[OPINION] Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest: 4 lessons for accountability 

After a tense 12-hour standoff at Villamor Air Base in Pasay City, former president Rodrigo Duterte was finally arrested on March 11, 2025, by Philippine authorities. He was then flown to The Hague in the Netherlands where he will stay in detention for the foreseeable future.

The arrest was made on the strength of a warrant that was issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) four days earlier, on March 7, which states that crimes against humanity “have allegedly been committed by Mr. Duterte” from November 1, 2011 to March 16, 2019. The document cites 43 cases of killings within that period, further asserting that it is a “non-exhaustive list” and that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that this attack was both widespread and systematic.” 

The Philippine government’s own official records indicate that at least 6,248 people died from Duterte’s drug war, though human rights groups insist that the death toll could reach as high as 30,000. The list also includes 157 children, based on the monitoring made by the Children’s Legal Rights and Development Center.

But regardless of the actual number, Duterte’s arrest offers several lessons in promoting accountability and ensuring that public officials are made answerable for their actions and decisions.

LESSON 1: Multi-level organizing can promote accountability and challenge impunity

Key to the success of Duterte’s arrest is the existence of a broad-based constituency supporting the ongoing justice and accountability process at the ICC. This constituency was built over time, emerging at the start of the Duterte presidency in June 2016. These are the people and forces that have resisted the drug war across multiple levels, starting at the grassroots.

Opposition to Duterte’s killing policy, in fact, began shortly after he assumed the presidency in 2016. On August 7, for example, more than 300 residents of Barangay 175 in Camarin, Caloocan, transformed the funeral procession of teenage boys Jervy “Balot” Sta. Maria and Jonathan “Otan” Jervoso, into a protest march, a week after they were murdered by motorcycle-riding assailants on July 31. Similar protest actions were also undertaken in other barangays that were heavily affected by Duterte’s drug campaign.

These localized actions were soon replicated at the national level after activist and human rights groups also began organizing protests. Media started to systematically track the death toll, and paint stories behind the killings and their victims.

All these forces would eventually support the now ongoing ICC process. Unable to find justice in the Philippines, opponents of the drug war began filing cases at the ICC — the first in August 2017, followed by a supplementary communication in June of that year, as well as another separate complaint in August 2018. This series of suits then prompted the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber to finally authorize an investigation in September 2021, culminating in Duterte’s highly publicized arrest. (TIMELINE: The International Criminal Court and Duterte’s bloody war on drugs)

The move was praised by international human rights groups such as Amnesty International, which described the former president’s arrest as a “monumental step for justice.” Human Rights Watch was equally satisfied, describing Duterte’s arrest as a “long overdue victory.”

This initial victory of Filipino human rights advocates is another good example of “vertical integration.” The concept argues that accountability can be significantly enhanced if organizing and advocacy efforts are done simultaneously across different levels of state and society — from the grassroots all the way to the international level.

LESSON 2: Duterte’s arrest ushers in a new multi-level justice system

By justice system, we refer to the network of processes and institutions meant to enforce laws, resolve disputes, and ensure fairness in society. Unfortunately, in many countries, including the Philippines, the justice system is hardly working. Most Filipinos see our justice system as extremely flawed since it favors the wealthy and the powerful, while denied to the rest.

Because of the considerable power that Duterte continues to wield, it is highly unlikely that the former president will ever be duly prosecuted in our local courts. The fact that thousands have died with no justice for years is an indication of our failing justice and accountability system. Even Justice Secretary Boying Remulla admitted that the country’s justice system was too weak to ensure Duterte’s prosecution.

For this reason, a robust international justice system is crucial to ensure that victims and their families can have an additional recourse to seek redress. This is powershifting in favor of the people. It neutralizes monopolistic power in countries that not only perpetuate the status quo, but also allows impunity to reign.

LESSON 3: Promoting international justice and accountability can be a patriotic act

Duterte supporters insist that our sovereignty was “violated” when the former president was turned over to the ICC. Sara Duterte was even quoted as saying, “Kung Pilipino ka, hindi ka kailanman susunod sa mga dayuhan sa loob ng sarili mong bayan. We are not Filipinos for nothing.” (If you’re a Filipino, you will never ever just follow foreigners in your own country.)

Such response from the Vice President is hardly surprising since nationalism and sovereignty have repeatedly been used by autocrats and abusive leaders to evade accountability and perpetuate the status quo. As English writer Samuel Johnson famously remarked, “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.”

However, Duterte’s arrest is not anti-nationalist and neither does it undermine our country’s sovereignty. Looking at our history, it is clear that the early nationalist movement had an international dimension. Jose Rizal, himself, after translating the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen to Filipino, used the ideas contained in that document as a template for his subsequent struggle against Spanish oppression and colonialism. Succeeding nationalist leaders also borrowed Western concepts in their fight for social justice and self-determination.

What is common in the early nationalist movement was its concern for the freedom and welfare of the ordinary Filipino who was often abused, exploited, and marginalized. Nationalism, therefore, was seen as a weapon to liberate the nation and empower the most vulnerable segments of the population. A true patriot will not hesitate to support the ICC trial to stand in solidarity with the victims of the drug war who are mostly poor Filipinos.

LESSON 4: Accountability can protect and defend human rights

Duterte’s drug war created a human rights crisis in the Philippines. For the first time, the consensus on the universality of human rights and whether this is good for a country was undermined and put into question.

The ICC trial of Duterte can reclaim that consensus on human rights through accountability. The trial can establish that the Duterte government implemented a “killing policy” that murdered thousands and violated basic human rights. A conviction will send a strong message that this is not acceptable and countries cannot, for any reason, violate the rights of their citizens.

At the same time, a guilty verdict will help us remember that our nation was not built on the strength of arbitrary violence, but on the liberating notion of justice and human rights. As Rizal aptly reminds us in his novel El Filibusterismo: “The glory of saving the nation cannot be given to the one who has contributed to its ruin…. Hate only creates monsters; crime, criminals.” – Rappler.com

Joy Aceron is the Convenor-Director of Government Watch (G-Watch | www.g-watch.org) and a researcher at Accountability Research Center (ARC | accountabilityresearch.org). 

Francis Isaac teaches international studies in San Beda College Alabang.