Unrest in the Republic: The Unconstitutional Arrest of Duterte and the Uproar That Followed

April 2025 — Manila, Philippines

The arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte by authorities acting on an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant has sent shockwaves across the nation, igniting mass protests, fierce political debates, and what some analysts are calling a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Duterte, 80, was apprehended upon his arrival at Ninoy Aquino International Airport after attending a private event in Hong Kong. Philippine authorities — reportedly cooperating with Interpol and Dutch officials — executed the arrest warrant without prior approval from the Supreme Court or any local judiciary review. Within hours, he was transferred to Villamor Air Base, then swiftly flown to The Hague, Netherlands.

While the ICC has long been investigating Duterte for alleged crimes against humanity tied to the controversial “war on drugs,” the legality of this sudden and internationally coordinated arrest has come under fire — not only from Duterte loyalists but from constitutional experts, nationalist voices, and even members of the current administration.

A Nation’s Constitution in Crisis

Critics have slammed the move as unconstitutional, citing the Philippines’ formal withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019 — the treaty that established the ICC. While the Court insists it retains jurisdiction for crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member, constitutionalists argue that enforcement of an international arrest warrant without a domestic judicial order violates the sovereignty protected under Article II, Section 7 of the Philippine Constitution.

“The Supreme Court has not even ruled on the ICC’s jurisdiction over the Philippines. Arresting a former president without that clarification is premature — and frankly, dangerous,” said constitutional law expert Atty. Lorna Kapunan during a televised panel.

Senator Imee Marcos: Leading the Senate Inquiry

Amidst the political chaos, Senator Imee Marcos has emerged as a vocal advocate for constitutional process and due diligence. On March 13, just days after Duterte’s arrest, she filed a resolution calling for a full-blown Senate investigation into the events that led to what she labeled as a “foreign-influenced apprehension of a Filipino citizen on Philippine soil.”

“This is not about defending Duterte,” Senator Marcos stated during a fiery Senate privilege speech.
“This is about defending the rule of law in the Philippines. If one man can be taken without a court order, any of us can.”

The Senate hearing, currently chaired by Marcos under the Committee on Foreign Relations, seeks to investigate the roles of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), and Philippine National Police (PNP) in the arrest. Initial testimonies revealed that high-level coordination with ICC representatives had been ongoing for months — unbeknownst to most lawmakers.

Public Uproar and Street Protests

The streets of Davao City, Cebu, and Metro Manila erupted with protests following the arrest. Tens of thousands gathered, waving placards that read “#SovereigntyMatters” and “No to Foreign Justice.” Duterte loyalists chanted “Idol namin si Tatay Digong!” while civil libertarians expressed concern over the precedent this arrest could set for foreign intervention in domestic affairs.

Interestingly, some critics of Duterte’s human rights record also condemned the move. “We want justice — but we want it done within our system, not imposed from the outside,” said a protester outside the Supreme Court, holding a banner that read: “Justice must be ours to give.”

Divided Legal Opinion

Legal scholars remain split. The ICC maintains that its jurisdiction is valid for the period between November 2011 and March 2019, and that Duterte’s actions during his presidency — and earlier as Mayor of Davao — fall within that scope. However, others argue that cooperation with the ICC without a new treaty or legal framework violates constitutional mandates.

“This is like an extradition in disguise,” said retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio. “The executive branch should not have executed a foreign warrant without proper domestic validation.”

Vice President Sara Duterte: “A Betrayal of the Filipino People”

Vice President Sara Duterte, visibly emotional during a press statement, described the arrest as “a betrayal, not just of my father, but of every Filipino’s right to sovereignty and dignity.”

In a surprise move, she flew to The Hague on a diplomatic passport. As one of her father’s attorneys, she also retained a specialized international legal team to assist with the case. Her visit, though unofficial, was widely covered by international media and symbolized the deepening tension between the executive and the vice presidency.

Why Marcos Jr.’s Silence on the ICC Speaks Volumes

For months, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has cloaked his stance on the International Criminal Court’s investigation in polite diplomatic language—touting “respect for international agreements” and the need for “judicial independence.” But silence, especially in politics, is rarely neutral. Behind this carefully measured tone lies a government walking a diplomatic tightrope, caught between calls for accountability and a powerful political legacy that still shapes the national landscape. The European Union and prominent human rights organizations have continued to voice concerns, urging the Philippines to honor its past commitments to international justice. Meanwhile, pressure from civil society and international watchdogs continues to mount.

Still, to frame Marcos’s stance as pure diplomacy misses the underlying political strategy. The former president, Rodrigo Duterte, remains immensely popular—especially among grassroots supporters who see his anti-drug campaign not as a human rights catastrophe, but as a firm stand against criminality. Any move that appears to undermine Duterte’s legacy risks being interpreted as betrayal. By quietly allowing the investigation to proceed, Marcos Jr. seeks to maintain distance from the past without overtly alienating a key segment of the population. It’s a maneuver aimed at preserving his own image while letting legal and international mechanisms take the lead.

But even subtle steps can leave lasting footprints. By appearing to cooperate with the ICC—even at arm’s length—Marcos may have misread the emotional memory of the Filipino people. This is a nation that remembers. Many still revere Duterte’s brand of leadership, and for them, this ICC cooperation, however indirect, feels like political treachery wrapped in diplomacy. Marcos may gain nods from global observers, but back home, some Filipinos are watching—and not forgetting.

Marcos Jr. may not have said much, but his administration’s actions speak volumes. And in a country where silence can be interpreted as consent—or worse, betrayal—his legacy may be shaped not by bold declarations, but by quiet decisions that echo louder than words.

Global Implications and the Future of International Justice

The Duterte arrest could have wide-reaching implications not just for the Philippines, but for the global order. It marks the first time a Southeast Asian leader has been taken into ICC custody. Advocates of global accountability say this is a watershed moment for human rights.

But for others, it raises serious questions about national autonomy in an increasingly interconnected world. “Who gets to enforce justice?” asked one editorial in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. “And can it still be called justice if it comes from outside?”

What’s Next?

Senator Imee Marcos has called for an immediate temporary injunction from the Supreme Court to halt any further cooperation with the ICC until a full legal review is conducted. Meanwhile, the Senate hearings continue to reveal layers of coordination that were kept out of the public eye.

Legal analysts predict that the Supreme Court will soon be forced to rule on the constitutional validity of Duterte’s arrest — a decision that could shape the limits of Philippine foreign policy and judicial independence for years to come.

Conclusion: More Than One Man

In the end, the debate is no longer just about Duterte. It’s about who has the final say in how justice is delivered in the Philippines. Is it the people? The Constitution? Or a foreign court thousands of miles away?

One thing is clear: the people are watching — and they will not be silent.