CIVICUS discusses the arrest of former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte with Maria Sol Taule, deputy secretary general of the human rights organisation Karapatan. Founded in 1995, Karapatan is a national alliance of civil society organisations (CSOs) and activists working for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Philippines. It documents and denounces extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary imprisonment and militarisation and challenges the prevailing culture of impunity.

The struggle for accountability took a step forward on 11 March, when Duterte was arrested and detained on the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) orders on charges of crimes against humanity, including thousands of extrajudicial killings, committed in the context of his ‘war on drugs’ between 2016 and 2022. The arrest deepened political divisions, with human rights activists celebrating it as a victory in the fight against impunity while Duterte’s supporters condemned it as foreign interference.

What were the grounds for Duterte’s detention?

The ICC had Duterte arrested because of mounting evidence that his ‘war on drugs’ constituted crimes against humanity under international law. After a preliminary examination that began in 2018 and a formal investigation launched in 2021, the ICC determined there was sufficient evidence to hold him personally accountable for orchestrating a campaign of systematic violence that resulted in thousands of extrajudicial killings of suspected drug users and dealers.

Duterte’s government encouraged law enforcement personnel to commit abuses by offering cash rewards for killing suspected drug dealers. As of March 2022, the government reported 6,252 deaths in police operations, but human rights organisations and academics estimate the real number to be between 12,000 and 30,000. The ‘war on drugs’ disproportionately targeted young men from impoverished areas, and police frequently planted weapons and drugs on bodies to justify the killings. Most of the victims were never given a chance to defend themselves in court. At least 54 children were killed in the first year alone.

On top of the killings, the astonishing number of drug-related arrests led to extreme prison overcrowding. Inhumane detention conditions constituted further rights violations.

Duterte’s arrest follows years of struggles by victims’ families and human rights groups to hold him accountable.

How did civil society react to the arrest?

Civil society’s response has been largely positive, reflecting years of advocacy by victims’ families and human rights organisations seeking justice and accountability. Many groups view this development as a crucial first step toward justice in a system where domestic remedies have repeatedly failed.

For years, families of victims have faced insurmountable obstacles when seeking justice in the Philippines. The police officers tasked with investigating the killings were often the same ones responsible for them. Most families had to navigate complex legal processes with no support, facing intimidation and threats when pursuing cases against law enforcement officials.

The judicial track record demonstrates why the ICC’s intervention became necessary. Only a handful of police officers – primarily lower-ranking personnel – have been convicted for killings related to the ‘war on drugs’. The vast majority of cases remain stalled at the prosecutor level, with many at risk of dismissal due to procedural delays or political pressure. Duterte’s arrest raises hope that accountability might finally extend to those who commanded these operations, not just those who executed them.

In what ways has public opinion shifted?

Public perception has shifted since Duterte left office. What began as focused criticism of the ‘war on drugs’ has expanded into a broader reassessment of his presidency. Many people who once supported his tough-on-crime stance now question the legitimacy and consequences of his methods and are increasingly calling for investigations into extrajudicial killings linked to counterinsurgency operations, the systematic arrest and prosecution of activists and critics, the heavily militarised COVID-19 pandemic response and the declaration of martial law in Marawi City between 2017 and 2019 that led to widespread displacement and documented rights abuses.

Two institutional legacies of Duterte’s administration have come under intense scrutiny. The first is the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict, which institutionalised the practice of ‘red-tagging’ CSOs: labelling them as communist sympathisers to justify harassment and violence. The second is the Anti-Terrorism Act, widely condemned by legal experts for its vague definitions and provisions that enable state repression of legitimate dissent.

Additionally, Duterte’s political alliance with the Marcos family – facilitating their return to power despite their well-documented history of corruption and human rights violations – is increasingly viewed as part of a deliberate strategy to normalise impunity and authoritarian governance.

What are the domestic and international implications of this case?

In the Philippines, Duterte’s arrest has triggered a reassessment of political accountability. A coalition of lawmakers has begun pushing for legislation to prevent future human rights violations, most notably the Anti-Extrajudicial Killings Bill. This proposed law would classify extrajudicial killings as heinous crimes carrying severe penalties and establish robust investigative mechanisms.

The case also reignited debate about the entrenched system of political dynasties. Powerful families such as the Duterte and Marcos families have historically insulated themselves from accountability by controlling key institutions, appointing allies to crucial positions and leveraging economic resources to maintain public support. Breaking this cycle requires comprehensive electoral reforms that would limit dynasty formation, enhance campaign finance transparency, strengthen political party development and reduce the influence of wealth in elections.

Ultimately, Duterte’s case represents more than just one leader’s accountability: it serves as a critical test of whether the Philippines can strengthen its democratic institutions sufficiently to prevent the concentration of power that enables human rights abuses.

The case has also intensified domestic pressure for the Philippines to rejoin the ICC after the country’s unilateral withdrawal in 2019 – a move Duterte orchestrated specifically to shield himself from prosecution. However, the current administration under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr has firmly rejected these calls, raising concerns about a continued pattern of insulating political elites from international accountability mechanisms.

Beyond the Philippines, this establishes a powerful precedent. It reinforces the principle that leaders, no matter how powerful, are not above international law and signals that orchestrating violence against civilians carries serious legal consequences. By rejecting sovereign immunity as a shield for crimes against humanity, it strengthens the evolving framework of international law that prioritises human rights protection over traditional notions of state sovereignty.