15/10/2025
EDITORIAL OPINION | THE FALL OF KHAN: When Justice Stumbles, Power Smiles
OPTIC Politics | October 14, 2025
The Empire of Moral Prosecution Cracks
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has long paraded itself as the global sentinel of justice, wielding its gavel over sovereign nations with a claim to moral supremacy. Yet this self-appointed empire of moral prosecution has just cracked. On October 2, 2025, the ICC Appeals Chamber disqualified Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan from handling the war crimes case against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte due to a potential conflict of interest. This decision, though procedural, sends shockwaves through the institution’s credibility.
The disqualification stems from Khan’s prior involvement with the Philippines Human Rights Commission, whose submissions to the ICC named Duterte a suspect before the trial commenced. This entanglement raised questions about impartiality, leading judges to conclude that Khan’s continued involvement could compromise the integrity of the proceedings.
For the global observer, this is not merely technical. It is an indictment of the very institution that has long claimed moral authority over sovereign states. The ICC, for years, has projected an image of impartial justice, yet the ruling exposes that even its chief prosecutor can be biased, conflicted, and compromised.
Khan’s Fall: Legal and Moral Implications
Karim Khan’s removal is a moral collapse for an institution that has long claimed to stand above nations. The same court that lectures Africa and Asia about fairness has now confessed — through its own ruling — that its chief prosecutor can be partial, conflicted, and compromised.
Legally, Khan’s disqualification has immediate consequences. Every motion he filed, every strategy he approved, every communication he orchestrated may now be challenged as tainted by bias. His successor, Mame Mandiaye Niang, inherits a case fraught with procedural complications. Even if Niang continues the investigation, the case is weakened not by evidence but by the ICC’s own procedural failures. The disqualification also sets a precedent: ICC prosecutors, previously seen as untouchable, are now accountable to the very rules they enforce.
Khan’s fall also exposes prior criticisms: his recusal from a Venezuela investigation due to familial connections and allegations of misconduct now form a pattern. The court that positions itself as the apex of global morality is now on trial in its own court of credibility.
The Case Against Duterte: Context
The ICC case focused on Duterte’s controversial war on drugs, launched during his presidency from 2016 to 2022. International human rights groups alleged systemic violations, claiming thousands were unlawfully killed. Domestically, the narrative was mixed: Duterte’s supporters hailed his anti-drug campaign as a restoration of law and order, while critics accused him of extrajudicial killings and impunity.
The ICC intervention, therefore, was perceived by many as a foreign imposition on Philippine sovereignty. Khan’s disqualification validates those who argued the investigation was politically motivated, particularly given his prior interactions with local human rights bodies before impartial review could occur.
Duterte’s Shadow Triumph
For Duterte, this is no absolution — but it is vindication. The man labeled a “killer president” now watches the moral high ground crumble beneath his accusers. The ICC that hunted him now stands accused of the very sin it claimed to fight: prejudice.
The timing is particularly critical. With the May 2025 Philippine midterm elections concluded, the political landscape shifted in favor of Duterte-aligned forces. Local victories in Mindanao and strategic Senate seats secured influence in key decision-making positions, reinforcing Duterte’s domestic relevance. The Marcos-Romualdez bloc, meanwhile, found itself vulnerable: bruised by public dissatisfaction, corruption scandals, and political miscalculations, they now face a court ruling that compounds their instability.
Khan’s removal transforms the narrative: the hunter has disqualified himself, while Duterte’s political base emerges emboldened. The disqualification is a symbolic and practical victory, showing that even international institutions can be held accountable.
The Political Earthquake
The ICC implosion lands like a thunderclap. Post-midterm shifts already tilt influence toward Duterte-aligned forces, and Marcos-Romualdez officials must now recalibrate. With diminished legislative leverage and international scrutiny, their ability to maneuver politically is compromised.
Khan’s fall obliterates the propaganda that once crowned the ICC the world’s moral arbiter. Instead, the tribunal looks exactly as critics from Africa to Asia long warned: a selective tribunal, used by powerful states to judge weaker ones, while sparing those aligned with their geopolitical agenda. It is a reminder that international law is not immune to politics.
Geopolitical Dimensions
The ruling’s impact is not confined to Manila. The ICC’s credibility crisis sends ripples across Southeast Asia, exposing Western influence as conditional and selective. Countries that previously feared ICC intervention may now recalibrate their foreign policy, reassessing alliances with Washington, Brussels, and The Hague.
For the Marcos administration, the implications are acute. Their balancing act between Washington and Beijing is now complicated by an ICC ruling that exposes Western legal interventions as potentially partisan. International partners, investors, and multilateral organizations may question Marcos’s ability to navigate global diplomacy amidst domestic turbulence.
The Legal Reality They Won’t Say Out Loud
Disqualification taints prior proceedings. Every motion Khan filed, every witness statement approved under his authority, carries a credibility stain. Defense teams can challenge these filings, potentially nullifying years of work. The new prosecutor inherits a poisoned well, where procedural rot may eclipse evidence.
This is more than a setback; it’s a judicial earthquake. The ICC, long seen as the pinnacle of international law, must now confront a reality it often ignored: its own processes are vulnerable to bias and failure.
Mirror of Global Hypocrisy
Khan’s fall is also a mirror held up to Western hypocrisy. The ICC’s selective intervention highlights a pattern: conflicts aligned with Western interests are expedited; those inconvenient to powerful states are ignored. Ukraine receives rapid international attention. Gaza sees selective outrage. The Philippines, a postcolonial state asserting sovereignty, was used as a symbolic battleground while the architects of real wars remain untouchable.
The disqualification unmasks the ICC, exposing its procedural arrogance and undermining its claim as a neutral arbiter.
Public Sentiment and Media Reactions
Domestic reactions have been swift and vocal. Social media erupted with posts highlighting the ICC’s selectivity and political bias, framing Duterte as a victor over international interference. Mainstream Philippine media, from pro-Duterte outlets to centrist commentators, noted the ruling as a major diplomatic and political turning point.
International coverage, however, is muted. Western outlets carefully word their headlines, often focusing on procedural technicalities rather than acknowledging the tribunal’s credibility collapse. This selective reporting reinforces OPTIC Politics’ thesis: when global institutions falter, empire whispers instead of shouts.
Message to Manila
The Marcos administration faces a choice: continue hiding behind a broken international tribunal or confront the reality that the Hague’s crusade was never about justice but political containment. The disqualification underscores what Filipinos already knew: sovereignty cannot be dictated by an external moral authority that cannot even judge its own actors.
Forward-Looking Scenarios
The disqualification also opens a host of political and legal scenarios:
1. The Duterte Bloc: Strengthened post-midterms, Duterte-aligned forces may leverage the ICC’s failure to solidify political influence ahead of the 2028 presidential election.
2. The Marcos-Romualdez Response: With the ICC discredited, Marcos may attempt symbolic international engagement to restore credibility, but domestic vulnerabilities now limit maneuverability.
3. International Legal Repercussions: The ruling sets a precedent; future ICC cases may face intensified scrutiny regarding prosecutorial conflicts, potentially reshaping the tribunal’s operational protocols.
4. Philippine Sovereignty: The ruling reinforces the argument that no nation should cede judicial authority to international bodies lacking transparency and impartiality.
The Verdict of History
In the annals of international law, this moment will not read as the day Duterte escaped justice. It will read as the day justice exposed its own corruption. The day The Hague confirmed what Mindanao always knew: that sovereignty and survival are not crimes—they are acts of defiance.
Duterte did not defeat the ICC. The ICC defeated itself.
OPTIC Politics Reflection
When The Hague removes its own prosecutor for bias, the entire architecture of “universal justice” trembles. It tells the world that no court can claim moral supremacy while practicing political hypocrisy.
The fall of Karim Khan is not an ending—it is a revelation. And for the Philippines, that revelation burns brighter than any courtroom verdict: no nation should ever surrender its sovereignty to a justice system that cannot judge itself.
———
