Points needing clarification in Bam Aquino, Ping Lacson ICC statements

Senator Bam Aquino believes that extrajudicial killings cases (EJKs) should be tried in the Philippines for practical reasons.

“‘Yong mga nangyaring pagpatay sa ating bansa at kailangan po nating harapin na nagkaroon talaga ng extrajudicial killings sa ating bansa, ay dapat po ang mga trial niyan, ideally, ay dapat dito talaga sa Pilipinas kasi ang mga biktima po ay nandito rin sa Pilipinas,” the lawmaker said in a GMA News interview. 

(The killings took place in our country, and we need to accept the fact that there are extrajudicial killings in the country. The trial, ideally, should be done in the Philippines because the victims were here in the Philippines.)

But regardless of the senator’s intent, it must be highlighted that there’s a list of reasons why many legal experts, including human rights organizations and families of drug war victims, believe that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is the best avenue to hold alleged perpetrators like Duterte accountable.

At present, former president Rodrigo Duterte is facing trial before the international tribunal for the killings that happened during his war on drugs, allegedly carried out by his so-called Davao Death Squad.

In launching investigations into alleged crimes, the ICC actually respects the jurisdiction of its member states. This is done through the principle of complementarity, where it said that the ICC will discontinue its actions on a case, as long as the country under question conducts genuine proceedings that are similar to the ICC’s.

This means, if only the Philippines showed that it had a genuine probe into the extrajudicial and drug war killings, the ICC could have stepped aside and let the Philippines do its own proceedings. But obviously, this did not happen. 

During Duterte’s presidency, his administration tried to defer the probe by claiming that local judicial mechanisms were working. There was a promise of probe against cops and that cases will be filed against them. However, the Office of the ICC Prosecutor – from the time of retired Fatou Bensouda up to Karim Khan – had repeatedly said that it had found a lack of genuine investigation by the Philippine government.

Must Read

Duterte’s drug war killings: Cases closed, no action

“The ICC was established to hold individuals who committed grave offenses, such as crimes against humanity, accountable for their conduct when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate, prosecute, and try these cases,” National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers Ephraim Cortez said.

No justice

For years, drug war victims’ families have exhausted all local means to hold the alleged perpetrators accountable. 

Apart from fear of safety and threats, the families and their legal counsels also found it difficult to gather evidence for their own investigation since the individuals involved were cops. This was actually among the reasons why there were only a few drug war-related convictions in the country. 

Of the nearly 30,000 people killed, according to several human rights groups, there were only five known drug war convictions in the Philippines. This already includes the highly publicized case of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos, who was killed by Caloocan City cops in 2017. 

“For years and amid all barriers to access justice, families of victims of extrajudicial killings have pursued all domestic mechanisms to go after perpetrators in the Philippines,” human rights group Karapatan said. 

“Filing charges at the International Criminal Court is the victims’ last recourse in seeking justice. They have all the right and reason to hold accountable those who stripped them of the right to due process, to life and to rights,” it added.

Must Read

Why has there been no local drug war case vs Duterte even after his presidency?

The Duterte influence 

Rappler has been hearing from sources that the police were allegedly threatening investigators and prosecutors in the context of war on drugs.

And last year, then-Justice secretary and now Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla admitted that the local justice system was weak to prosecute Duterte because prosecutors were under pressure not to taint the former president’s pet campaign. 

“During those times, we had problems because we cannot conduct investigations properly because even prosecutors were being threatened by the police,” Remulla said in Filipino in March 2025.

The ICC itself had acknowledged Duterte’s unwavering influence in the country.

In the warrant, the all-women judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber I who ordered Duterte’s arrest said the former president wields considerable power in the country. To ensure he faces trial, prevent interference in the investigation, and protect witnesses’ safety, the judges issued the warrant.

Lawyer and former dean of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law, Mel Sta. Maria, explained that these extrajudicial killings were no “simple murder.” He said that under the Rome Statute, which created the ICC, and Republic Act No. 9851, otherwise known as the International Humanitarian Law, these EJKs are defined as widespread and systematic attacks against a civilian population.

“A trial on home-soil risks spawning massive social unrest instigated by followers of the former president. The Hague offers something our local courts cannot: geographic and political distance,” the former law dean said. “By conducting these proceedings in a neutral, independent body like the ICC, we de-escalate the potential for civil strife and ensure the focus remains on evidence, not partisan fervor.”

“Again, the ICC is structurally insulated…. None of the investigators… would be appointed or related to any government official in the Philippines, whether elected or appointed. Obviously, it’s an international arena…. They’re not funded by government funds… by the Philippine government funds,” ICC assistant to Counsel Kristina Conti previously told Rappler. 

Play Video

No local court order needed

Amid the ICC’s naming of senators Bato dela Rosa and Bong Go as Duterte’s co-conspirators, Senate blue ribbon committee chairperson Panfilo Lacson said a local court order is needed before lawmakers can be arrested in the Philippines.

Lacson clarified his take, saying he stands by his position that local courts “must be respected in whatever course of action the ICC may take.”

“To those who criticize my opinion on the need for a corresponding domestic court order before the ICC warrants of arrest against our fellow senators and others may be implemented, let me be clear: what I am protecting is our country’s legal processes as enshrined in Article III Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, not Senators Ronald de la Rosa and Bong Go,” the senator said.

But experts said there’s no need to go such lengths to get the custody of a person being ordered arrested by the ICC.

Santa Maria said that through RA No. 9851, the country has the power to waive local jurisdiction to favor an international body. He explained that when the ICC issues as a warrant, the Philippines recognizes it as universal and the RA No. 9851 provides the basis to act on the said warrant.

Must Read

[Just Saying] ICC arrest warrant does not need local court imprimatur

International Center for Transitional Justice’s Ruben Carranza reiterated that RA No. 9851 authorizes the Philippine government to surrender a person who is a subject of an ICC warrant. He added that the law does not require a court to first decide whether a surrender should be done.

When Duterte was arrested last year, his supporters were claiming that Article 59 of the Rome Statute should have been applied; that Duterte should have been brought to a Filipino judge upon arrest. The provision states that “a person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State” to assess the arrest.

However, Carranza explained that Article 59 is not obligatory for the Philippines.

“For example, the Philippines is no longer obligated to recognize a ‘right’ under Article 59 to apply for interim release locally. It is only obligated to cooperate in the enforcement of ICC warrants to the extent of the residual obligations to the ICC acknowledged in the 2021 Pangilinan decision of the Philippine Supreme Court on the effects of the PH withdrawal and obligations under its own law, specifically RA No. 9851,” the human rights lawyer told Rappler.

“As such, the Philippine government is mandated by law to allow the ICC to prosecute the case against Duterte et al.. It is also obliged under its treaty obligations to cooperate in the prosecution of these cases,” Cortez, meanwhile, said. – Rappler.com