A live lesson in justice at The Hague

As I write this, the nation awaits the confirmation hearing in the case “The Prosecutor v. Rodrigo Roa Duterte”, scheduled to begin on February 23, 2026, and to run for four days this week. The purpose of the confirmation of charges hearing is to determine “whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the person committed each of the crimes charged.” If one or more charges are confirmed, the case will proceed to trial.

Many people, especially those exposed to troll propaganda on social media, question the ICC process. Some frame it as an intrusion on sovereignty. Lost in the discussion is the fact that our own Supreme Court has already ruled on this. In Pangilinan v. Cayetano (March 16, 2021), the court, while upholding the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute, affirmed that the Philippines is not discharged from criminal proceedings for acts committed while it was still a state party.

The ICC is established and governed by the Rome Statute, an international treaty adopted in 1998. The Philippines ratified it in 2011, becoming the 117th state party. Our withdrawal, initiated under the Duterte administration, took effect on March 17, 2019.

The ICC’s effectiveness is often questioned because it lacks an independent enforcement mechanism. Legal scholar Eric Posner in his book “The Twilight of Human Rights Law” states that the ICC is a court without a sheriff. “Its judgment often amount to little more than moral condemnations, as it has no real means to compel powerful actors to comply,” Posner says.

But for Michael J. Gilligan (2006), a professor of politics in New York University, the effectiveness of the ICC should not be judged solely by its ability to arrest and prosecute offenders. “Even in the absence of direct enforcement, the Court can shape state behavior by raising the costs of committing atrocities, influencing domestic legal institutions, and mobilizing international pressure,” says Gilligan.

The matter of enforcement, however, is no longer at issue in Duterte’s case. On March 11, 2025, acting on the country’s international obligations, the Marcos Jr. administration arrested Duterte pursuant to an Interpol Red Notice and promptly turned him over to the ICC in The Hague to face the proceedings. This has become a contentious political issue at home. For some, it is a high-stakes issue heading into the 2028 presidential elections, in which the Dutertes, so far, remain very much among the key players.

At any rate, I am looking forward to observing the ICC process because I see it as a timely opportunity for our people to learn how international justice works, and to separate populist slogans about “sovereignty” from the country’s international legal obligations, which we freely undertook. The ICC is not simply an international court hearing charges of crimes against humanity. It teaches that law does not bow to populism, and that power, even when won in an election, is checked by legal and justice institutions, not by popular sentiment.

History teaches us that popular sentiment can be loud, but it is unstable, can be manipulated, and can lead to the worst atrocities, as in Nazi Germany. Relying on popularity alone is dangerous. Going into 2028, if a popular candidate seeks to become president while serious legal and factual questions remain unanswered, those issues will not disappear. They will invite legal reckoning, political crisis, and instability.

In “The Prosecutor v. Rodrigo Roa Duterte”, the ICC is doing us a favor by providing a live, public lesson in due process, evidence, and institutional restraint, reminding us that the rule of law can still catch up, even with the popular and powerful.