Duterte’s Arrest: Interpol Red Notice and ICC Procedural Implications

The Renaissance Man

The recent arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has sparked discussions about the legal processes involved, particularly concerning the roles of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Interpol. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial in assessing the implications for Duterte’s case.

Arrest and Transfer of Duterte

On March 11, 2025, Duterte was arrested by Philippine authorities upon his arrival from Hong Kong at Manila’s Ninoy Aquino International Airport. The arrest was based on an Interpol Red Notice issued at the request of the ICC, which has charged Duterte with crimes against humanity related to his anti-drug campaign during his presidency from 2016 to 2022. Following his arrest, Duterte was swiftly transferred to The Hague to face trial before the ICC.

President Marcos’ Statement on the Arrest

In a press briefing, President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. clarified that the arrest was executed in compliance with the Philippines’ commitments to Interpol. He emphasized that the Interpol Manila had received an official copy of the ICC warrant against Duterte, leading to the arrest. Marcos stated, “Interpol asked for help, and we obliged because we have commitments to the Interpol which we have to fulfill.”

Understanding Interpol Red Notices

An Interpol Red Notice is a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest an individual pending extradition or similar legal action. It is important to note that a Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. Instead, it serves as a notification of an existing arrest warrant issued by judicial authorities, in this case, the ICC. The effectiveness of a Red Notice depends on the legal framework and cooperation agreements of the member countries.

Procedural Considerations Under the Rome Statute

The Rome Statute, which established the ICC, outlines specific procedures for the arrest and surrender of individuals:

1. Article 59(1): Requires that a state party which has received a request for arrest and surrender shall immediately take steps to arrest the person in question in accordance with its laws and the provisions of Part 9 of the Statute.

2. Article 59(2): Mandates that the arrested person shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial state, which shall determine that:

The warrant applies to that person;

The person has been arrested in accordance with the proper process; and

The person’s rights have been respected.

3. Article 59(3): Provides the arrested person the right to apply for interim release pending surrender.

In Duterte’s case, the immediate transfer to The Hague raises questions about whether these procedural safeguards were observed, particularly his right to challenge the arrest and seek interim release before Philippine judicial authorities.

Implications for Duterte’s Case

If it is determined that the procedural requirements under the Rome Statute were not fully observed, several implications could arise:

Challenge to Jurisdiction: Duterte’s defense may argue that the ICC lacks jurisdiction due to procedural irregularities during the arrest and transfer process.

Suppression of Evidence: Evidence obtained through potentially flawed procedures might be deemed inadmissible, impacting the prosecution’s case.

Reputational Impact on the ICC: Perceived procedural missteps could affect the ICC’s credibility and its ability to secure cooperation from member states in future cases.

Did the Philippine Government Violate Its Own Sovereignty by Arresting Duterte?

This is where legal complications arise. Since the Philippines is no longer an ICC member state:

1. It has no obligation to enforce ICC arrest warrants.

ICC warrants are only legally binding on member states or states that voluntarily cooperate with the ICC.

The Philippine government was not required to arrest Duterte under ICC rules.

2. The use of an Interpol Red Notice complicates the case.

President Marcos claimed that the arrest was made due to an Interpol Red Notice, not directly because of the ICC warrant.

However, an Interpol Red Notice does not legally override national laws—it merely requests cooperation from local authorities.

The legal basis under Philippine law for executing the arrest remains unclear since the country is not legally bound to comply with ICC requests.

3. Possible violations of the Philippine Constitution.

Duterte’s legal team could argue that since the Philippines is not an ICC member, his arrest lacked legal basis under domestic law.

Under the Philippine Constitution, arrests must be based on Philippine law, and there is no existing law requiring compliance with ICC warrants after the country’s withdrawal.

Did the Philippines Violate Duterte’s Due Process Rights?

Yes, there are strong arguments that the Philippine government violated Duterte’s due process rights in several ways:

1. Immediate Transfer to The Hague Without a Judicial Review

Article 59(2) of the Rome Statute requires that any arrested person must first appear before a judge in the arresting country to confirm the warrant’s validity.

If Duterte was transferred to The Hague without this step, his rights under both international law and Philippine law may have been violated.

2. No Opportunity to Challenge the Arrest in a Philippine Court

Article 59(3) of the Rome Statute grants arrested persons the right to apply for interim release before the courts of the arresting country.

If Duterte was denied this chance, his due process rights were not upheld.

3. Questionable Legal Basis for Arrest Since the Philippines Is Not an ICC Member

The Philippine government cannot legally justify the arrest under ICC obligations since it is no longer a state party.

The lack of a clear Philippine law authorizing ICC-related arrests raises constitutional concerns.

What Happens Next?

Duterte’s legal team will likely challenge the validity of his arrest before the ICC and Philippine courts. If the ICC acknowledges procedural violations, it could:

Suspend proceedings until the due process issues are resolved.

Grant Duterte interim release pending review of his arrest.

Undermine the ICC’s legitimacy, as critics will argue that it disregarded its own legal standards.

Republic Act No. 9851: Does It Justify Duterte’s Arrest?

Republic Act No. 9851, also known as the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, was enacted in 2009. It domesticates the principles of international criminal law and provides legal mechanisms for prosecuting individuals responsible for serious international crimes under Philippine law.

Key Provisions Relevant to Duterte’s Case

1. RA 9851 Recognizes Crimes Against Humanity (Section 6)

Duterte is accused of crimes against humanity under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

RA 9851 also defines and penalizes crimes against humanity under Philippine law.

This means Duterte could be prosecuted domestically in the Philippines, without requiring ICC involvement.

2. RA 9851 Recognizes Universal Jurisdiction (Section 17)

The law states that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, even if committed outside the country.

This reinforces the principle of accountability for grave offenses.

3. RA 9851 Requires Judicial Oversight for Arrests (Section 18-19)

The law requires suspects to undergo a judicial process in Philippine courts before being surrendered to an international tribunal.

Duterte was not given this process, as he was immediately transferred to The Hague.

Failure to conduct a proper judicial review before extradition violates RA 9851.

Does RA 9851 Justify Duterte’s Arrest?

Yes and No.

Yes, Duterte can be arrested under RA 9851

The law criminalizes crimes against humanity in the Philippines.

Since Duterte is accused of such crimes, his arrest could be justified under Philippine law.

No, because he should have been tried in the Philippines first

RA 9851 states that the Philippines has primary jurisdiction over crimes against humanity.

If Duterte was to be prosecuted, it should have been through Philippine courts first before any extradition or transfer to the ICC.

Did the Philippine Government Violate RA 9851?

Yes, the government violated RA 9851’s legal process

Duterte was not first subjected to Philippine judicial proceedings before being handed over to the ICC.

RA 9851 requires that an accused person be brought before a Philippine court before any transfer to an international tribunal.

Skipping this step violates Philippine due process and sovereignty.

Duterte’s legal team could use RA 9851 to challenge his transfer

They can argue that the Philippines failed to follow its own law before turning Duterte over to the ICC.

If this argument is successful, the ICC could be forced to review the legality of Duterte’s surrender and even suspend proceedings.

Did RA 9851 Justify Duterte’s Arrest?

1. RA 9851 criminalizes crimes against humanity, so Duterte’s arrest could be justified under Philippine law.

2. However, Duterte should have faced trial in the Philippines first before being transferred to the ICC.

3. By immediately surrendering Duterte to the ICC, the Philippine government bypassed RA 9851’s due process requirements.

4. This procedural violation could weaken the ICC’s case and provide legal grounds for Duterte to challenge his extradition.

Bottom Line: RA 9851 does not justify Duterte’s immediate transfer to The Hague—it actually requires that he be tried in the Philippines first.

Conclusion

While President Marcos’ assertion that Duterte’s arrest was based on an Interpol Red Notice is accurate, the immediate transfer to The Hague without affording Duterte the opportunity to challenge his arrest or seek interim release before a Philippine judicial authority raises concerns about the violation of his due process rights under the Rome Statute. Ensuring adherence to established legal procedures is essential to uphold the integrity of international justice and the protection of individual rights.

Contrary to its claim, the Philippine government violated the provisions of the Rome Statute with regard to the arrest, Duterte’s right to due process under the Rome Statute and the Philippine Constitution and the provisions of Republic Act No. 9851.

[…]

Via https://renaissance-man.blog/2025/03/12/dutertes-arrest-interpol-red-notice-and-icc-procedural-implications/