Senator Imee Marcos leads a Senate inquiry into the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte, questioning its legality and implications on Philippine sovereignty. As chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Marcos seeks to clarify whether authorities overstepped legal boundaries and if the ICC still holds jurisdiction over Duterte despite the Philippines’ withdrawal in 2019.
MANILA, Philippines – Senator Imee Marcos, chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and sister of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., initiated a Senate inquiry on March 20, 2025, to investigate the controversial arrest and transfer of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
During the hearing, she expressed strong concerns about the legality of the arrest and questioned whether Philippine authorities had compromised national sovereignty in complying with international requests.
“Since when did the Philippines become a province of The Hague?” Marcos asked during the hearing, challenging the country’s perceived submission to foreign legal institutions.
She sought clarification on whether the government had willingly cooperated with the ICC despite the Philippines’ official withdrawal from the court in 2019.
Her remarks signaled a deeper concern over foreign influence in domestic affairs, with Marcos pushing for stronger assertions of national sovereignty.
Marcos Administration Defends Duterte’s Arrest
In response to the Senate inquiry, the Marcos administration firmly defended its actions, emphasizing that the arrest was conducted lawfully under both international and domestic legal frameworks.
Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla clarified that while the Philippines is no longer a member of the ICC, the arrest was carried out in accordance with international humanitarian law and not as an act of direct cooperation with the ICC.
He explained that the arrest was initiated based on a request from Interpol and aligned with the country’s obligations under Republic Act 9851, which addresses crimes against international humanitarian law, genocide, and other crimes against humanity.
Furthermore, Malacañang maintained that Duterte’s arrest was legally sound. Palace Press Officer Claire Castro responded to Senator Marcos’ concerns, stating that the Philippines was simply enforcing the provisions of RA 9851 and had not violated any legal principles.
The Palace also dismissed allegations that the arrest was politically motivated, asserting that the government was merely upholding its commitments to international legal standards.
Amid speculation about potential conflicts between Senator Marcos and the Marcos administration over the probe, government officials insisted that the inquiry was a standard legislative exercise.
They dismissed concerns that Marcos’ leadership of the investigation undermined the administration’s position, emphasizing that her role in the Senate probe was separate from the executive branch’s decision-making on the matter.
Key Figures Testify on Duterte’s Arrest
Several high-ranking officials were called to testify before the Senate panel, shedding light on the legal, political, and procedural aspects of Duterte’s arrest.
Justice Secretary Remulla reiterated his stance that the Interpol red notice was a key factor in the apprehension. He maintained that while the ICC had issued an arrest warrant for Duterte, the action taken by Philippine authorities was based on existing laws rather than any obligation to the international tribunal.
Vice President Sara Duterte, appearing virtually, denounced her father’s arrest, calling it a politically motivated move. She accused certain factions of using the case as a tool to weaken her family’s political influence and destabilize Duterte’s allies.
Foreign Affairs Secretary Enrique Manalo weighed in on the legal complexities surrounding the issue, pointing out that the Philippines’ 2019 withdrawal from the ICC did not necessarily nullify pending cases that had been filed before the country’s exit.
He emphasized that diplomatic and legal considerations had to be carefully examined before complying with foreign judicial requests.
PNP Officials Defend Their Actions
The Philippine National Police (PNP) also came under scrutiny for its role in the execution of Duterte’s arrest.
Among those called to testify was Police Major General Nicolas Torre III, Director of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG). Torre maintained that the arrest was executed within the bounds of Philippine law, rejecting allegations that law enforcement had acted improperly.
“I did my job within the bounds of the law,” Torre told the Senate panel. Other PNP officials supported his statement, denying any direct collaboration with the ICC and insisting that they were acting based on an Interpol request and in line with Republic Act 9851.
Despite these explanations, some senators remained skeptical, questioning whether Philippine authorities should have challenged the legality of the warrant before executing it.
A Push to Reaffirm PH Sovereignty in ICC Dispute
The Senate inquiry has intensified calls from lawmakers who argue that the Philippines must formally reject the ICC’s jurisdiction over Duterte.
Several senators have proposed a resolution reaffirming national sovereignty and clarifying that the country is under no obligation to comply with ICC directives.
Supporters of Duterte argue that the arrest is unconstitutional, given the country’s 2019 withdrawal from the ICC. They contend that honoring the arrest warrant sets a dangerous precedent for future foreign intervention in Philippine affairs.
Senator Marcos, echoing these sentiments, emphasized that the Philippines should not be dictated by external legal bodies.
On the other hand, human rights organizations and legal analysts insist that Duterte remains accountable for alleged crimes committed before the Philippines’ withdrawal. They argue that the ICC retains jurisdiction over cases that were filed before the country formally exited the court, making his arrest legally valid.
The political divide over the issue is further complicated by growing tensions between the Marcos and Duterte factions.
While the Marcos administration asserts that the arrest was purely a legal matter, Duterte allies view it as a betrayal, fueling speculation of a broader political shift within the government.
Lawmakers are now considering additional measures, including legislative safeguards that restrict international legal influence on Philippine affairs and clarify the country’s obligations under global treaties.
Some senators have also called for an independent review of the government’s handling of international legal matters to ensure that future arrests or extraditions are strictly governed by Philippine law.
With tensions mounting, all eyes remain on the Senate as Marcos continues to lead the probe. The outcome of this investigation could significantly influence Philippine foreign policy, domestic law enforcement, and the evolving relationship between the Marcos and Duterte political blocs.
Stay tuned for updates as the Senate inquiry progresses.
