Duterte’s ICC arrest: Separating fact from lies
MANILA, Philippines—The International Criminal Court (ICC)’s arrest warrant against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has sparked a firestorm of reactions, with supporters calling it a political attack and critics hailing it as a long-overdue step toward justice. As misinformation spreads across social media, it is essential to separate fact from speculation.
On March 11, 2025, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested at Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) in Manila upon his return from Hong Kong. The arrest was carried out based on a warrant issued by the ICC, which accused him of crimes against humanity related to extrajudicial killings (EJKs) during his war on drugs and his time as mayor of Davao City and later as the president between 2016 and 2022.
After the arrest, Duterte was immediately transferred to ICC custody. By March 12, 2025, the ICC confirmed that he was detained at The Hague, where he will undergo trial
READ: EXPLAINER: What’s next after arrest of Rodrigo Duterte?
Despite the arrest being carried out under proper legal procedures, various narratives have surfaced online, questioning the legitimacy of the warrant and the ICC’s authority. This article examines the major claims surrounding Duterte’s arrest and how they hold up against verified sources, ICC documents, and international law.
Claim 1: The ICC warrant cites only 43 Deaths, weakening the case
- What Duterte’s supporters say:
Many argue that 43 deaths are too few to justify a charge of crimes against humanity, with some pointing out that more people die from accidents every day. Others compare this to incidents like the Ampatuan Massacre, which involved 58 deaths but was tried in Philippine courts.
- Fact check: Misleading
The ICC’s warrant cites 43 specific cases as representative examples of a much broader pattern of extrajudicial killings. These include 19 individuals — alleged drug pushers or thieves — killed by members of the DDS in various locations in and around Davao City. Additionally, at least 24 alleged criminals, including drug pushers, thieves, and drug users, were killed by or under the supervision of Philippine law enforcement, sometimes with the assistance of non-police personnel, across different locations in the country.
However, the investigation extends far beyond these cases, covering thousands of deaths, with human rights organizations and the ICC estimating the toll of Duterte’s drug war at between 6,000 and 30,000 victims.
A pre-trial document dated September 2021 stated that the ICC prosecutor “estimates the total number of civilians killed in connection with the so-called ‘war on drugs’ campaign between July 2016 and March 2019 appears to be between 12,000 and 30,000.”
The document further stated that “the estimates of the number of killed persons range from 12,000 to 30,000. [T]he Philippine authorities themselves reported that at least 5,281 persons were killed during police anti-drug operations between July 2016 and March 2019.”
Focusing on select cases is a common practice in international trials to establish patterns of state-sponsored violence while keeping legal proceedings manageable.
READ: EXPLAINER: Brutal attacks on civilians hauled Rodrigo Duterte to The Hague
Claim 2: The ICC ignored higher death toll estimates
What Duterte’s supporters say:
Some claim the ICC deliberately ignored higher death tolls because it could not prove them in court, suggesting that the case is weak. They argue that if thousands were really killed, the ICC would have cited all of them.
- Fact check: False
The ICC does not dismiss higher death toll figures but rather strategically selects cases with clear evidence, credible witnesses, and traceable command responsibility. This is standard practice in international cases and ensures prosecutors can prove a consistent pattern of violence rather than overwhelming the court with thousands of separate cases.
Several ICC documents, including the most recent ones — such as the warrant of arrest — repeatedly and explicitly noted that the larger body count still supports the ICC’s case and that the killings were both “widespread and systematic” — two key elements of crimes against humanity.
“The attack was widespread. It was carried out on a large scale and frequent basis, victimising a significant number of civilians over a broad geographic area and a prolonged period of time,” the ICC stated.
“[T]here are reasonable grounds to believe that this attack was both widespread and systematic: the attack took place over a period of several years, and thousands people appear to have been killed,” it added.
Claim 3: Duterte is only named an ‘indirect co-perpetrator’
- What Duterte’s supporters say:
Supporters claim that being labeled an “indirect co-perpetrator” proves that Duterte is not directly responsible and is being unfairly prosecuted. Some argue that this makes the case against him weaker, as he is not accused of personally killing anyone.
- Fact check: Misleading
The term “indirect co-perpetrator” is a legal classification under Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute, which still attributes significant responsibility to the accused.
“3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person: (a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible.”
This designation means that while Duterte may not have personally committed the killings, he enabled, facilitated, and contributed to the widespread and systematic nature of the crimes.
The ICC’s pre-trial documents explicitly state:
“109. DUTERTE is the person most responsible for the crimes referenced in this Application. He was the mastermind of the formulation and dissemination of the Common Plan to target alleged criminals. He first conceived of the plan and oversaw its implementation in Davao City, and then nationwide,” the ICC warrant of arrest document noted.
“As Mayor, and later as head of state, head of government, and ‘leader of the country’s police forces’, DUTERTE had authority over the perpetrators of relevant crimes. Indeed, as President, he was the only individual in the Philippines with ultimate authority over all State actors involved in implementing the Common Plan. He alone could approve or prevent the implementation of the Common Plan in its entirety,” it added.
Additionally, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber provided further details on Duterte’s direct role in orchestrating these crimes:
“These crimes were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population in the Philippines, pursuant to a State policy to attack alleged criminals in the Philippines. DUTERTE and his co-perpetrators knew that their conduct was part of, or intended their conduct to be part of, that attack. The publicly stated aims of the attack were to reduce criminality, including drug use, sale and production, in Davao City (during the Mayoral period) and, later, in the whole of the Philippines (during the Presidential period).”
“During the Presidential period, many of the acts were committed as part of a formal anti-illegal drugs campaign implemented by law enforcement personnel, which was frequently described in public reporting as DUTERTE’s ‘War on Drugs’. However, such acts were only one component of the attack, which from its origins, targeted individuals suspected of various crimes—and not only alleged drug users, dealers and producers.”
The ICC cites Duterte’s repeated public statements encouraging extrajudicial killings, which established an environment of impunity. It also noted that these killings were not isolated incidents but part of a deliberate and coordinated effort linked to Duterte’s leadership.
In 2021, it explained that based on available information, Duterte has publicly encouraged extrajudicial killings in a way that is incompatible with a genuine law enforcement operation.
Claim 4: The case should be handled by the Philippine courts
What Duterte’s supporters say:
They argue that the Philippines has its own courts and that foreign institutions should not interfere in domestic matters. Some claim the ICC’s case disrespects Philippine sovereignty.
Fact check: Legally invalid
The ICC operates under the “complementarity principle,” which means it only intervenes if a country is unwilling or unable to prosecute crimes domestically.
- The Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2019, but the court still has jurisdiction over crimes committed before this withdrawal.
- Despite thousands of reported deaths, no high-ranking officials have been convicted.
- The ICC steps in when domestic justice systems fail, which justifies this case.
READ: EJK victims’ mom: Duterte arrest not enough as Dela Rosa, Albayalde still free
Claim 5: Duterte was ‘kidnapped’
- What Duterte’s supporters say:
Some claim that Duterte was kidnapped because there was no valid warrant issued by the Philippines, making his arrest illegal.
- Fact check: False
The ICC legally for Duterte’s arrest after a thorough investigation. The Philippine government followed proper legal protocols. Claims that he was “kidnapped” lack any factual basis.
READ:
Claim 6: Duterte’s arrest was politically motivated
What Duterte’s supporters say:
Duterte’s supporters claim that his arrest is a political move orchestrated by his enemies rather than a legitimate legal process. Many argue that the ICC is being used as a weapon by Western powers to interfere in Philippine affairs, targeting Duterte while ignoring worse human rights violations in other countries. Others claim that the case is being pushed by his political opponents who have long sought to bring him down.
Some supporters also argue that Duterte’s strong stance against the U.S. and Western influence, along with his closer ties with China and Russia, made him a target of international institutions like the ICC. They point out that the ICC has not arrested leaders from powerful nations like the U.S., despite their involvement in wars that led to mass civilian casualties.
Another claim making the rounds online is that the timing of Duterte’s arrest — after his allies lost influence in government — suggests that political maneuvering was involved rather than an impartial legal process.
- Fact check: No evidence
There is no credible evidence that Duterte’s arrest is politically motivated. The ICC is an independent judicial body, and its judges and prosecutors operate under strict legal guidelines to ensure impartiality.
The decision to issue an arrest warrant followed a years-long investigation based on witness testimonies, forensic evidence, and reports from human rights organizations.
- The investigation into Duterte began in 2018 while he was still in power — long before he left office or lost political allies.
- ICC judges do not take orders from any government and cannot be influenced by political actors.
- The ICC does not selectively target countries — it has investigated and prosecuted leaders from various regions, including Africa, Europe, and the Middle East.
- The ICC focuses on crimes, not political affiliations. Duterte’s case was built on documented evidence of extrajudicial killings, not his diplomatic decisions.
READ:
As the case unfolds, it is important to separate facts from misinformation. The ICC has followed proper legal processes, and Duterte will now have the chance to defend himself in court.
His supporters claim the case is weak, but the legal process is clear: The charges are serious, the evidence is strong, and international law is being upheld.
Duterte’s fate will now be decided in a court of law, not on social media.
Graphics by Ed Lustan/Inquirer.net. Sources: International Criminal Court, news archive