Blood and Betrayal: Remulla’s Bold Move to Protect Duterte’s Accusers

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — June 30, 2025

IN A Manila slum, Laura clutches a faded photo of her son, Joel, gunned down at 17 in Rodrigo Duterte’s ruthless drug war. The police branded him a dealer; she calls him her soul. “He was no criminal,” she whispers, her voice a mix of grief and defiance. Now a witness for the International Criminal Court (ICC), Laura risks everything to testify, her courage a fragile spark in a storm of fear. Her story, and the Philippine government’s reluctant pledge to protect her, ignites a historic clash: Can a nation that rejected the ICC still fuel its justice? The answer lies in a tangle of contradictions, political knife-fights, and moral urgency that could reshape accountability for strongmen worldwide.

Let’s be clear: the Philippines slammed the door on the ICC in 2019, denying its authority. Yet Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla now vows to shield witnesses like Laura, even as President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. insists the court has no jurisdiction. The paradox is glaring. Official counts admit 6,000 deaths in Duterte’s drug war; human rights groups, like Amnesty International, estimate 30,000—a “nation of mourning” scarred by extrajudicial slaughter. Is Remulla’s move a pragmatic nod to humanity or a Marcos-orchestrated strike at a political rival? This is more than a legal feud; it’s a test of whether a nation can face its bloody past without betraying its sovereignty.

Remulla’s Dangerous Play: Humanity or Hidden Agenda?

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: protecting penniless witnesses like Laura is the bare minimum of decency. These are the voiceless—widows, orphans, slum-dwellers—facing threats from Duterte’s still-loyal allies. Remulla’s pledge to fund their safety is laudable: “Many of them have nothing,” he told ANC, framing it as a moral duty, not ICC loyalty. But skepticism is warranted. Remulla once scorned the ICC, echoing Duterte’s defiance. Why the shift? Destroyed police reports—evidence of “institutional erasure”—gutted domestic accountability. The ICC became the only path to truth, forcing Remulla’s hand.

Yet whispers of political motives swirl. The Marcos-Duterte alliance is crumbling, with Vice President Sara Duterte facing impeachment threats. Is Remulla’s cooperation a Marcos ploy to erode the Duterte dynasty’s grip? If so, it’s a high-stakes gamble: aid the ICC to weaken a rival while dodging accusations of betraying Philippine sovereignty. The irony is sharp—Remulla, once an ICC foe, now props up its process, exposing Manila’s anti-ICC bravado as a house of cards.

Showdown Over Duterte’s Fate: Freedom or Fugitive?

Duterte, detained in The Hague, seeks interim release to another country, igniting a fierce battle. Remulla warns that freeing him risks a “fugitive crisis,” echoing victims’ fears of witness intimidation. ICC prosecutors are scathing: a man who boasted he’d “slaughter millions” can’t be trusted, they argue, citing his defiant rejection of the court’s legitimacy. Sara Duterte counters with a daughter’s plea: her “ailing, 80-year-old father” needs family care, not a cell. It’s a poignant appeal, but it collapses under scrutiny. This is the same Duterte who, as mayor and president, gloated over killings, leaving mass graves. Sara’s claim that her vice-presidential influence doesn’t extend abroad is hollow—her family’s allies still wield power, and her own political survival is tangled in this case.

Global Fallout: Can the ICC Redeem Itself?

This drama transcends Manila. The ICC, battered by accusations of bias against African leaders, sees Duterte’s case as a shot at redemption. A conviction could affirm its global reach; a failure could embolden “sovereignty hawks” worldwide. From the U.S., which sanctioned ICC judges, to autocrats eyeing impunity, the message is clear: defy international justice, and you might win. The Philippines’ half-in, half-out stance—protecting witnesses while rejecting jurisdiction—muddies the waters, risking a precedent that weakens global accountability.

A Cry for Justice: The World Must Act

To the Philippines: If your courts failed to confront Duterte’s legacy, embrace the ICC process fully. Half-hearted cooperation breeds distrust and delays justice. To the ICC: Accelerate this trial—every day of delay betrays Laura and the thousands crying for closure. To the world: Watch this case. It’s not just about Duterte; it’s about whether the poorest witnesses can topple a strongman.

If not Remulla’s uneasy compromise, then what? Silence? The ghosts of 30,000 demand better. Justice hangs in the balance—Laura’s courage, and the world’s resolve, must tip the scales.