UN Submission Questions ICC Detention of Duterte, Alleges Political Weaponization

A document submitted to the 62nd Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has raised serious allegations regarding the detention of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte at the International Criminal Court (ICC), claiming that the case has been used as a political instrument amid intensifying domestic tensions in the Philippines.

The four-page submission, titled “Comprehensive Submission Regarding the Arbitrary Detention of Former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte: Instrumentalization of the ICC in Domestic Political Warfare and Violations of the Rome Statute,” was reportedly submitted by the International Career Support Association (ICSA) through Geneva United Nations Affairs representative Shunichi Fujiki.

The document argues that Duterte’s continued detention at the ICC Detention Centre in The Hague, which it claims has extended beyond 14 months since his arrest in March 2025, represents what the submission describes as a “highly politicized surrender” allegedly orchestrated to weaken the Duterte political bloc ahead of the 2028 Philippine presidential elections.

READ MORE ARTICLES:

Allegations of Political Motive

According to the submission, the transfer of Duterte to ICC custody was allegedly tied to broader political conflicts involving the administration of President Bongbong Marcos. The paper claims the ICC process has been “weaponized” to neutralize political opposition and influence the country’s future electoral landscape.

Among the major allegations raised in the document were accusations of institutional corruption, congressional bribery, misuse of public funds, and economic irregularities.

One of the most explosive claims involved alleged impeachment-related bribery. The submission cited statements reportedly made during legislative proceedings by Representative Leandro Legarda Leviste and Senator Imee Marcos alleging that lawmakers were offered large sums of money in connection with efforts to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte.

The document claimed that legislators were allegedly promised ₱20 million each in exchange for supporting impeachment initiatives against the Vice President, though no judicial ruling or official criminal conviction supporting these allegations was included in the submission.

Claims of Public Fund Misuse

The filing also accused government officials of using public funds to finance political operations. It cited ongoing congressional inquiries into alleged irregularities in infrastructure budgets, flood control allocations, and social welfare resources.

Particularly, the paper referenced alleged “ghost projects” and contractor monopolies tied to infrastructure spending amounting to hundreds of billions of pesos. It also claimed concerns had been raised regarding the depletion of state resources, including the Social Security System (SSS) and healthcare development funds.

Another section alleged that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) rapidly liquidated nearly 25 tons of the country’s gold reserves, a move the submission characterized as suspicious and politically motivated. However, the document did not provide detailed financial records or independent audit findings directly proving the accusations.

ICC Neutrality Questioned

A major focus of the submission centered on allegations that the ICC itself violated the principle of political neutrality under the Rome Statute.

The document cited Article 42(3) of the Rome Statute, arguing that ICC prosecutors must remain independent from domestic political conflicts. It claimed the court’s actions had effectively aligned with partisan interests within the Philippines.

The submission further argued that the ICC had interfered with Philippine sovereignty by allegedly bypassing domestic legal institutions capable of handling investigations internally.

It also questioned the legal basis for Duterte’s detention, citing Article 59 of the Rome Statute and provisions under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). According to the filing, Duterte’s prolonged detention and denial of provisional liberty allegedly violated international standards concerning due process and the presumption of innocence.

Drug War Death Figures Challenged

Another significant section of the document challenged widely reported casualty figures connected to Duterte’s controversial anti-drug campaign.

The filing criticized international organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for allegedly relying on unverified or exaggerated statistics regarding extrajudicial killings during the Duterte administration.

The document asserted that claims ranging from 12,000 to 30,000 deaths lacked sufficient forensic verification and improperly combined legitimate law enforcement operations with unrelated criminal incidents.

Instead, the submission pointed to Philippine National Police (PNP) data allegedly indicating that around 6,252 deaths were connected to anti-drug operations involving armed suspects resisting arrest.

Human rights organizations, however, have consistently maintained that thousands of deaths linked to the anti-drug campaign deserve independent investigation, with critics arguing that many victims were denied due process.

Call for UN Action

In its concluding section, the submission urged the UN Human Rights Council to take several actions, including:

Condemning what it described as the “political instrumentalization” of international justice;
Calling for Duterte’s immediate provisional or conditional release pending trial;
Launching an investigation through the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) into alleged procedural violations and political interference.

The filing specifically requested an inquiry into alleged violations of Article 59 and Article 42(3) of the Rome Statute, as well as accusations involving state-sponsored bribery and public fund misuse.

No Official ICC Response Yet

As of writing, the International Criminal Court has not publicly responded to the specific allegations outlined in the submission.

The ICC has repeatedly maintained in previous statements that its investigations are guided by evidence and international law, not domestic political interests. The court’s investigation into Duterte’s anti-drug campaign remains one of the most politically sensitive international legal proceedings involving the Philippines in recent years.

Malacañang has likewise not yet issued an official response regarding the contents of the UNHRC submission circulating online.

The case continues to deepen political divisions in the Philippines, where supporters of Duterte view the ICC proceedings as foreign interference, while critics argue that accountability for alleged human rights violations remains necessary under international law.