US SANCTIONS ON ICC WILL NOT HINDER CASE AGAINST DUTERTE, BATO, AND INVESTIGATION ON PHILIPPINE “WAR ON DRUGS”
The ICC is a consent- and rules-based tribunal that forwards one of the foundations of the international legal order: there must be accountability for grave crimes. It cannot bow down to the wishes of the few, and more so, to the whims of the small-minded.
September 27, 2026
NUPL
The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers is a nationwide voluntary association of human rights lawyers in the Philippines, committed to the defense, protection, and promotion of human rights, especially of the poor and the oppressed.

Contrary to circulating rumors, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will not immediately close nor Rodrigo Roa Duterte be automatically released upon pressure by the United States of America and their President Donald Trump. The court is not supported by money from the US, and none of its physical facilities are hosted by or in the US. 

The ICC is a consent- and rules-based tribunal that forwards one of the foundations of the international legal order: there must be accountability for grave crimes. It cannot bow down to the wishes of the few, and more so, to the whims of the small-minded. 

The Duterte case and the Philippine situation was brought to the court’s attention by many entities, including the very victims of the “war on drugs”. The investigation and case were vetted vigorously under the court’s systems and protocols. We see no direct risk of the sanctions to the proceedings, as the Duterte case moves on to trial stage by end of November 2026. Even if the decision on Duterte’s fitness to stand trial is still pending, the trial chamber has confirmed that Duterte must be kept in detention. 

There is indirect danger if the measures paralyze operations in institutional or personal transactions. Some of Trump’s sanctions are already in place – individual personal assets within US jurisdictions have been frozen, access to US-linked financial and software services restricted, and individuals barred from entering the United States. Eleven officials, including nine judges, already have serious issues with finances and communications. This is an affront to judicial independence and the rule of law and justice.

Also, withdrawal from the court by any or all of the 125 member countries, as Trump commands, will only take effect after a year of formal notice. This is a guarantee of legal accountability. Duterte’s case will be sooner resolved than the court dissolved. We urge the state-parties and even non-state parties of the ICC to use “blocking statutes” to obstruct the extra-territorial effects of unreasonable foreign legislation.  

Dismantling the ICC only benefits the tyrants, mass murderers, and war criminals. Victims of the “war on drugs” challenge the Marcos administration to stand with humanity, stand against impunity and injustice.

References:

Neri Colmenares 

Kristina Conti

Read more

PAF’s Thin Skin Is No Ground for Punishing Student Dissent

PAF’s Thin Skin Is No Ground for Punishing Student Dissent

The Philippine Air Force has no problem displaying weapons on a university campus, yet apparently cannot stomach sharp questions protests from students about military operations and civilian casualties. Even the University of Santo Tomas (UST) disciplinary resolution notes that PAF personnel themselves considered the students’ questions valid. What offended them, it seems, was the students’ supposedly rude manner.

NUPL Files Motion to Keep Gorgonio, PDG Case in Manila

NUPL Files Motion to Keep Gorgonio, PDG Case in Manila

The motion asks the Court to reconsider its September 23 Resolution forwarding the case records to the CA Visayas Station in Cebu. It asks that the case remain in Manila, where the Supreme Court directed the respondents to file their returns.

LTFRB Must Not Weaponize Franchises Against Peaceful Protest

LTFRB Must Not Weaponize Franchises Against Peaceful Protest

The government has a duty to protect commuters and ensure adequate transportation. It should meet that duty through lawful contingency measures, meaningful dialogue, and concrete action on the conditions driving transport workers and operators to protest—not by threatening their livelihoods.

Share This