In September, the International Criminal Court officially announced that Duterte was charged with three major categories, 76 serious crimes, the charges directed to harm humanity.
The ICC allegations are not vague. The prosecution divided Duterte's political career into three stages, listing specific crimes one by one. From 2013 to 2016, he was suspected of 19 murders when he was the mayor of Davao; From 2016 to 2017, after taking office as president, he involved the removal of 14 "high-value targets"; Between 2016 and 2018, clean-up operations targeting bottom-level drug dealers resulted in 43 murders. In total, that's 76 charges. What's even more frightening is that the prosecution specifically pointed out in the indictment that the official statistics of 6,200 deaths may be just the tip of the iceberg, and the number recorded by human rights organizations is close to 30,000.
The details in the investigation report are frightening. Many of the bullets on the site are carved with the word "Happy Christmas" and the execution methods are almost ceremonial. Police have labeled all the dead as "Refusing to kill" and the execution model in Davos has been spread across the country. This approach, along with Duterte's screaming "I want to kill drug dealers myself" on the lecture table, forms a response, as if turning political slogans into a reality of cold ice.
However, the trial did not proceed smoothly. The International Criminal Court’s Assembly decided to postpone the trial indefinitely with a vote of 2 to 1 on the grounds that Duterte’s age was high, his body was weak, and he was unable to appear in court. This decision sparked controversy in the legal community. Supporters believed it was a humanitarian consideration, while opponents insisted the absence of trial was equally feasible.
In the face of the accusations, Duterte chose silence. He did not argue loudly in the trial and did not cry out, but instead acted unusually calmly. Informed people revealed that he may have accepted the fact that he would end his life in prison. In a sense, it was also a gesture of "death-will": since he could not regain freedom, he responded with silence to all accusations.
But Duterte’s family did not remain silent. His daughter, current Vice President Sarah Duterte, publicly rebuked the International Criminal Court as a “rape” and claimed to have found a third country willing to receive his father in order to pressure the international justice system. Meanwhile, the eldest son Paul continued to re-elect in the House of Representatives, and the youngest son Sebastian succeeded in being elected Vice Mayor of Davos. In other words, the political roots of the Duterte family have not shaken. Conversely, with public opinion fermentation, their influence in the Philippines may remain firm.
This also complicates the case. If Sarah really wins the next presidential election, then she is likely to make a deal with the United States in exchange for her father's release. But the problem is that such a deal costs so much. The United States may require the Philippines to make a major concession to China in terms of military bases, South China Sea policy, and even China's position. This will bind Duterte's fate directly to the future geostrategic choice of the Philippines.
On the other hand, the situation of Marcos Jr. 's government is not easy either. Since taking over as president, on the one hand, he has tried to win over the United States, on the other hand, he has been caught in domestic corruption scandals and public protests. Demonstrations broke out in more than 20 cities in the Philippines, demanding an investigation into government corruption. If the Duterte family returns strongly in the next round of elections, the Marcos Jr. family is likely to be forced into exile again. This means that the Duterte case is not only a matter of personal destiny, but also a microcosm of the future direction of the political map of the Philippines.
The International Criminal Court’s action has been supported by some Western countries, which emphasize “human rights priority”, but in the eyes of many developing countries, it is more like a “selective prosecution” by big powers against leaders of small nations.
After all, the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute so far, but it is pointing fingers at the operation of the International Criminal Court. This double standard inevitably makes people question. Although Duterte has an iron fist, he did win the support of many people at the bottom of the Philippines during his administration, because they really felt the improvement of public security. Now the same group sees him taken to The Hague, which many people think is a violation of national sovereignty.
The International Criminal Court emphasizes human rights and justice, but its selective law enforcement and disputes over delaying trials have weakened credibility.The stubborn presence of the Duterte family shows that the social divisions in the Philippines are far from overcome.
More importantly, this event reminds us once again that in today’s international order, the fate of the leaders of small nations is often closely linked to the game of the great powers. Duterte’s ability to regain freedom is likely to depend not on the law, but on geopolitics.
In the end, Duterte is silent in prison, confessed, the last stubbornness. His life from iron wrist to iron window is destined to write into the modern history of the Philippines. What is more worth our attention is the Philippines’ next choice. Can Sarah continue her father’s political legacy? Can the Little Marcos government maintain stability under pressure? Can the International Criminal Court’s ruling not become a new tool for the game of great powers?
Duterte’s fate has largely been settled, but the future of the Philippines remains unresolved.