Before ICC custody: Duterte’s final words: ?So be it’

MANILA, Philippines — Just before former President Rodrigo Duterte was taken into the International Criminal Court’s custody, he seemed to accept his fate, saying he would “take accountability for everything.”

This came after he questioned his arrest, appearing unsure of what he could have done for all of this to happen to him.

In another development, another petition has been filed challenging the legality of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Davao City 1st District Rep. Paolo “Pulong” Duterte filed a petition for habeas corpus, certiorari, and prohibition, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO).

“The issuance of the warrant of arrest against FPRRD (former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte), and the concomitant cooperation by the Respondents with respect to the enforcement thereof, are unconstitutional and illegal,” Paolo said in his petition.

Duterte arrived at Rotterdam The Hague Airport in the Netherlands on Wednesday, March 12, at 11:53 p.m. (PST). Before disembarking, he released a two-minute video message assuring his supporters that he was “okay” despite the long flight.

“Just to give you the current situation, I am about to land sa Hague, galing ako Dubai (I came from Dubai). [It was] a long flight. Okay lang ako (I am okay). Do not worry,” the former president said in a Facebook post.

The next thing he said was something familiar as he had already said this months ago when he served as a resource person in congressional hearings over his anti-illegal drug campaign’s extrajudicial killings.

“Sinasabi ko naman sa pulis [at] military na magtrabaho kayo at ako ang managot. So, ito na nga, for all of the — whatever happened in the past, ako na ‘yung nagfront sa ating enforcement at military,” Duterte said.

(I always told the police [and] military to do their jobs, and I would take responsibility. So here it is — for whatever happened in the past, I was the one who stood at the forefront of our law enforcement and military.)

He then vowed to “protect” the police, saying, “Ako ang managot sa lahat (I will take responsibility for everything).”

During his sole appearance at the House Quad Comm hearing, Duterte said he should take the fall for his police officers’ actions — legal or not — because he was the man who gave the orders.

“Akin ‘yun. Ako ang nagbigay ng order kasi ginawa nila. Illegal or legal, akin ‘yun. I take full responsibility,” he said on Nov. 13, 2024.

(That’s mine. I gave the order because they did it. illegal or legal, it’s mine. I take full responsibility.)

Duterte also said he would take responsibility for any “collateral damage” caused by police during operations. However, the extrajudicial killings under his so-called “war on drugs” were not mere accidents, as he implied at that time.

Human rights groups have documented between 12,000 and 30,000 killings during Duterte’s drug war, while government data puts the number at over 6,000.

Both drug suspects and innocent civilians fell to police bullets, including hundreds of Filipino children. Reports show that most cases never underwent due process or proper investigation, dismissed instead as instances of “nanlaban” or fighting back any attempts of arrest.

The former president has a history of backtracking on his statements, saying one thing, only to retract it later. Now, he claims he will take responsibility.

Ending his speech, which may be one of his last now that he is in ICC detention, Duterte said: “So be it, kung ganu’n ang destiny ko (if that is my destiny).”

The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Duterte on March 7 for crimes against humanity charges, which Philippine authorities served through the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) on March 11, shortly after his return from Hong Kong.

That same day, at 11:03 p.m., he left the Philippines on a chartered flight. Duterte is now in the court’s custody, with a hearing set to be scheduled soon.

Rep. Paolo Duterte also asked for his father’s release from detention, arguing that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the Philippines since the country withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019.

Through the issuance of a TRO, Paolo is requesting the Supreme Court to prevent the government from cooperating with the ICC and Interpol.

“After giving due course to the petition, annul the acts of respondents affirming cooperation with the ICC and Interpol, and make permanent the prohibition to cooperate with the same,” he added.

The petition was filed on Wednesday, March 12, through lawyer Harry Roque.

On Thursday evening, March 13, the Supreme Court ordered government officials named in the petitions to respond within a non-extendible 24-hour period, explaining why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued to bring Duterte back to the Philippines.

The high court also consolidated Paolo Duterte’s petition with those filed earlier by his siblings, Sebastian “Baste” and Veronica “Kitty” Duterte.

As of Thursday morning, March 14, Duterte remains in ICC custody in The Hague after his arrest at Ninoy Aquino International Airport on March 11.

The ICC’s pre-trial chamber has cited “reasonable grounds” to believe that Duterte is “individually responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator” for crimes against humanity (murder) in connection with extrajudicial killings under his administration.

The charges cover incidents allegedly committed in the Philippines between Nov. 1, 2011, and March 16, 2019.

Philippines to rejoin ICC?

More House lawmakers, including leaders and members of the majority bloc, are expressing openness — some even firm support — for the Philippines to rejoin the International Criminal Court (ICC).

At a press conference on Wednesday, March 12, Assistant Majority Leader Jude Acidre (Tingog Party-list) said he would back any initiative from the administration to return as an ICC member.

“I don’t see any problem why we shouldn’t [rejoin]. If there is that step and if there is that initiative on the part of the administration, I would support it,” he said.

Assistant Majority Leader Jil Bongalon (Ako Bicol Party-list) was more resolute, arguing that ICC membership provides the country with an additional avenue for justice when domestic investigations or prosecutions fall short.

“If the state or the government has failed to act on it and provide justice to the victims, where do we go now? So, that’s why it’s important for the protection of the people,” he said, emphasizing that rejoining as a state party to the Rome Statute would help the government fulfill its duty to protect Filipinos.

Deputy Majority Leader Paolo Ortega V (La Union, 1st District) also said that the idea of rejoining should be “seriously reconsidered.”

“I mean [if] it’s just me, we should consider na rejoining not because of what happened today … Siguro in cases na paulit-ulit mga ganitong problema so meron pa rin tayong tool o meron pa rin tayong measuring stick for that,” he added.

Senate's role in rejoining

However, Acidre noted that it is ultimately “for the Senate to decide,” citing the 1987 Constitution, which requires at least two-thirds, or 16 out of 24 senators, to concur before a treaty or international agreement becomes valid.

The Rome Statute is a multilateral treaty that established the ICC, serving as the court’s governing framework.

On the day of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest on Tuesday, March 11, Rep. Geraldine Roman (Bataan, 1st District) said in a press conference that “it’s about time” for the Marcos Jr. administration to rejoin the ICC.

Rep. Gerville “JinkyBitrics” Luistro (Batangas, 2nd District) has also been vocal since last year in calling for the country to reinstate its ICC membership, saying it is “imperative.” She described the ICC as the government’s “court of last resort” when the local justice system fails.

Minority lawmakers, including the Makabayan bloc, have long advocated for the Philippines to return to the ICC.

Some House members, however, previously refused to cooperate with the ICC’s probe into Duterte’s war on drugs — such as by withholding documentary evidence from the Quad Committee — on the grounds that the country is no longer a member.

This stance aligns with President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., who last year said the Philippines would not rejoin.

To consider, but maybe not now

Meanwhile, Assistant Majority Leader Jefferson “Jay” Khonghun (Zambales, 1st District) believes discussions on rejoining the ICC should take place once emotions have settled.

“Siguro naman wala tayong nakikitang problema na kung saka-sakaling mapagdesisyunan ng ating pamahalaan na bumalik sa ICC,” he said.

Assistant Majority Leader Ernesto Dionisio Jr. (Manila, 1st District) argued that even without ICC membership, the Philippines already has a legal framework allowing cooperation with the international tribunal.

He cited Republic Act 9851, or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, which allows the country to cooperate with international tribunals by surrendering or extraditing suspects accused of crimes covered under the law.

However, Dionisio said that if the Philippines does not rejoin, the ICC can only investigate crimes committed when the country was still a state party. Since the country’s withdrawal formally took effect in March 2019, cases beyond that period would no longer be under ICC jurisdiction.

Like Khonghun, Dionisio cautioned against politicizing the issue.

“‘Yung pagbalik sa ICC, if ever, ay dapat objective eh. Hindi politicized.” — /ATO (FREEMAN)