Rodrigo Duterte’s statement saying the Philippines is withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC) would only be a surprise to someone who hasn’t paid enough attention to the moves of this President — (ill-)advised and otherwise. After all, this is a man who lives off shooting from the hip, declaring in no uncertain terms who the enemies are of nation, never mind that it reeks of double-standard at every turn, and protects his own men despite the stench of corruption and anti-people policies that now pervade his whole government.
The ICC statement, as such, is really just Duterte being Duterte. He is not disente, he does not care for what is appropriate or diplomatic, he will not apologize for his loud, dirty mouth. And he lies. He changes his mind, he shifts from one stand to another, he goes on the path of least resistance (be it China or Russia, or whoever’s willing to kiss his feet), and when faced with difficulty, his answer is violence — kill those people, call critics terrorists, bomb those schools, bomb those structures! And when held accountable for his actions, he will have the Chief Justice impeached, he will discredit the Ombudsman, he will decide to get out of a treaty that promises protection of Filipino citizens from systemic, state violence.
Duterte has often said about his oppressive, anti-people policies that we insist go against our basic rights: kung wala kayong kasalanan, bakit kayo matatakot? Seems like a question the President should be asking himself.
But as the spin machinery of Duterte propagandists work overtime, it seems important to look at the actual statements that have come from the ICC with regards the Philippines and the state of violence that we have equated with the leadership of Duterte. Surprisingly, one counts but two official statements: one on October 13 2016, and another on February 8 2018. That these two statements have unleashed the monster that is defensive Duterte … well, that’s a measure of him more than anyone else.
The October 2016 statement came from ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. It starts:
My Office is aware of worrying reported extra-judicial killings of alleged drug dealers and users in the Philippines, which may have led to over 3,000 deaths in the past three months. I am deeply concerned about these alleged killings and the fact that public statements of high officials of the Republic of the Philippines seem to condone such killings and further seem to encourage State forces and civilians alike to continue targeting these individuals with lethal force.
Note the words “reported” “alleged” “may have led.”
It then goes on to say that extrajudicial killings “may fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC if they are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population pursuant to a State policy to commit such an attack.” It ends by saying that the ICC would “closely follow developments” in the country and assess if a preliminary examination into the Philippines was in order. An important part of the statement reads:
Let me be clear: any person in the Philippines who incites or engages in acts of mass violence including by ordering, requesting, encouraging or contributing, in any other manner, to the commission of crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC is potentially liable to prosecution before the Court.
The latter, or so it would seem, was enough to get Duterte all riled up against the ICC. He also turned defensive about his own rhetoric of kill, kill, kill, which at this point was a mainstay in all of his speeches and conversation with the media.
On October 19 2016, speaking to foreign correspondents in China:
“All the networks, they were only interested to highlight my statement when I said internationally, publicly: “If you destroy my country, I will kill you.” And I was addressing myself to all the drug syndicates and the drug pushers and all. And I said, if you destroy the youth of the land, deprived us of the resources of tomorrow, I will kill you. And they keep on hammering— they said that President has been heard saying that he would kill people. Because they did not understand the statement because they were dumbheaded.
You know, China, America, Russia can perfectly say it and it’s very legitimate and valid. “If you kill my country,” there’s the word even “if.” It’s conditional. <…> So if you do not destroy my country, then I would not kill you. But they keep on hammering on the issues of killing alone because they like it — and threatening me, “we’ll going to the international criminal court.”
November 9 2016, at a meeting with the Filipino community in Kuala Lumpur:
Why don’t we just shut up? Well, kasi it has a connection with the very important issues in the lives of the Filipinos. Alam mo kung ano yan? Droga. And it has engulfed our country, napabayaan, napahayaan ang problema. I would not want to zero in on a particular administration but when I was mayor, I was the favorite whipping boy already, threatened with cases before the international court of— criminal court sa United Nations kasi raw pinapatay ko ‘yung tao.
‘Di naman ako embalsamador, (laughter).
November 14 2016, at the NBI founding anniversary, Duterte was responding to the killing of Mayor Espinosa who was already in jail when he died in an alleged encounter with the police (IN JAIL!). He said, in no uncertain terms, that he was going to believe the police over anyone else, never mind if the NBI calls it a rubout.
Sinong paniwalaan ko? ‘Yung pulis ko, ‘yung NBI ko, o sila? But if you do your duty, do not worry about cases, I will protect you, believe me (applause). Just do it right. We have our trainings, that you can only kill, if your life is in danger. And you are there performing the duty of a law enforcer. That’s about it. Eh kung sabihin mo, sir, ito ang nangyari. <…> Do not shit with me. Sabihin mo sa akin ang totoo, lalo na sa trabaho. But, if you are accused of extortion, kidnapping, some of you who are involved then. Do not do it in my time. You do it, patayin kita. Anong gusto mo? Barrett na sniper? O ambush? O, mamili ka, mamili ka. You start to fuck with government, pati ako lolokohin mo, ah kalokohan. Just tell me truth.
Now in Leyte, they said that there was a rubout; and the police, they have a shootout. Sabi ko, “I believe the police.” Why? Because they are my subordinates. The story of the people whom I give the orders to operate is what I ordered them to do. Kaya ito sila, poprotektahan ko. And if there’s somebody who will go to jail, it’s me. I will assume full, legal responsibility. If it fails, they’d say that I’d rot in jail, so be it.
Later on in this same speech, Duterte said: “And they <human rights advocates> want me to face the International Court of— Criminal Court. Then, my God, if you have the goods on me, file the case and stop yakking.”
On November 17 2016, at the APEC Economic Leaders Meeting in Peru, Duterte against talks about the ICC and inadvertently already tells us why anyone even withdraws from the ICC by … ahem … using Russia as an example.
<…> masakit sa akin kasi about four million Filipinos are addicted at ganunin mo lang, ako pa ang— and mind you, sabi ng Russia: We will protect you. And ang problema, ang Russia withdrew from the International Court, Criminal Court. What could be the reason? I really do not know. Maybe to protect what they are doing in Syria, the incessant bombing and the killing of civilians <emphasis mine>.
At the November 28 2016, inauguration of the Palm Concepcion Power Plant, he was back in Duterte form, defending the fact of his kill rhetoric, but also drawing a connection among unnamed European lawyers, the US (mostly then President Obama), and the ICC:
Kaya nga sabi ko, huwag kayong maniwala diyan mga European lawyers puro bugok ‘yan, ay sus maniwala kayo. Dito kayo makinig sa Filipino mas bright— ano, stupid. Iyong brain nila just like a pea. Hanggang kailan mo na — takutin mo ako na ikulong mo ako? International Criminal Court, bullshit. Ang Amerika mismo ang nagtatakot sa akin na ipakulong sa International Criminal Court is not a signatory of that body. Why? Because at that time they were afraid Bush will get it.
On December 7 2016, at the 4th State Conference of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption Implementation Review, Duterte continued this rhetoric, insisting that it’s the Americans — and the bleeding hearts — who are calling for an ICC investigation.
Itong mga — all the bleeding hearts. Itong Amerikano. And they reprimand me as if I am their lackey.
So, Mayor Duterte, calling for investigation before the International Criminal Court. Fine. Let’s go ahead. Sabi ko, wala akong pakialam diyan. Go ahead. Now, it turns out they are not even a signatory to that Convention. Itong mga gago.
In two more speeches that day, Duterte would continue playing the anti-US card to discredit the ICC, while insisting that he will always believe the police over anyone else, even when the police is involved in the crime; and saying that human rights advocates want him to be brought to the ICC. Duterte said he’d be glad to be brought there.
The following day, December 8 2016, at the Federalismo Alyansa Bicol, Duterte said he didn’t care about the ICC, and admits the possibility that he might be wrong, and what he’s doing might be illegal — at least in so many words.
<…> wala akong pakialam diyan sa International Criminal Court. Wala akong pakialam sa inyo. Dalhin ako sa criminal court. So be it. And if I am tried and sent to prison, I will rot in prison. Walang problema matanda na ako. Pero I have to do something. Whether I am right or wrong, legal or not that will be a proper case of history <emphasis mine>.
By December 19 2016, at the Sulu Christmas Town Hall, Duterte was now drawing a connection among human rights advocates, the EU, the UN rapporteur, and the ICC.
<…> And came these foreigners. ‘You know, Mr. Duterte, I will hail you to the International Criminal Court.’
I’m about to raise the finger, about to give the dirty finger to you. You do not know. Human rights, genocide is for the race or religion or a class of persons. You dumb idiots. The law does not refer or whatever that law is, it does not refer to criminals.‘Yung mga EU, mga abugado nila. That this mayor has been heard openly to kill criminals. God. Shut up.
Do your worst. Wala akong pakialam sa inyo. And this rapporteur, threatening to come. Sabi ko, come, and said she wants a one-on-one meeting, sabi ko ‘no’. You do it in public. I’ll tell you where your garbage comes from.<…> Tanong ko lang naman sa kanya. <…> I will just simply say, who was my 50th victim? What is her name? And how old was she? And where did this happen? So, 5,000 <victims>. So ‘yung ika-5,000 sino iyon? Anong pangalan niya? Gaga ka pala eh.
Fast forward to 2018, a full year of no official statement from the ICC, save for the one in early February that states they are starting a preliminary examination into the national situation. This is not even an investigation commencing just yet, and in fact if you read the statement, it specifically says:
In conformity with the complementarity principle, which is a cornerstone of the Rome Statute legal system, and within the framework of each preliminary examination, my Office will be engaging with the national authorities concerned with a view to discussing and assessing any relevant investigation and prosecution at the national level.
This would’ve been Duterte’s first layer of defense, yes? It would’ve been national authorities, from PNP Chief Bato dela Rosa, to the officials of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG), to the departments of Interior and Local Government, and Justice. Yet Duterte does not seem to trust any of his people to actually speak credibly and properly about the drug war that he has fashioned. Duterte does not trust his own government to be able to defend in an international court, on a global scale, the manner in which thousands have died during its implementation — whether in official police operations, as collateral damage, or as summarily executed.
So Duterte turns defensive. On February 9, a day after the ICC statement on the preliminary examination, he talks about a “conspiracy” in relation to this examination and how he knew in advance that it was going to happen because of a “transmittal” that was sent to him by “another country”:
<…> I have this transmittal. I cannot reveal it but I can tell you now. Three days after, they were discussing. I had already… I was already listening to the tapes of their conversation. It was provided by me by another country but the conversation was in Philippines and New York. Loida Reyes was one of them. And there was this, “See you in the headquarters when the case is filed.” Blah blah blah blah blah blah. I knew in advance that they were [inaudible] it. Problem is this case, from the looks of it, it‟s all politics.
And even more defensive three days after, in a February 12 speech, claiming that the ICC had specifically pinpointed his words “I will kill you” and invoking racial differences in values:
Tapos sabi nitong mga ICC prosecutors, “Oh that mayor is always repeating ‘I will kill you’.” What’s wrong with that? Is there a crime threatening people especially criminals?
Itong mga puti, buang buang ito eh. Ang problema nito, itong Europe ngayon, itong mga America and kuwan, they want to impose their values on our race <emphasis mine>. When as a matter of fact, they are not facing any trouble at all and itong mga Italy, France, America, Britain, they built their empires. They rose to the industrialization, it takes much earlier kasi they were using the Arab oil.
A day after, he says he’d be glad to die:
<…> tapos ako pa dito ang idemanda ng ICC ngayon? Buang. But do not mind me, I can take care of myself. If I get convicted, do not cry. I’d be happy to die. Sabihin mo, I want a place where they allow firing squads, bring me there and shoot me.
Same day, another speech, he again says the ICC can “indict” him and “convict” him and that’s fine. But also he says that his oath of office did not include a line that says he couldn’t kill.
At ang ano diyan is when I took my oath of office, in two sentences, I said, “I swear before God and country that I will protect my nation, that I will also have to protect the people.” That‟s about it. I did not say na, o sige, I will only kill the rich but not the poor. I do not have that luxury. What I‟m saying, if it does really… it does really… it does result in a… I have to enforce the law or else I will compromise this country <emphasis mine>.
Duterte will have us believe that he does not trust the ICC because it is “biased” and has become politicized and controlled by his critics. Roque, echoing his boss, said yesterday that there is a conspiracy among the ICC, the United Nations, the politicians and critics of the President.
Meanwhile, all one really sees here is the fact that Duterte, in his own words and actions, has consistently discredited his drug war and himself. And by backing out of the ICC, all Duterte is proving is the depth of his own fears. Duterte propagandists juxtaposing this withdrawal with that of South Africa, Gambia, and Burundi, makes things worse.
SA’s Jacob Zuma was recently forced to resign with charges of graft and corruption, and as “a symbol of the erosion of State integrity.” Gambia’s Yahya Jammeh has an ongoing case with the ICC for human rights violations, and became defined as “ruthless” but also “eccentric.” The latter is because of the “crazy” things he said, from claiming that he could cure HIV and infertility in women, threatening to behead gays, and staying in power for a billion years if Allah so willed it. He is evading the ICC by getting asylum in Equatorial Guinea.
Burundi, the country that withdrew from the ICC effective 2017, has as leader Pierre Nkurunziza, under whose leadership “Burundian justice, as it is so called, has lost contact with life <and> has become a mere tool of repression of any dissenting voice.” According to UN and NGO numbers, 500 to 2,000 people have been killed in violence under Nkurunziza, and 400,000 Burundians have left the country. Recently, it was declared by the ruling party that no one within it is “allowed to disagree with <Nkurunziza’s> choices.” His Secretary-General said: “He is our leader. Therefore in our party… no one is comparable to him. He is our parent, he is the one who advises us. <…> For us, we have the best.” They then proclaimed Nkurunziza as “Eternal Supreme Guide.”
Yeah, that last bit sure sounds like Duterte and his diehard supporters.
Maybe he’s in the right company after all.