Senator Bam Aquino asserted during a Senate caucus that Filipinos who committed crimes in the country should be prosecuted here. His statement sounded patriotic, even legally sound.
However, in the context of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) action against former President Rodrigo Duterte and two senators reportedly named as โco-perpetrators,โ the remark becomes more than a generic defense of sovereignty. It becomes politically loaded โ and, arguably, misplaced.
The missing word: complementarity
The ICC does not swoop into countries on a whim. It operates on the principle of complementarity: it intervenes only when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to genuinely prosecute alleged crimes.
The ICC investigation into Duterteโs bloody war on drugs did not arise from thin air. It was triggered by thousands of reported killings and the near absence of high-level accountability. Only a handful of cases moved through Philippine courts. None targeted the architects or mastermind of the policy.
To insist now that Filipinos should be prosecuted here assumes that the system has demonstrated the will and capacity to do so. That assumption is precisely what is under question.
Without acknowledging complementarity, Aquinoโs statement risks sounding less like a defense of the justice system and more like a convenient abstraction.
Withdrawal is not immunity
The Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2019. But withdrawal does not extinguish jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed while the country was still a member.
This is not a matter of opinion but of treaty mechanics. The ICC maintains that it retains jurisdiction over acts committed between 2011 and 2019 โ the period that covers the height of Duterteโs drug war.
To reduce the debate to โprosecute them hereโ simplifies a legal terrain that is far more complicated.
Why this is politically intriguing
Aquinoโs remark becomes especially fascinating because of who he is.
He belongs to a political tradition that long emphasized rule of law and institutional accountability. The Duterte presidency was openly hostile to that camp.
Many critics of Duterte supported international mechanisms precisely because domestic avenues appeared blocked.
So why emphasize sovereignty now?
Several possibilities emerge. Aquino’s statement could signal his political recalibration in a polarized Senate. It could be seen as a bid to avoid being painted as pro-ICC in a country where foreign intervention is politically sensitive. And it could also be a broader strategic repositioning as national politics realign post-Duterte.
This is not merely legal rhetoric. It may be political survival language.
Sovereignty versus accountability
The tension is not new. Nations have long bristled at international scrutiny. But sovereignty is not a shield against accountability; it is strengthened by credible justice systems.
If Philippine courts can genuinely prosecute powerful officials for alleged crimes against humanity, that would affirm sovereignty.ย If they cannot โ or will not โ then international mechanisms exist precisely to prevent impunity.
The uncomfortable question Aquinoโs statement avoids is this: Have we demonstrated that we can hold our most powerful leaders accountable?
The deeper risk
There is a danger in reducing this debate to nationalism. It risks reframing a human rights issue as a turf war between domestic and international courts.
The families of victims are not asking where justice is delivered. They are asking whether it will be delivered at all.
In the end, Aquinoโs statement is not simply misplaced because of legal technicalities. It is misplaced because it sidesteps the central issue: credibility.
If domestic prosecution is the preferred path, then the burden lies with Philippine institutions โ and with senators โ to show that justice here is not selective, not delayed, and not dependent on political winds.
Otherwise, sovereignty becomes a slogan. And slogans do not prosecute crimes.
About The Author
