with Manila only amplifies this narrative, painting Duterte as a victim unbound by legal duty. The prosecution warns that release would invite escape, noting, “A victim of a kidnapping is unlikely to return to the custody of the kidnapper.” With a confirmation hearing looming in September, the ICC cannot gamble on a man who sees himself above its reach.

A Machine of Fear and Silence

Flight risk is only half the danger. Duterte’s political machine, still humming with menace, threatens witnesses like Maria. His daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, wields national influence, while his son Sebastian serves as Davao’s vice mayor. Duterte himself, elected Davao City mayor in May 2025 with “overwhelming support,” admits sway over local law enforcement. The prosecution cites a chilling history: in 2009, Duterte allegedly plotted to assassinate then-human rights commissioner Leila de Lima for probing his Davao death squads. In 2016-17 Senate hearings, his allies reportedly ordered police to “neutralize” critics like Edgar Matobato. Even now, Maria told Human Rights Watch in June 2025, “His men came to my house last month, saying I’d pay if I spoke.”

This is no idle threat. Duterte’s presidency saw him urge citizens to “kill” bishops and activists who criticized his drug war, which the ICC links to 6,200–30,000 deaths. His pre-arrest vow to “double” killings if returned to Davao underscores the peril of release. Article 68(1) of the Rome Statute mandates witness protection, yet freeing Duterte risks unleashing his loyalists on vulnerable families. As ICC assistant counsel Kristina Conti posted on X, his “huge” power and wealth could make witnesses “disappear.” The Court must not ignore this bloodstained pattern.

The Veiled Haven: A Scandal of Secrecy

The secrecy shrouding Duterte’s proposed host country is a scandal in itself. Both defense and prosecution filings redact the nation’s identity, a move that reeks of compromise. The prosecution reveals they had agreed to release Duterte to one country under strict conditions but rejected his current proposed location, citing its weak ICC cooperation and inability to enforce monitoring. Why the veil? The ICC’s past opacity, like Laurent Gbagbo’s opaque 2019 release terms, eroded trust. Without naming the country, how can the Court ensure compliance with Article 58(1)(b), which demands detention if flight or obstruction risks persist? Is this a safe haven where Duterte’s allies can shield him? The prosecution’s note that Duterte’s history of insulting world leaders—like calling Obama a “son of a whore”—undermines his promise not to “embarrass” his hosts is a stark warning. Transparency is non-negotiable.

Shattering the Frail Facade

Duterte’s defense leans on his age (80) and supposed ill health, painting a sympathetic elder. Yet, days before his March arrest, he delivered a fiery, hour-long speech in Hong Kong, rallying supporters with no hint of frailty, as noted in the prosecution’s filing. The prosecution dismantles this, noting ICC Rule 118(2) requires “exceptional circumstances” for release, not just old age. Unlike Paul Gicheru’s 2021 release for lesser charges, Duterte faces Article 5 crimes—mass atrocities tied to murder, torture, and rape. Slobodan Milošević’s health pleas at the ICTY never swayed judges, and Duterte’s lack of specific medical evidence weakens his case. My June 2025 column questioned the prosecution’s initial non-opposition to release, suspecting a strategic fumble. Their June 23 filing corrects this with hard evidence, but their earlier openness to a different country hints at troubling pragmatism. With 421 documents and 16 hours of audio-visual evidence, the case is robust—why entertain leniency?

Marcos’s Cynical Chessboard

A darker question looms: is President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. playing politics with justice? His administration’s cooperation with Duterte’s arrest, after years of ICC defiance, smells of calculation. With Sara Duterte facing impeachment and the Marcos-Duterte alliance fraying, Marcos may see Duterte’s exile as a way to sideline a rival without alienating his base. Malacañang’s vague “it’s up to the ICC” stance, reported by ABS-CBN News on June 13, 2025, feels like a dodge, not a commitment. This silence fuels Duterte’s “kidnapping” narrative, risking further erosion of the ICC’s legitimacy in the Philippines. Marcos’s game could undermine justice for short-term political gain.

A Warning to the World

The ICC’s decision will echo far beyond Manila. Releasing Duterte could signal to autocrats that power and defiance trump accountability. Gbagbo’s 2019 release after a weakened case sparked cries of ICC leniency; Duterte’s case, with overwhelming evidence, raises the stakes higher. A misstep risks emboldening figures like Myanmar’s junta or Syria’s Assad, while deepening Global South skepticism of the ICC’s fairness, as noted in a 2018 UNA-UK report. The Court must draw a line in the sand.

The Screams of Davao’s Ghosts

Maria’s story echoes thousands. Families of the drug war’s 6,200–30,000 victims live in fear, their pain amplified by Duterte’s bid for freedom. Rise Up for Life and Rights told Rappler in June 2025, “His release would let him sway opinion and dodge accountability.” Maria’s plea—“Don’t let him silence us again”—is a moral mandate under Article 68(1). The ICC must prioritize these voices over one man’s comfort.

The ICC’s Moment of Truth

The Court must act with iron resolve:

Unveil the Host: Disclose the host country and vet its monitoring capacity. Secrecy invites distrust and evasion.
Lock Down Safeguards: Mandate 24/7 surveillance, a public no-contact order for witnesses, and regular ICC check-ins.
Slay the ‘Kidnapping’ Myth: Publicly affirm the arrest’s legality to dismantle Duterte’s propaganda.

Justice or a Warlord’s Triumph?

The ghosts of Davao—mothers like Maria, children orphaned by Duterte’s orders—demand more than legal theater. The ICC stands at a crossroads: will it guard the gates of justice or hand a warlord the key to walk free? Denying release isn’t just about one man; it’s about proving no one, not even a self-styled Punisher, is above the law. The Court must choose: accountability or capitulation. The world is watching, and the ghosts of Davao will not be silenced.