By: Margaret Jane Piatos
When the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and later confirmed his continued detention in March 2026, the moment marked far more than the legal downfall of a controversial leader. It has become one of the most consequential tests of international criminal law in decades. At stake is whether global legal institutions can meaningfully hold powerful national leaders accountable for widespread human rights violations. Ultimately, the manner in which the case is determined will set a critical precedent for holding past, current, and future national leaders accountable for large-scale human rights violations.
Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, “war on drugs,” launched immediately after he took office on June 30, 2016. Framed as a public safety initiative to eliminate narcotics and restore order, the campaign authorized aggressive police operations and killings aimed at eliminating drug dealers and users. Duterte frequently portrayed the drug trade as an existential threat to Philippine society and promised to eradicate it through force.
The campaign quickly turned deadly. Philippine government data recorded more than 6,000 deaths connected to anti-drug operations while Duterte was in office. Human rights organizations estimate the real number is likely far higher at more than 12,000 deaths, many of them among the country’s urban poor. At least 2,555 killings were attributed directly to the Philippine National Police, while thousands more were carried out by unidentified gunmen widely believed to be connected to security forces.
For critics, the pattern suggested something more than isolated abuses. The ICC alleges that Duterte is responsible for crimes against humanity of murder and attempted murder under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute, committed as part of a “widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population,” between 2011 and 2019. The investigation covers not only his presidency but also his earlier tenure as mayor of Davao City, where he ruled for more than two decades.
Duterte never hid his willingness to use violence as a crime-fighting strategy. On the eve of his presidential victory in 2016, he told a crowd of supporters:
“Forget the laws on human rights. If I make it to the presidential palace, I will do just what I did as mayor. You drug pushers, hold-up men and do-nothings, you better go out. Because I'd kill you,” he said at his final campaign rally.
“I'll dump all of you into Manila Bay, and fatten all the fish there.”
During a 2024 Philippine Senate inquiry into the drug war, Duterte offered what he called “no apologies, no excuses” for the campaign and took responsibility for the killings carried out during his presidency. He also admitted to employing a small death squad during his time as mayor of Davao.
Yet Duterte continues to maintain powerful support. Philippine politics is characterized less by rigid ideological parties as we see in the United States, and more by coalitions built around prominent political clans and regional alliances. Duterte rose to power as a populist outsider from Mindanao, the second largest island in the Philippines, positioning himself as a tough alternative against the traditional political establishment in Manila. Many supporters credit him with restoring order and confronting criminal networks that previous administrations failed to control.
This enduring domestic support illustrates one of the central tensions in the ICC case. For families of victims, the investigation represents a rare opportunity for justice. For Duterte’s supporters, the prosecution is viewed as international interference in Philippine sovereignty.
The legal battle is now firmly underway. Duterte was surrendered to the ICC in March 2025 after a secret arrest warrant was issued and later made public. His initial appearance before the Court took place shortly after, and the confirmation of charges hearing was held in February 2026. On March 6, 2026, the ICC Appeals Chamber rejected Duterte’s appeal challenging the review of his detention and confirmed that he would remain in custody while proceedings continue.
Beyond the Philippines, the case's implications extend to the broader international system. In recent years, several governments have adopted aggressive security policies to combat crime and terrorism. Countries such as El Salvador, where President Nayib Bukele has implemented emergency powers and mass arrests to crack down on gangs, and India, where counterterrorism laws have expanded state surveillance, illustrate how governments are increasingly relying on strong executive authority in the name of public safety. These policies often expand executive power and weaken procedural safeguards. If the ICC successfully prosecutes a former head of state for crimes against humanity, it would reinforce the principle that national leaders cannot hide behind sovereignty when large-scale abuses occur. If it fails to do so, the credibility of international accountability mechanisms is likely to weaken.
Ultimately, the significance of the Duterte investigation lies not only in what it says about the Philippines but also in what it signals to leaders around the world.
