ICC credibility could come under scrutiny

THE case of former president Rodrigo Duterte could set a precedent for how international courts handle leaders of sovereign nations — and whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) can maintain its credibility in the global legal community, a political analyst said on Friday. Adolfo Paglinawan, a former press attaché of the Philippine Embassy in Washington, D.C., argued that the case exposes procedural irregularities that could have lasting consequences for the Philippines' legal and diplomatic landscape. A Senate inquiry, led by Sen. Imee Marcos, is trying to determine if due process was followed in the arrest of the former president. Critics claim the arrest was riddled with violations of both Philippine law and international legal standards. Paglinawan identified key concerns regarding Duterte's apprehension. According to the Cooperation Agreement between the ICC's Office of the Prosecutor and Interpol, the Philippines, as an Interpol member, should have executed the arrest through an official notice or a diffusion request. The tribunal reportedly submitted only a diffusion request, bypassing the process required for issuing a Red Notice. Additionally, Interpol's General Secretariat did not conduct a compliance review, a crucial step in validating such requests. "The absence of a Red Notice and compliance review means Duterte's arrest lacked proper authorization," Paglinawan said during a forum organized by the Asian Century Philippines Strategic Studies Institute. "This raises serious doubts about the legality of the operation." He noted that government officials initially denied knowledge of the arrest, but new evidence suggests that high-level authorities had prior consultations with international agencies and had agreed to comply with the ICC request. The ambiguity has fueled accusations that the government misled the public about its role in Duterte's surrender. Paglinawan said Duterte's legal team also claimed that the ICC itself violated its own standard operating procedures on arrests and surrenders. A key requirement is a coordination meeting between ICC representatives and officials from the requested state, which reportedly did not take place before Duterte's arrest. "No such meeting was held, raising further concerns about procedural shortcuts," he said. Additionally, Duterte was allegedly not given a physical copy of the arrest warrant; the details were instead read to him from an electronic device. "This procedural lapse has been cited in four Supreme Court petitions filed by Duterte's legal team and family," said Paglinawan. He also argued that Duterte was denied fundamental rights during his detention at Villamor Air Base. Held from the morning of March 11 until his late-night extradition, Duterte was reportedly not allowed to contact judicial authorities or challenge his arrest. "Under ICC rules, an accused has the right to legal counsel, to apply for interim release and to challenge the arrest warrant based on the principle of ne bis in idem [which prevents double jeopardy]," Paglinawan said. Most strikingly, no formal authorization from the Philippine judiciary was obtained before Duterte was flown out of the country, Paglinawan added. The Department of Justice issued a certification of extradition only on March 12 — a full day after Duterte had already left. "This isn't about justice; it's about political influence," Paglinawan said. "Why is the ICC prioritizing Duterte while ignoring clear war crimes in other countries?" He emphasized that Duterte's arrest marks a turning point in the Philippines' relationship with the ICC and could have a lasting impact on international law. "The case raises fundamental questions about the balance between national sovereignty and international justice, as well as the integrity of global legal institutions," Paglinawan said.