Breaking the Cycle of Impunity: The Philippines’ Struggle for Accountability

Photo generated by Dall-E

The Philippines has long grappled with a culture of impunity, where those in power often evade accountability for crimes committed under their watch. Former President Rodrigo Duterte's brutal drug war, which led to thousands of extrajudicial killings, is a glaring example of this pattern. Yet, despite mounting international pressure, domestic legal and political realities continue to shield him from prosecution. With the International Criminal Court (ICC) reopening its investigation into the drug war, the question arises: will Duterte finally be held accountable, or will history repeat itself?

In 2018, the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. However, the Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that the withdrawal does not absolve the country of its obligations for crimes committed while it was still a member. Since the ICC had already initiated its preliminary examination in 2018—before the withdrawal took effect in 2019—its jurisdiction remains intact.

This means that despite the Marcos administration’s refusal to cooperate, the ICC retains the authority to proceed with its investigation. What remains uncertain is how the court will enforce its mandate. While the ICC relies on member states to execute arrest warrants, it has previously pursued cases even without full cooperation—most notably in Sudan, where former President Omar al-Bashir was indicted despite resistance from his government. If the ICC issues a warrant against Duterte, it could restrict his international travel and pressure allies to distance themselves from him.

While President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. has publicly expressed reluctance to cooperate with the ICC, his administration has not gone as far as providing full legal protection for Duterte. This calculated ambiguity suggests a deeper political strategy. Marcos Jr. owes part of his electoral success to Duterte’s endorsement, yet he also seeks to consolidate his own power, which could mean distancing himself from the former president's more controversial legacies.

At the same time, cracks are forming within the Duterte bloc. Vice President Sara Duterte, despite her father’s enduring popularity, has had to navigate the shifting political landscape carefully. If the ICC probe gains momentum, Marcos Jr. could leverage it to weaken the Dutertes' influence while maintaining plausible deniability. This delicate balancing act could determine whether Duterte faces justice or continues to be shielded by the very system he helped entrench.

Central to Duterte’s drug war was the claim that suspects “fought back” (nanlaban), justifying their deaths at the hands of police. However, multiple investigations—including those by the Commission on Human Rights and international bodies—have debunked this narrative. The war on drugs disproportionately targeted the poor, with little evidence that victims posed a legitimate threat to law enforcement.

This framing of police killings as acts of self-defense is not unique to the Philippines. Similar tactics have been used in authoritarian regimes to justify state violence. The challenge, therefore, is not just holding individuals accountable but dismantling the broader institutional acceptance of extrajudicial executions as a crime-fighting strategy. This requires a shift in both legal mechanisms and public perception.

Duterte’s prosecution, if it ever happens, would be historic—but true accountability demands systemic change. Legal reforms must include:

• Strengthening independent investigative bodies to ensure impartiality in human rights cases.

• Increasing judicial independence to prevent political interference in high-profile cases.

• Encouraging media and civil society to counter state propaganda and document abuses effectively.

The ICC investigation represents a critical test for the Philippines. Will the country move toward accountability, or will it once again allow power and political alliances to shield the perpetrators of grave human rights violations?

As we reflect on the current state of the Philippines’ struggle for justice and accountability, it is essential to consider the concept of cyclical time. The past is not something we can simply move away from, as modernity suggests. Rather, it is something we must engage with, learn from, and choose whether to break or perpetuate. The wreckages of history, to quote Walter Benjamin, are the unresolved legacies of a nation’s past that continue to shape its present.

For the Philippines, the cycle of impunity, political violence, and corruption is not a relic of the past, but an ongoing phenomenon that is constantly renewed. The struggle for justice must involve a conscious decision to break this cycle—not by rejecting the past, but by confronting it head-on. Only by addressing the failures of the past can the Philippines move toward a future where accountability, fairness, and justice prevail.

The question remains: can the Philippines break free from its history of impunity? The answer is tied to the courage and political will of its people and leaders to confront the cycles of power, violence, and inaction that continue to haunt the country. Only by acknowledging and breaking these cycles can true justice and reconciliation be achieved.

Read more:
Debunking the Myths: Why Duterte’s Arrest Is Legal, Legitimate, and Necessary
Rodrigo Duterte and the Long Arm of International Justice