ICC lawyer: More arrests are coming

THE arrest of former president Rodrigo Duterte may mark only the beginning of a sweeping legal reckoning targeting key figures of his administration.

Kristina Conti, counsel for victims in the International Criminal Court (ICC) case against Duterte, revealed in an interview that additional arrest warrants are expected to follow — this time aimed at the former president's inner circle.

"This is just stage one," she said, referring to Duterte's March 11 arrest and transfer to The Hague, where he now faces charges of crimes against humanity for his administration's brutal antidrug campaign. She said the pursuit of justice is far from over.

"The machinery of justice is finally moving. What we're witnessing is only the beginning," she said.

Though Conti did not name specific individuals, she confirmed that several prominent Duterte-era officials are under "active investigation," both in the Philippines and at the international level. These include former police generals, Cabinet members and senior advisers who were instrumental in planning and defending the administration's war on drugs.

Conti made clear that Duterte's arrest should not be viewed in isolation. "Those who stood by him — what we call the Duterte cabal — should now prepare to face justice," she said.

"More warrants of arrest are coming," Conti added, suggesting that a calculated series of legal actions is now under way.

Her statements come amid mounting speculation over who might be next. A source familiar with the ICC proceedings told The Manila Times that at least six names have surfaced in connection with preliminary arrest requests filed by prosecutors.

Human rights advocates have long asserted that Duterte did not act alone in orchestrating a campaign that left thousands dead — many in alleged extrajudicial killings. They argue that real justice requires dismantling the network of enablers who helped implement, justify and sustain the violence.

"The command structure was clear. The intent was clear. And the results were devastating," said Conti. "If the rule of law is to mean anything, it must extend beyond the figurehead."

The prospect of more arrests is already sending ripples through the country's political establishment. With Duterte now in custody, his former allies have mostly remained silent, fueling speculation that some may be negotiating behind the scenes for leniency in exchange for cooperation.

Analysts say the silence betrays a growing sense of anxiety — and possible disarray — within the former president's once-unified political bloc. Once considered a fortress of loyalty, the Duterte circle now shows signs of fragmentation, as key insiders face a difficult choice: remain loyal or turn state witness.

Meanwhile, the ICC is reportedly working with several domestic agencies and international human rights organizations. Although the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has expressed ambivalence about the court's jurisdiction, a well-placed source within the Department of Justice said certain forms of "quiet cooperation" have been extended, including intelligence sharing and monitoring of potential suspects.

"The arrest of Duterte could not have happened without at least quiet compliance from powerful institutions," Conti said. "What's unfolding now suggests that the walls are closing in — not just on Duterte, but on the entire apparatus that enabled the bloodshed."

Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla on Thursday maintained that the decision to surrender Duterte to the ICC was based on their "best judgment."

The secretary's statement addressed questions from Senators Imee Marcos and Ronald Dela Rosa during a Senate hearing on Duterte's arrest.

Asked why the government did not wait for the ICC to request an extradition, Remulla said the option was not available, since the Philippines is no longer a member of the ICC.

Remulla also emphasized that the reason Duterte was surrendered was that this was the option available to the country under Republic Act 9851, which aligns with international humanitarian law.

But former associate justice of the Supreme Court Adolf Azcuna said Duterte's surrender to the ICC was a violation of the Philippine Constitution and the Rome Statute, which governs the ICC.

Azcuna said the Constitution states that a Filipino citizen cannot be arrested and surrendered to a foreign country or entity with which the Philippines does not have an active treaty. Similarly, the Rome Statute specifies that a Filipino citizen cannot be surrendered to the ICC without going through a competent local court in the Philippines.

He pointed out that Article 59 of the Rome Statute requires that an individual arrested and surrendered to the ICC be positively identified and confirmed by a competent local court as the same person charged before the international tribunal. Furthermore, the suspect must be informed of the charges they face at the ICC. Unfortunately, these protocols were not followed in Duterte's arrest, he said.

Azcuna said the ICC will have to balance the legality of the arrest with the need to prosecute someone for very serious offenses under international law.

Azcuna said the ICC warrant of arrest against Duterte was legal, but his "surrender" to the ICC was not.

"If we don't have a treaty then we cannot surrender the suspect to the ICC because this section requires that the surrender be pursuant to a treaty, pursuant means 'in accordance with,'" he said. "And so, if there is no treaty, in my view, we cannot make a surrender. "

"On the other hand, after withdrawal, the withdrawing state is still obliged to cooperate with the ICC in relation to matters already under consideration by the court prior to withdrawal," Azcuna said.

He added, "So, again you go back to the question, 'Is the Philippine situation something already under consideration, by the court, by the ICC prior to our withdrawal?'"

"In my view the answer is 'yes' because as of Feb. 8, 2018 prior to our withdrawal, Fatou Bensouda, the former ICC prosecutor, already said that the Philippine situation is under preliminary examination as of that date," Azcuna said.

"And so therefore, I believe we have residual obligations even after withdrawal. The question therefore, whether or not the warrant of arrest issued by the ICC after our withdrawal is something we have to cooperate with, in my view 'yes.' And therefore, in my view, the warrant of arrest is legal," he said.

Azcuna added, "However, I believe the surrender is not because the surrender must be pursuant to a treaty." The retired justice said that criminal proceedings before the ICC are governed by their own procedure.

"In the ICC, I believe, they follow what is called 'male captus bene detentus,' meaning that even if the arrest is illegal, the detention can be legal, it does not automatically mean that if the arrest is illegal the person arrested must be released," he said.

"It's a balancing act. They will balance the legality of the arrest with the need to prosecute someone for very serious offenses under international law," Azcuna said.

"In their view, the balance weighs in favor of prosecution. They will prosecute notwithstanding the violation of the procedure in the arrest, in the surrender, I mean. Therefore, it depends on whether you're talking about the Philippine forum or the ICC," he said.

He added, "The ICC, I believe, will follow their own procedure whereas in the Philippines as it is now pending in the Philippine Supreme Court, in my view, there is a violation, and there will be consequences for that violation."