President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. made a firm statement on Monday, asserting that the government will not surrender his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if a warrant for his arrest is issued in relation to his controversial anti-drugs campaign. Duterte is currently under investigation for alleged crimes against humanity committed during his war on drugs.
In an interview during the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP) 50th anniversary celebration and presidential forum at the Manila Hotel, Marcos declared, “We don’t recognize the warrant that they will send to us. That’s a no.” He emphasized that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the Philippines due to the existence of a functioning judiciary system in the country.
According to Marcos, the ICC only has jurisdiction in countries where the judicial system and law enforcement are not functioning. He stated, “What is the rule about the ICC? When do they adopt jurisdiction? They have jurisdiction in a country when no judicial system is working, is functioning, no police force is functioning. In other words, there probably is war, and none of these issues about war crimes and all of these are being attended to simply because the administration, especially in the judiciary, especially in law enforcement, are not functioning. That is the reason why we are saying we are well within the rules. It is their rule.”
These statements from Marcos reiterate his administration’s stance of non-cooperation with the ICC, as they consider it a threat to Philippine sovereignty. The President has previously made it clear that the country “will not lift a finger” to aid the ICC in its investigation and has instructed all national agencies not to communicate with ICC investigators.
The issue of whether the ICC has jurisdiction over the Philippines has been a subject of debate and controversy. While the ICC claims jurisdiction based on the principle of complementarity, which allows it to step in when a state is unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute crimes within its jurisdiction, Marcos and his administration argue that the Philippine judicial system is fully capable of addressing any alleged human rights abuses.
Critics of the government’s position argue that the Philippine judiciary has been compromised and that there is a lack of accountability for the thousands of deaths that have occurred as a result of Duterte’s war on drugs. They believe that the ICC investigation is necessary to ensure justice for the victims and to hold those responsible accountable.
The standoff between the Philippines and the ICC has strained international relations and raised concerns about the country’s commitment to human rights. The ICC has expressed its determination to continue its investigation despite the government’s non-cooperation, stating that it will not be deterred in its pursuit of justice.
As the controversy surrounding Duterte’s war on drugs and the ICC investigation continues, the international community will be closely watching how the situation unfolds. The outcome will not only have implications for the Philippines but also for the broader fight against impunity and the protection of human rights worldwide. The controversy surrounding Duterte’s anti-drug campaign has been a subject of intense debate both domestically and internationally. The staggering number of deaths attributed to the campaign has raised serious concerns about human rights violations and extrajudicial killings. While the Philippine government maintains that the death toll is around 6,000, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and various human rights groups have estimated the figure to exceed 30,000. This stark contrast in numbers has fueled skepticism and skepticism about the government’s handling of the drug war.
In response to the ICC’s investigation into allegations of human rights abuses, Duterte made the decision to withdraw the Philippines from the court in 2019. This move was seen by many as an attempt to avoid accountability and hinder any potential international scrutiny. However, despite the withdrawal, the ICC launched a formal inquiry into Duterte’s crackdown in September 2021. The investigation aimed to shed light on the alleged crimes committed during the drug war and hold those responsible accountable.
However, the ICC’s inquiry was short-lived as Manila announced a re-evaluation of several hundred drug operation cases that resulted in deaths. This re-evaluation prompted the suspension of the ICC’s investigation, leaving many human rights advocates disappointed and concerned about the lack of progress in addressing the alleged abuses.
With the recent change in leadership from Duterte to Ferdinand Marcos Jr., there were hopes that the drug war would take a different direction. However, it appears that the campaign has continued, albeit with a greater emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation. Marcos has repeatedly emphasized that the ICC does not have jurisdiction in the Philippines due to the presence of a functioning judicial system. This assertion has been met with skepticism, given the widespread allegations of corruption and impunity within the country’s justice system.
The controversy surrounding Duterte’s anti-drug campaign is far from over. The high number of deaths, the withdrawal from the ICC, and the ongoing debate about jurisdiction have all contributed to a complex and contentious issue. As the Philippines moves forward under new leadership, it remains to be seen how the government will address the concerns raised by human rights advocates and the international community. The search for justice and accountability continues, as does the need for a comprehensive and humane approach to addressing the drug problem in the country.
Fractured Relations Between the Marcos and Duterte Families
In recent years, relations between the Marcos and Duterte families have deteriorated significantly. This public falling out has been evident as both families seek to solidify their support bases and secure key positions ahead of the upcoming mid-term elections in 2025 and presidential elections in 2028.
Accusations of drug abuse have been exchanged between Duterte and Marcos, with Duterte even advocating for the separation of his family’s home island of Mindanao from the rest of the country. When asked about his current relationship with the Duterte family, Marcos described it as “complicated” before sharing a laugh with the audience.
However, the strained relations between the Marcos and Duterte families go beyond mere political disagreements. The roots of this fractured relationship can be traced back to the controversial presidency of Ferdinand Marcos, the father of Bongbong Marcos. During his rule, Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law, leading to widespread human rights abuses and allegations of corruption.
These actions have left a lasting impact on the Filipino people, many of whom still bear the scars of that dark period in their nation’s history. President Rodrigo Duterte, on the other hand, has taken a hardline stance on drugs and crime, implementing a controversial war on drugs that has led to thousands of extrajudicial killings.
Given the history of the Marcos family and the Duterte administration’s approach to governance, it is not surprising that tensions have arisen between the two families. The Duterte administration has been critical of the Marcoses’ attempts to rehabilitate their image and regain political power, while the Marcoses have accused Duterte of using his position to further his own political agenda.
As the mid-term elections approach, both families are vying for the support of the Filipino people. The Marcoses are seeking to capitalize on their name recognition and appeal to those who still hold a favorable view of the late Ferdinand Marcos, while the Duterte administration is relying on its populist policies and tough-on-crime stance to maintain its popularity.
The fractured relations between the Marcos and Duterte families not only reflect the complex dynamics of Philippine politics but also highlight the deep divisions within the country. The wounds of the past have yet to heal, and the upcoming elections will serve as a battleground for competing visions of the nation’s future.
Source: Agence France-Presse
Source: The Manila Times
