The implications of former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest on ICC warrant Premium

The former president’s arrest represents a significant victory for the International Criminal Court. However, questions of jurisdiction remain a challenge

Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was flown to the Netherlands on March 12, 2025, to face charges of crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for his role in the deadly “war on drugs” during his tenure. While in office, Mr. Duterte openly encouraged the police to track down and kill individuals suspected of involvement in the illegal drug trade.

The case is expected to serve as a critical test of the court’s jurisdiction, given that the Philippines is not a signatory to the Rome Statute — the treaty that established the ICC.

In a statement, the court said its Pre-Trial chamber had reviewed evidence from the Office of the Prosecutor and found reasonable grounds to believe he is “individually responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator for the crime against humanity of murder, allegedly committed in the Philippines between November 1, 2011, and March 16, 2019.”

The ICC’s investigation into extrajudicial drug-related killings under Mr. Duterte covers his tenure as Davao City mayor, starting in 2011, through his presidency, which ended in 2022. Rights organisations have long accused him of orchestrating a “death squad” in Davao—allegations he has consistently denied. His aggressive crackdown on drug syndicates became the defining theme of his victorious 2016 presidential campaign.

By the end of his term, human rights groups and the ICC prosecutor estimated that some 30,000 people had been killed by police and unidentified assailants. Mr. Duterte defended his anti-drug campaign as a necessary measure to curb street crimes. However, rights groups have accused police officers of widespread abuse, disproportionately targeting young men from the urban poor.

A 2017 Amnesty International report revealed that police officers admitted to receiving bounties of $150 to $300 per drug suspect killed, creating what the report described as an “incentive to kill.”

Despite its expansive mandate, the court lacks enforcement authority and relies on national governments to execute its warrants, rendering it vulnerable to domestic political considerations.