95bFM What former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest mean for the ICC
5 April, 2025
Interview by Caeden Tipler, adapted by Lydia Brassil
Curtin University’s Dr Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria discusses the impact of the International Criminal Court’s arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on the ICC’s ability to carry out its mandate, especially in light of recent sanctions and criticism. Image: Rodrigo Duterte (2017) - Wikimedia Commons
Former President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, who was the President of the Asian country from 2016 to 2022, has been arrested by the International Criminal Court, or ICC, for crimes against humanity.
Duterte’s charges are a result of his war on drugs, which resulted in the authorisation of “death squads”.
Philippine police recorded 6,000 deaths as a result of these squads, however, human rights groups estimate this number to be closer to 30,000. Most of those killed were young men from low socio-economic areas in the country.
Duterte’s arrest comes amid the arrest warrants of other political figures, such as Russian President, Vladimir Putin, and Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Law Lecturer at Curtin University in Perth, Australia, Dr Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, told 95bFM’s The Wire that Duterte’s arrest was “pivotal” for the ICC, due to how swift the former president’s arrest was.
“The arrest warrant for the former President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, was only granted at the beginning of March, like mid-March … and only five days after, he was apprehended by the state authorities of the Philippines and just immediately put on a plane to The Hague, to the International Criminal Court.”
“In recent years, that is probably the fastest arrest warrant [that] has been executed.”
Another significance of Duterte’s arrest, Breitwieser-Faria says, is that his arrest marks the first Asian head of State to be brought before the ICC.
As of 2025, the Philippines is not an ICC State Party, having withdrawn from the Statute in March 2018, before coming into effect in March 2019. The progression of cases before the ICC depends on the Court’s jurisdiction over a state.
However, Breitwieser-Faria explains that as the Philippines were previously a State Party to the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, this gives the Court jurisdiction over any crimes against humanity that occurred until 2019.
“In that sense, anything that's happened before [the Phillipines withdrawing from the ICC] can be brought before the [Court] regardless of whether the Philippines is a state party to it now or not, mean[ing] that Duterte, as being the former Filipino president, is able to be brought before the ICC as well,” she says.
Despite many Philippine citizens expressing support for the former president, Breitwieser-Faria says his arrest is “probably one [of] the least controversial ones that's in the headlines in relation to the ICC at the moment”.
In contrast to Duterte’s arrest, the delay in executing the arrest warrants of Russian President, Vladimir Putin, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Breitwieser-Faria attributes to the controversy surrounding these cases and the contested legality of the warrants.
“Neither one of those states [is] actually a State Party to the Rome Statute and never were, and the Security Council of the United Nations also never referred those situations to the ICC.”
However, Breitwieser-Faria explains that the ICC still has influence in these cases as the crimes in question have been committed in Ukraine and Palestine, where the ICC has jurisdiction.
Moving forward, Breitwieser-Faria believes the ICC will continue to conduct its works and functions despite geopolitical tensions, such as US President Donald Trump’s sanctions on the intergovernmental organisation and tribunal in response to Netanyahu’s warrant of arrest, as well as overall criticisms of how the ICC currently operates.
However, she says developments, such as Trump’s sanctions, and criticisms of the ICC in general will continue to inhibit the ICC’s execution of its mandate and assertions of its legitimacy and authority.
“The [ICC] does require the cooperation and support of not only its state parties, but also other states worldwide to be able to effectively execute its mandate that it's been given, which is to fight impunity for those international crimes that are within its jurisdiction.”
