Frequently Asked Questions on the Unlawful Surrender of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte and the ICC’s Jurisdictional Overreach

By: Arnedo S. Valera, Esquire

President, SDS New York( USA)

Hakbang ng Maisug USA ( HNMUSA)

INTRODUCTION

The unprecedented developments surrounding the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) proceedings against former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (PRRD) raise fundamental questions of constitutional law, national sovereignty, and the limits of international justice. The Philippines’ 2019 withdrawal from the ICC was a legitimate assertion of national self-determination under international law. The continued assertion of jurisdiction by the ICC—compounded by the Marcos administration’s silence or cooperation—threatens the constitutional order and undermines the Philippines’ sovereign authority.

This FAQ compiles my legal analyses, published commentaries, and strategic recommendations in defense of PRRD and, more importantly, of Philippine sovereignty. It also integrates the findings and recommendations of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, whose investigation confirmed the illegality of PRRD’s surrender and my legal submissions which form part of the Senate record.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. On what exact date was President Duterte removed from the Philippines and under what circumstances?

Answer:

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte was removed from the Philippines on March 11, 2025. He was arrested at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport upon his return from Hong Kong under an ICC arrest warrant executed with the participation of the Philippine National Police and Interpol.

Immediately thereafter, he was placed on a private jet and flown to the Netherlands. By March 12, 2025, he was already in The Hague under ICC custody, bypassing lawful extradition or judicial oversight.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee later confirmed that this was not a lawful extradition but an unconstitutional surrender, facilitated by collusion between Philippine executive agencies and foreign actors.

2. Who were the actors involved in PRRD’s unlawful surrender?

Answer:

Findings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee identified:

DOJ Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, who authorized and oversaw the handover without judicial mandate.

Brig. Gen. Torre, who commanded the arrest operation at NAIA in violation of constitutional safeguards.

Foreign diplomatic and intelligence operatives, who coordinated the logistics and clearance.

Private aviation contractors, who supplied and operated the jet used for the rendition.

3. Why do we say PRRD’s removal is unlawful?

Answer:

Because:

There was no extradition treaty process.

No Philippine court warrant was issued.

The Philippines had withdrawn from the ICC in 2019, ending legal obligations.

PRRD’s constitutional right to due process was violated.

The Senate Committee concluded that the operation constituted unlawful rendition and kidnapping under Philippine law.

4. What were the findings and recommendations of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?

Answer:

After hearings and review of testimonies—including my legal analysis of Philippine and international law violations—the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued these findings:

The removal of PRRD was unlawful, violating the 1987 Constitution, Bill of Rights, and arrest/extradition laws.

The ICC has no jurisdiction post-withdrawal.

The act undermined sovereignty and compromised the nation’s dignity.

Recommendations:

1. File criminal charges before the Ombudsman against DOJ Secretary Remulla and Brig. Gen. Torre for usurpation of authority, arbitrary detention, violation of due process, and culpable constitutional violations.

2. Refer complicit lawyers to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for possible disbarment.

3. Pass a Joint Congressional Resolution declaring no Filipino—especially a former Head of State—may be surrendered to a foreign tribunal without due process and congressional authority.

4. Enact a Sovereignty Protection Law prohibiting cooperation with the ICC after withdrawal.

5. Why are we gathering for the Prayer Rally and Freedom March in The Hague?

Answer:

The gathering in The Hague is not only for PRRD but for Philippine sovereignty.

To condemn the unlawful surrender of PRRD.

To pray and demand PRRD’s freedom and interim release.

To declare that Philippine sovereignty cannot be overridden by foreign tribunals.

To resist imperial lawfare and political persecution.

6. Is the Philippines the only country being investigated for a purely domestic anti-drug policy?

Answer: Yes.

The Philippines is uniquely prosecuted for its domestic anti-drug campaign despite functioning courts. Other nations (U.S., Mexico, Colombia, Russia, China, UK) have similar campaigns but face no ICC scrutiny.

7. Has the UN admitted that the global War on Drugs has failed?

Answer: Yes.

The UNODC in 2023 acknowledged punitive drug policies failed, creating human rights abuses and overcrowded prisons. It now promotes harm reduction and decriminalization.

8. Which countries do not recognize the ICC or reject its jurisdiction?

Answer:

The U.S., China, Russia, India, and Israel—representing over half the world’s population—reject ICC jurisdiction, proving it is not universally binding.

9. What is the origin of the ICC and the Rome Statute?

Answer:

Adopted in 1998, in force 2002, the Rome Statute created the ICC for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. It was meant as a court of last resort, but its credibility is questioned for selective prosecutions.

10. Why is the ICC’s prosecution of PRRD selective justice and overreach?

Answer:

Because:

Philippine courts function.

No state policy to exterminate civilians exists.

ICC jurisdiction ended in 2019 with withdrawal.

This is imperial lawfare, not justice.

11. Was President Duterte unlawfully surrendered or “kidnapped”?

Answer: Yes.

Without lawful proceedings, the transfer was unlawful rendition—a violation of sovereignty and rights.

12. Does the ICC have jurisdiction after the Philippines’ withdrawal in 2019?

Answer: No.

The withdrawal was final and irreversible. ICC’s claim of residual jurisdiction has no legal force without state cooperation.

13. Why is the War on Drugs not a Crime Against Humanity?

Answer:

Because there was no intent to exterminate any group. Arrests, prosecutions, and rehabilitation prove it was a domestic criminal justice response, not extermination.

14. What is the nature of a “Confirmation of Charges” Hearing in the ICC?

Answer:

It is a pre-trial proceeding to test whether charges meet the threshold of “substantial grounds.” Charges may be dismissed at this stage.

15. Can the case still be dismissed at this stage?

Answer: Yes.

As seen in the Gbagbo case, charges may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, insufficient evidence, or inadmissibility.

16. Is PRRD eligible for interim release under ICC rules?

Answer: Yes.

Rule 119 allows interim release if not a flight risk or danger. PRRD qualifies.

17. What can the Philippine Congress do?

Answer:

Pass a Sovereignty Protection Law.

Adopt a Joint Resolution rejecting ICC jurisdiction.

Investigate complicit officials.

18. What can the Philippine Supreme Court do?

Answer:

Declare no obligation to cooperate with the ICC.

Enjoin DOJ/DFA from cooperation.

Uphold separation of powers and sovereignty.

19. What is the constitutional and moral responsibility of President Marcos Jr.?

Answer:

Defend sovereignty.

Protect citizens from foreign tribunals.

Refuse unlawful cooperation with the ICC.

20. What can the Filipino people do—domestically and globally?

Answer:

Domestically: Petition Congress and courts, hold peaceful protests, educate.

Globally: Mobilize OFWs, file amicus briefs, bring issues before the UN and foreign governments.

CONCLUSION: A SOVEREIGN NATION, NOT A SUBJECT STATE

The ICC’s pursuit of PRRD after Philippine withdrawal is a jurisdictional ambush and an affront to sovereignty.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has affirmed: the surrender was unlawful, and accountability must follow. Criminal charges should be pursued against DOJ Secretary Remulla and Brig. Gen. Torre, alongside institutional reforms to prevent recurrence.

If this unlawful surrender is allowed to stand, it sets a precedent for future violations of sovereignty and due process.

Justice must never be outsourced. Sovereignty must never be surrendered.#

--ANNEX: VIOLATIONS OF LAW IN THE UNLAWFUL SURRENDER OF PRRD

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supported by my legal submissions, identified multiple violations under Philippine law, international law, and the Rome Statute.

A. Violations under Philippine Law

1. 1987 Constitution

Article II, Sec. 2: The Philippines adopts peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and non-intervention.

Article III (Bill of Rights), Sec. 1 & 2: Right to due process and against unlawful arrest.

Article VII, Sec. 21: No treaty or international agreement shall be valid without Senate concurrence.

2. Revised Penal Code

Art. 124: Arbitrary detention.

Art. 125: Delay in the delivery of detained persons to judicial authorities.

Art. 177: Usurpation of authority.

Art. 267: Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

3. Republic Act 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity)

Provides that jurisdiction rests with Philippine courts; surrender to foreign tribunals without law is a violation.

4. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019)

Abuse of public office for personal or political gain in facilitating unlawful surrender.

B. Violations under International Law

1. UN Charter

Article 2(1): Sovereign equality of states.

Article 2(7): Prohibition on external interference in domestic jurisdiction.

2. Customary International Law

Principle of non-intervention and territorial sovereignty.

Prohibition on extraordinary rendition without due process.

3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Article 9: Right to liberty and security, prohibition against arbitrary arrest.

Article 14: Right to due process before a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal.

C. Violations and Misuse of the Rome Statute

1. Complementarity Principle (Art. 1 & 17)

ICC acts only if national courts are unwilling or unable. The Philippines has functioning courts.

2. Jurisdiction (Art. 11–12)

ICC jurisdiction applies only to state parties. The Philippines withdrew in 2019.

3. Non-retroactivity (Art. 24)

No person shall be held criminally responsible for conduct before entry into force or after withdrawal.

4. Procedural safeguards (Art. 59, 89, 91)

Requires lawful arrest procedures, surrender based on national law, and judicial oversight—none of which were observed.#

Atty. Arnedo S. Valera is  a Co- Executive Director / Founder of the Global Migrant Heritage Foundation and Managing Attorney of Valera & Associates, a U.S. immigration and anti-discrimination law firm he has led for more than 32 years. He is a New York lawyer and Philippine Attorney since 1985.He is a Ford Foundation and Asia Foundation Scholar, holding a master’s degree in International Affairs and International Law and Human Rights from Columbia University, New York, with further training at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. He earned his Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo de Manila University and his AB in Philosophy from the University of Santo Tomas. A committed educator, he serves as a professor at the San Beda Graduate School of Law (LLM Program), teaching International Security and Alliances. He is also a columnist writer for Inquirer.net and a pro-bono attorney for several nonprofit organizations in the United States.