Duterte’s Crimes Against Humanity?
The Pyeongchang Winter Olympics have concluded and everyone is searching for signs of improving relations between the Koreas. While the world anticipates an abolition of term limits in China and America recovers from yet another school shooting, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has quietly begun to flex its muscles. In response to allegations of crimes against humanity, the court is now investigating President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines for potential crimes committed during his anti-drug campaign. This probe is the first of its kind to be conducted in Southeast Asia.
In this specific case, human rights organizations have been wary of misconduct in the Philippines for a while now and almost all of it is centered around Duterte’s abuse of police and legal power in his “War On Drugs.” In fact, an attentive observer could have predicted this long ago. Duterte first rose to fame as Mayor of Davao, where he served seven terms and became notorious for his controversial methods of reducing crime, among which included the approval of a vigilante death squad to murder gang members and drug dealers. Despite criticism from all sides, Duterte was generally regarded as a popular figure who boldly addressed the social problems of Davao head-on. In late 2015, he entered the presidential race with promises to rebuild the steel industry and clean up the Philippines the way he cleaned up Davao. His tough-talking demeanor and unapologetic behavior won over the populace and as a result, Rodrigo Duterte won by a landslide.
According to official statistics provided by the Philippines, four thousand people have died as a result of Duterte’s anti-drug campaign. However, this figure’s accuracy is widely contested. In August of 2017, Human Rights Watch reported that after media sources claimed that the death toll was actually over ten thousand, not only did Duterte give a ridiculing response, but that the Government and Police of the Philippines have been actively attempting to prevent media sources and observers from keeping an accurate count of casualties by publicizing contradictory figures.
In April of 2017, lawyer Jude Josue Sabio, who formally represented two of Duterte’s hitmen in Davao, filed a seventy-seven page report to the ICC which accused Duterte and eleven other officials of crimes against humanity and murder. He indicated that the death toll had to be at least eight thousand and was probably much higher in reality.
For those who may be less familiar with the lesser-known cousin of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the ICC is an international tribunal located in The Hague in the Netherlands. It has the authority to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Unlike the ICJ, which states become party to simply by ratifying the Charter of the United Nations, the ICC only has jurisdiction over states which have signed the Rome Statute, the governing document of the ICC. However, the ICC’s jurisdiction may only be exercised when national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute criminals, or when either the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer cases to the court.
With that being said, why would the ICC even be necessary then? Couldn’t this issue simply be brought up in Filipino national courts? Apparently not. Gary Alejano, a prominent politician who attempted to have Duterte impeached and also submitted evidence to the ICC, pointed out that in this matter, the Filipino national courts were incapable of bringing justice. In describing how a victim’s family might address the death of a loved one, he claimed that appealing to any of the institutions within the Philippines would accomplish nothing:
“They cannot go to police because they are involved, they cannot go to the department of justice because the secretary will say there’s no such thing as extrajudicial killing. And when we request an investigation from the House of Representatives, we can not get an impartial hearing because they are covering up for the president. There is a clear and blatant violation of the rule of law in the Philippines right now, and so the ICC are the only ones who can step in.”
On the other hand, Duterte’s spokesman, Harry Roque, stated that the investigation would unfairly undermine the sovereignty of the Philippines and was a complete waste of time and resources on the part of the ICC since Filipino domestic courts would have entertained the complaint. Of course, he also conveyed that Duterte was sick and tired of being accused of various crimes.
While the drama of this investigation has yet to fully unfold, some are already beginning to feel that regardless of what the result may be, the Philippines is very unlikely to respect it. This is understandable, as the problem with international law institutions have historically been jurisdiction and enforcement. Furthermore, the ICC’s success rate of actually going through with the full proceedings of a trial and punishing a criminal is rather low. The ICC has publicly indicted forty one people. Out of these, twenty three proceedings have not been concluded (twelve are still at large and three have been arrested but are not in the custody of the ICC).
For a noncompliant state or a particularly crafty criminal, the ICC is often powerless to even begin a trial. Of the ICC’s seventeen completed trials, only three have been convicted (one was acquitted, one had his case declared inadmissible, two had their charges withdrawn, four died before trial completion, and six had their charges dismissed). With this type of track record, numerous claims have arisen that the court is a puppet of permanent security council countries with an alleged anti-Africa bias. It therefore seems entirely reasonable for many to view the ICC as a joke.
Though listing the complete problems of the ICC would amount to at least another article, it is clear to me that in its current state, the ICC is unable to accomplish much at all. Even as an avid follower of international legal news and a believer of international law’s power for good in the world, it is difficult for me to view the court with great enthusiasm or positivity. To conclude, I believe it would be fitting to pose a question: if the ICC may never be satisfactorily reformed, what is it even accomplishing?
