Debunking the Myths: Why Duterte’s Arrest Is Legal, Legitimate, and Necessary

Since the arrest of Rodrigo Duterte by Interpol in Manila, a wave of misinformation and denial has spread among his supporters. Many claim that his arrest is baseless, that the charges lack evidence, or that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has no jurisdiction over the case. These arguments, however, collapse under scrutiny.

To set the record straight, let’s address the most common misconceptions surrounding Duterte’s arrest and why it is not only legally justified but also a crucial step toward accountability.

1. “The ICC has no jurisdiction over Duterte because the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019.”

This is one of the most frequently cited arguments, but it is completely false. The ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while a country was still a member. The Philippines was a state party to the Rome Statute from 2002 to 2019, and Duterte’s most egregious human rights violations—including the thousands of extrajudicial killings (EJKs) under his drug war—occurred within this period.

Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute explicitly states that withdrawal does not absolve a state or its leaders from accountability for crimes committed before the withdrawal took effect. In other words, Duterte cannot escape justice just because the Philippines left the ICC after the crimes were committed.

2. “There’s no real evidence of extrajudicial killings—where are the videos and photos?”

The argument that “no evidence exists” is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Duterte’s war on drugs has been extensively documented by human rights organizations, independent journalists, and even the Philippine Commission on Human Rights. Reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations contain extensive testimonies from victims’ families, forensic analyses, police reports, and even direct statements from Duterte himself, where he openly encouraged the killings of suspected drug users.

Additionally, many of these killings were documented in real-time by journalists and CCTV footage. Some executions were even broadcast on social media. The idea that there is no evidence ignores the overwhelming body of documentation compiled by international and local institutions alike.

It is also important to remember that crimes against humanity are not judged based on a single piece of footage, but on systematic patterns of abuse. Courts rely on forensic reports, autopsies, eyewitness testimonies, and official records—just as they would in any case of mass human rights violations.

3. “The ICC is just interfering in Philippine affairs. Why should we let foreigners decide?”

This argument ignores a key principle of international justice: complementarity. Under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, the ICC only steps in when national courts are either unwilling or unable to prosecute crimes.

Duterte’s administration actively obstructed investigations, discouraged witnesses from testifying, and ensured that no meaningful accountability took place. The Philippine justice system has failed to provide justice for the thousands of victims of the drug war. In such cases, the ICC has both the legal and moral authority to intervene.

Let’s be clear: the ICC is not an arbitrary foreign body meddling in Philippine affairs. It is a global institution tasked with prosecuting crimes that shock the conscience of humanity—such as genocide, war crimes, and, in Duterte’s case, crimes against humanity.

4. “Duterte’s drug war was necessary to fight crime.”

Even if one argues that the war on drugs had noble intentions, state-sanctioned mass killings are never justified. The rule of law exists precisely to ensure that criminals are brought to justice through legal means, not through executions without due process.

Moreover, Duterte’s drug war did not even succeed in its stated goal. Illegal drug use remained rampant, corruption flourished within law enforcement, and many of the victims were from the country’s poorest communities—while powerful drug lords and politicians remained untouched.

A true fight against crime involves systemic reform, not mass executions that violate human rights.

5. “Duterte’s arrest is just political persecution.”

Duterte is not being prosecuted for political reasons—he is being held accountable for crimes against humanity. There is a fundamental difference. The charges against him are based on documented evidence, not political rivalry.

Additionally, Duterte’s case is not unique. The ICC has previously pursued cases against other world leaders—including Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, and Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milošević—for similar crimes. The notion that Duterte is being unfairly singled out is simply untrue.

If he is truly innocent, he will have the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. But refusing to acknowledge the charges or calling them “political” does not erase the reality of the thousands of lives lost under his leadership.

Conclusion: The Importance of Duterte’s Arrest

Duterte’s arrest marks a pivotal moment in the fight against impunity—not just in the Philippines, but globally. It sends a clear message: no leader is above the law. Those who commit crimes against their own people will be held accountable, regardless of their power or position.

For the families who lost their loved ones, this is more than just a legal proceeding. It is a long-overdue recognition of their suffering. It is proof that justice, though delayed, is not denied.

The world is watching. And history will remember which side stood for justice—and which side stood for impunity.

Read my previous opinion on the arrest: Rodrigo Duterte and the Long Arm of International Justice