The International Criminal Court and the Philippines: Understanding Its Jurisdiction and Current Cases

The International Criminal Court or the ICC has been the talk of the town since the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte last March 11, 2025 due to numerous accusations of crimes against humanity during his ‘war on drugs’ as Davao City Mayor and former Philippine president. In an attempt to discredit the arrest, allies have consistently argued that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the Philippines, specifically over Duterte, due to our withdrawal from it effective March 2019.

What is the truth? Does the ICC have the power to investigate, arrest, and adjudicate on the rights of former President Duterte? 

This blog will attempt to adopt an easy-to-understand approach to settle confusing concepts pertaining to the ICC and its powers in relation to the Philippines and its citizens.

Quick Summary

• The ICC is an international court that prosecutes individuals for grave crimes.
• The Philippines was a member from 2011–2019.
• ICC jurisdiction still applies to acts committed before withdrawal (Art. 127(2)).
• ICC warrants for Duterte remain valid.
• The Philippines must still cooperate with ongoing ICC proceedings.

What Is the International Criminal Court (ICC)?

​The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and when necessary, hears cases against individuals charged with the gravest international crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. 

Purpose and Role of the ICC in Global Justice

Much like national or local courts, the ICC’s main purpose is to hold responsible individuals accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again. While the ICC has broader powers than our Regional Trial Courts in that it can adjudicate on international matters, it only seeks to “complement, and not replace”, the powers of the Philippine trial courts. 

Only when the Philippine trial courts fail to adjudicate does the ICC step in.

What the International Criminal Court means for the Philippines

The International Criminal Court (ICC), as mentioned, only attempts to fill in the gaps our national courts are unable to fulfill. This is important to us because criminal acts pertaining to crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, and the crime of aggression can still be punished even after a State party has withdrawn from the Rome Statute.

This is however not automatic because the ICC jurisdiction over the Philippines depends upon the following:

• When the alleged crimes occurred

• Whether the criminal acts fall under the four: crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, and the crime of aggression

• The rules under Article 127(2) pertaining to a withdrawn State party

What gives the ICC these adjudicatory powers? 

The Rome Statute, signed by the Philippines on December 2000 and ratified on August 2011, is the founding and governing treaty of the ICC. It lays down ICC’s Court's jurisdiction over four main crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. It also contains guidelines on admissibility and applicable laws, the composition of the ICC, investigations and prosecution, trials, penalties, international cooperation and judicial assistance, and enforcement of its provisions. 

What crimes does the ICC punish?

Under the Rome Statute, particularly Article 5, lists down the crimes over which the ICC has jurisdiction: (a) genocide; (b) crimes against humanity; (c) war crimes; (d) the crime of aggression. Of importance to us nowadays is understanding crimes against humanity.

Crimes against humanity is governed by Article 7 of the Rome Statute which states that any of the following acts are considered as such when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) murder; (b) extermination; (c) enslavement; (d) deportation or forcible transfer of population; (e) imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; (f) torture; (g) acts of sexual violence; (h) persecution against any identifiable group (i) enforced disappearance of persons; (j) the crime of apartheid; or (k) other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

The arrest warrant served on Duterte last March was for for the crimes against humanity of murder, torture and rape.

Difference Between the ICC and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) 

In relation to ICC, there is also another recognized international court, the International Court of Justice or the ICJ. The most apparent difference between the two is who or how they prosecute. 

The ICJ settles legal disputes between States, while the ICC prosecutes individuals such as Duterte for crimes like genocide and war crimes. Both of these Courts only govern over State parties or countries who have consented to their jurisdiction over them.

Who are Signatories to the Rome Statute?

Being a signatory to the Rome Statute not only allows the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over the State party, but it also grants these State parties to the various rights and obligations under the agreement.

A total of 125 countries are State Parties to the Rome Statute as of the date of writing. Of the 125, 33 are African States, 19 are Asia-Pacific States, 20 are from Eastern Europe, 28 are from Latin American and Caribbean States, and 25 are from Western European and other States. Some notable State parties are Ukraine, Japan, and Afghanistan. 

When Does the ICC Have Jurisdiction Over State Parties?

Generally, the ICC may exercise jurisdiction in the following situations:

• the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or

• the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council pursuant to a resolution

General Rules on ICC Jurisdiction (Territorial, Personal, and Temporal)

As listed above, ICC’s jurisdiction can be further divided into territorial, personal, and temporal.

• Territorial Jurisdiction pertains to when the crimes were committed in the territory of a State Party

• Personal Jurisdiction refers to when the crimes were committed by a State Party national

• Temporal Jurisdiction means that the ICC can only exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed after it has entered into force (July 1, 2002) or after a State Party joins.

How ICC Jurisdiction Applies Even After Withdrawal

Article 127 of the Rome Statute provides for the requirements and effects of a State Party’s withdrawal from the treaty. Of importance to us is paragraph 2 which states

A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have accrued. Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.

This paragraph is in place precisely to anticipate State parties who are withdrawing to avoid any liability from already-committed criminal acts. 

Legal Basis of ICC Jurisdiction Over Duterte’s Drug War Cases

Applying Article 127, par. 2 of the Rome Statute to the Philippines, Former ICC Prosecutor Bensouda had already begun the preliminary investigation of the ‘war on drugs’ in the Philippines on February 2018, when we were still a State Party. 

As such, the ICC maintains jurisdiction over the alleged crimes that have been committed by former President Duterte from November 01, 2011 and March 16, 2019 when we were still a State Party. 

The Philippines and the ICC: From Membership to Withdrawal

The ICC may still investigate crimes in the Philippines committed before 2019 because Article 127(2) keeps jurisdiction active even after withdrawal.

When the Philippines Joined the ICC (2011)

In December 2000, the Philippines signed the Rome Statute and ratified it in August 2011. Former President Duterte withdrew from its jurisdiction in March 2019. Because of this timeline of events, the ICC has jurisdiction over the Philippines and acts within the country from August 2011 to March 2019.

Applying this to Duterte’s case, acts between the abovementioned dates can validly be investigated and ruled upon by the ICC. It has been noted however that while relevant crimes appear to have continued after this date, the jurisdiction of the ICC, as well as its investigative powers, was limited to those during the period when the Philippines was a State Party to the Statute.

The Duterte Administration’s Decision to Withdraw

To the country’s surprise in 2018, former President Duterte unilaterally withdrew from the Rome Statute. By complying with the ICC’s Notice of Withdrawal addressed to the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN) under Article 127 of the Rome Statute, the withdrawal was successfully given effect the following year, 2019.

This unilateral withdrawal was the subject of the landmark case of Pangilinan v. Cayetano where the Court deemed the issue on whether Duterte had the power to withdraw from the Rome Statute without legislative concurrence moot and academic because the United Nations had already given it effect.  

Timeline of the Philippines’ ICC Involvement (2011-2025)

With the different dates involved as to the entry and withdrawal of the Philippines under ICC jurisdiction, it can get confusing. Refer to the visual timeline below to easily understand when all the elements took place.

Is the Philippines Still a Member of the ICC in 2025?

No, the Philippines is no longer a signatory and thus, no longer a member of the ICC in 2025. However, as abovementioned, the ICC retains jurisdiction over the criminal acts done at the time it was still a signatory.

How Did the ICC Acquire Jurisdiction Over Duterte?

Through the application of Article 127, paragraph 2 to the ‘war on drugs’ crimes, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC applied for an arrest warrant against Mr Duterte for the crimes against humanity of murder, torture and rape last February 2025. 

The Pre-Trial Chamber I, after assessing the materials submitted, found reasonable grounds to believe that former President Duterte indeed was individually responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator for the crime against humanity of murder, between November 01, 2011 and March 16, 2019.

Duterte was surrendered to the ICC last March 2025 after being arrested by the Philippine authorities in accordance with the warrant of arrest.

ICC Arrest Warrants: What This Means for Sen. Dela Rosa and Other Officials?

As proven by the case of former President Duterte, if arrest warrants were to be issued against Sec. Dela Rosa or other officials alleged to be involved in the above-cited crimes, then they will likewise be brought and tried before the ICC.

However, as of the date of writing, there is no confirmation from the ICC as to the existence of arrest warrants for these officials. As such, no arrests will be effected anytime soon.

ICC Jurisdiction and Philippine Accountability

While we are no longer a State Party to the Rome Statute, the ICC can still exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed before Duterte’s withdrawal. 

Even as a non-State party, Pangilinan v. Cayetano had emphasized that the Philippines cannot refuse to cooperate pursuant to the above-discussed Article 127 whereas a withdrawing state party withdrawing from the Rome Statute must still cooperate with the Court during any criminal proceedings. “Whatever process was already initiated before the International Criminal Court obliges the state party to cooperate”.

Key Takeaways

• The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes individuals for grave international crimes, including crimes against humanity, which are at issue in the case against former President Rodrigo Duterte.

• The Philippines withdrew from the ICC in March 2019, but this does not remove jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed while the Philippines was still a State Party.

• Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute ensures that withdrawal does not erase obligations or ongoing investigations initiated before the withdrawal took effect.

• Although the Philippines is no longer a State Party, it may still be obligated to cooperate with ongoing ICC proceedings tied to actions before March 2019, as recognized in Pangilinan v. Cayetano.

Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the rome statute

The Rome Statute is a treaty granting the International Criminal Court the jurisdiction over State Parties’ commission of several crimes.

Can International Criminal Court prosecute a president​

Yes, the ICC can prosecute a president since it exercises jurisdiction over crimes committed by a State Party national.

Can the ICC acquire jurisdiction over Duterte

Yes, as long as the crimes considered were committed at the time we were still a State Party (November 01, 2011 and March 16, 2019).

What crimes does the ICC handle?

Crimes that the ICC handles are: (a) genocide; (b) crimes against humanity; (c) war crimes; and (d) the crime of aggression.

Final Word

Former President Duterte’s withdrawal from the ICC effective in 2019 did not erase our obligations and accountability for crimes allegedly committed at the time we were still a State party to the Rome Statute. As the ICC proceedings against Duterte move forward, the Philippines stands at crucial crossroads as to the power of the international courts over us. To research more about the powers of the ICC, check out Digest AI and try its many legal research features to stay updated on legal and political matters.