Should the Philippines rejoin the ICC?

Presiding Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc (center) with Judges Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou (left) and María del Socorro Flores Liera (right) of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I

The question on whether or not the Philippines should rejoin the International Criminal Court (ICC) is not a simple question to answer. At its first glance, it might seem that way, but it fails to take into account the deeply hidden complexities of local politics between two rival power blocks now locked in open confrontation.

The International Criminal Court is perhaps the first and only permanent court that is legally allowed by its own members to prosecute individuals for serious crimes committed such as war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. Its strength lies in its capacity to act when national courts fail. But this is easier said than done. Since its inception, the ICC has issued 61 arrest warrants, only 22 have been carried out and only 13 individuals have been convicted such as Thomas Lubanga, Dominic Ongwen, and Ahmed Al Faqi Al Mahdi. The ICC has also issued warrants to leaders like Vladimir Putin for his crimes against Ukraine and Benjamin Netanhyahu for his war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the genocide in Gaza. But warrants are all it can issue when states do not cooperate or deny its jurisdiction, rendering ICC at most powerless.

The ICC’s most consequential case for the Philippines concerns alleged crimes against humanity committed during former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s brutal anti-drug campaign. In 2017, Filipino lawyer Jude Sabio and other opposition figures filed numerous complaints to the ICC regarding President Duterte and other officials actively involved in mass murder and crimes against humanity. On March 14, 2018, a month just after the ICC launched a preliminary examination, then-President Duterte decided to withdraw from the Rome Statute in an attempt to avoid punishment. However, despite the country’s withdrawal, the ICC continued to retain jurisdiction in investigating Duterte as the crimes are recorded to have happened while the Philippines was still part of the ICC.

In a dramatic turn of events, on March 11, 2025, former President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested by the Philippine National Police and Interpol upon arriving at Manila’s Ninoy Aquino International Airport - a wakeup call to let him know that there’s a new sheriff in town. 

The New Sheriff 

Duterte’s arrest came as no surprise to many political observers. For starters, the ICC’s actions could only be plausible because of the man currently sitting at the highest pinnacle: current President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. The Marcos-Duterte partnership, once celebrated as a political alliance of unity, had been fracturing for months. 

The fractures of the “harmonious” relationship between the Marcos-Duterte tandem had started to become clearer after Vice President Sara Duterte, former President Rodrigo Duterte’s daughter, resigned from her post as Secretary of Education in June 2024, citing corruption and distancing herself from presidential policies. Soon after, the Marcos administration demanded that she explain her spending of P612 million in “confidential funds” allocated to her as vice-president and Secretary of Education. This probing led to the House of Representative in February 2025 to impeach Duterte with a historic win of more than two-thirds of its members supporting the impeachment. This ruling however was blocked by the Supreme Court in July 2025, stating that the impeachment complaint was unconstitutional, thus barring any attempt to file another impeachment case until February 2026.

As tensions escalate, public exchanges including allegations of assassination threats and plots have started to unravel. As if we are the audience watching the play unfold, the climax finally happened when President Marcos Jr. granted the ICC permission to arrest former President Duterte, who had just come from Hong Kong. There are talks and whispers of Duterte, apparently knowing ahead of time the President’s plot, who allegedly fled to Hong Kong for asylum but was rejected. However, Vice President Sara Duterte rejects these claims.

Yet the truth of the matter is that China, Duterte’s so-called best friend, has refused to offer any assistance to the now deposed dictator. With nowhere else to run, Duterte has no choice but to be put on the chopping block. The former president is currently being held in The Hague, Netherlands, at the Scheveningen Prison. The new sheriff’s actions are easy to understand. For the new sheriff, the move signals both consolidation of power and a demonstration that no one, not even a former president, stands above the law—or his authority.

To Rejoin or Not to Rejoin

In a survey conducted by OCTA research after President Duterte’s arrest, about 57% of Filipinos support the country’s rejoining, while 37% are opposed and 6% remain undecided. This indicates not only a renewed public faith in international justice but also a collective desire for accountability long denied by dysfunctional domestic institutions.

Yet, despite this, President Marcos Jr. remains indecisive. We do not particularly know why this is so, but rejoining the ICC presents the perfect opportunity for him to make moves. It offers an opportunity to distinguish himself from the legacy of his father’s looming authoritarian shadow, a continuing and major reason for those opposed to him. Essentially, the ICC is not only valuable as a court of law, but rather is also a symbol that triumphs justice and peace by upholding human rights as its highest priority. By rejoining the ICC, President Marcos Jr. can mold his image as a president who is anchored on human rights and accountability, values the Court embodies.

Rejoining also serves the nation’s broader interest. When the domestic system falters under political pressure, the ICC stands as a safeguard for justice. It allows Filipinos to seek grievances through a higher court of law when domestic courts are unable to uphold justice and accountability. The ICC then remains an important safety net or a last resort for Filipinos to trust. Beyond symbolism, it would signal to the international community that the Philippines is a country that values accountability, justice, and human rights. For Filipinos, rejoining the ICC is not only a legal imperative but also a moral one, as it would represent a commitment that every Filipino life has value.

Opposition regarding rejoining the ICC often argue that doing so could undermine national sovereignty and invite foreign interference. They state that there is no need for the ICC given that we have our own legal & judicial system and that it would limit the Philippines’ legal independence as the court could bypass local judicial decisions and instead impose its own processes on domestic affairs. Some further argue that the ICC could be weaponized, particularly citing how President Marcos Jr. used the ICC arrest warrant in order to remove a political rival. Ultimately, critics of rejoining the ICC believe that such a foreign entity could ultimately cause more harm than good, as it can lead to domestic unrest and deepen political divides.

While some merit should be given towards their argument, they overlook a deeper truth: the ICC’s purpose is not to seize sovereignty but to ensure justice when sovereignty is abused. The real threat to national integrity lies not in external scrutiny but in the internal decay of institutions that refuse to hold the powerful accountable. The truth is that we are not merely audiences, but we are in fact standing on the stage as well. Insignificant as we may at first glance, the Filipino people are the ones continuing to build the stage on which our politicians can act out. If the country rejoins the ICC, it is of great triumph and victory for the Filipino people whose voices are often shunned by the very people who are supposed to represent them. Arguments regarding the opposition of the ICC all center around the political playing field, and never address how crucial it is to ordinary Filipino citizens.

But alas, we must go back to where it all started. The country continues to stand at the crossroads, with a leader incapable of making a decision. In the end, the debate on whether or not the Philippines should rejoin the International Criminal Court is less a question of legality but rather more of a reflection of our nation’s moral identity. It compels us to look inward and reflect on who we are, what we have permitted, and what kind of justice we Filipinos deserve. For all its shortcomings and imperfections, the ICC remains as the world’s last resort for accountability—a refuge for those left without justice elsewhere. Whether the Philippines chooses to return or not, history will remember the side we took when justice demanded courage the most.