17/10/2025
ATTENTION Teddy boy Locsin! Ponder on this.
The Marcos Administration and the ICC Warrant: Between Moral Duty and Political Judgment
When the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant of arrest against former President Rodrigo Duterte for alleged crimes against humanity tied to his bloody “war on drugs,” it marked a turning point in Philippine political history. The administration of President Ferdinand “B**gbong” Marcos Jr. faces a defining test—not merely of legal acumen, but of moral clarity and national leadership.
To comply with the ICC warrant or not is no longer just a matter of sovereignty—it is a moral referendum on how the Marcos government views justice, accountability, and the international rule of law.
I. The Marcos Administration’s Moral Logic
President Marcos Jr. has repeatedly said that “no one is above the law,” signaling his willingness to cooperate with the ICC through international mechanisms such as Interpol. His reasoning rests on three interconnected premises: legal continuity, moral duty, and global accountability.
1. Legal Continuity Beyond Withdrawal
Although President Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the ICC in 2019, the Rome Statute’s jurisdiction remains valid for alleged crimes committed while the Philippines was still a signatory (from 2011–2019). This is grounded in Article 127(2) of the Statute, which maintains jurisdiction over crimes committed prior to withdrawal.
Hence, the Marcos administration’s cooperation is not about “reviving” ICC membership—but about honoring residual obligations for alleged acts committed during valid jurisdiction.
2. Moral Duty to Victims
The killings attributed to the “war on drugs” number in the thousands, many without due process. For the Marcos administration, cooperation with the ICC serves as a moral acknowledgment that those victims were not mere statistics. It’s a symbolic act: that justice must transcend politics and that impunity has no expiry date.
3. Restoring International Credibility
After years of global criticism over extrajudicial killings and the erosion of democratic values, the Philippines’ reputation suffered. Marcos’ logic sees cooperation with the ICC as a diplomatic reset, a chance to signal that the country is again aligned with international human rights norms.
In his UN speech, he declared that “global cooperation is the only way to ensure justice.” The ICC issue is, in essence, a test of that statement’s sincerity.
II. The Counterlogic of Duterte and His Allies
Vice President Sara Duterte and loyalists in Congress and Mindanao frame the ICC warrant as foreign intrusion, political persecution, and even betrayal. Their arguments rest on three primary defenses:
1. Sovereignty and Withdrawal Argument
They argue that because the Philippines withdrew from the ICC, the Court no longer has any authority over Philippine citizens. This is a direct appeal to national sovereignty, suggesting that allowing a foreign tribunal to arrest a Filipino citizen—much less a former President—undermines independence.
As former Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre claimed, “The ICC has lost jurisdiction the moment we withdrew.”
However, this argument ignores Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute and the fact that the alleged crimes occurred before the withdrawal’s effectivity.
2. Due Process and Domestic Jurisdiction
Duterte’s legal camp maintains that Philippine courts remain functional and competent, invoking the principle of complementarity—the ICC should intervene only if domestic courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute. They argue that since the Department of Justice and the Commission on Human Rights exist, ICC involvement violates national sovereignty and due process.
3. Political Vendetta Narrative
Duterte loyalists see the ICC warrant as politically motivated—a weapon in Marcos’ ongoing rivalry with the Dutertes. They frame it as an act of political cleansing, designed to cripple their influence ahead of the 2028 elections.
As one Duterte ally bluntly stated, “This is not justice—it’s geopolitics in disguise.”
III. The Marcos Balancing Act: Law, Morality, and Strategy
PBBM’s posture reflects a delicate balancing act—a moral stand cloaked in cautious political maneuvering.
Legal Cover:
The Marcos government couches its cooperation under Interpol protocols and RA 9851 (the Philippine Act on International Humanitarian Law), which allow coordination with foreign tribunals in handling crimes of universal jurisdiction.
Moral Optics:
By honoring the ICC process, Marcos projects himself as a leader of principle—in stark contrast to Duterte’s violent populism. This alignment with global norms appeals to Western allies like the U.S. and the EU, whose support is vital for trade, defense, and investment.
Political Calculation:
Behind the moral logic lies strategic calculus. Weakening the Dutertes—particularly Sara’s 2028 ambitions—serves Marcos’ political interest. By allowing international law to do what domestic politics cannot, Marcos distances himself from the stain of the drug war without appearing vindictive.
IV. The Moral Imperative vs. Political Realities
The moral dimension of honoring the ICC warrant lies in upholding the principle that justice knows no borders. Crimes against humanity are not political offenses; they are moral violations against humankind. Refusing cooperation equates to shielding impunity under the guise of sovereignty.
Yet, political realities complicate the moral high ground:
Sovereignty remains sacred to many Filipinos who resent foreign interference.
Institutional fragility means the ICC process could trigger internal backlash or unrest.
Moral hypocrisy looms if Marcos preaches accountability abroad while tolerating domestic corruption and selective justice at home.
In essence, the administration must prove that this “moral obligation” is not selective morality—that it applies not only to Duterte, but to all who violate human rights, regardless of political color.
V. The Irony and the Reckoning
There is irony in the spectacle: the son of a former dictator now invoking international law to prosecute another strongman who once defended him.
But this irony is not hypocrisy—it’s history coming full circle.
If Marcos Jr. truly believes in moral accountability, then his decision to cooperate with the ICC could symbolize the Philippines’ long-delayed reckoning with its culture of impunity.
However, if this cooperation turns out to be a tool of political convenience, then the moral argument collapses. Justice cannot be partial; it cannot be driven by vendetta masked as virtue.
VI. Conclusion: Between Justice and Power
The Marcos administration’s logic in honoring its “moral obligation” to the ICC is both principled and pragmatic. It rests on the belief that justice is a global duty, and that sovereignty cannot be used as a sanctuary for those who trample human rights.
Yet morality in politics is only as strong as the leader’s consistency. The real test lies not in the rhetoric of moral obligation—but in its application.
If Marcos truly upholds the ICC’s mandate in good faith, it will mark a historic step toward justice.
But if it becomes merely a political weapon dressed in moral garb, the Philippines will remain trapped in the same cycle of selective justice and inherited impunity.
