Who Will Deliver Justice Better on EJK: The ICC or Philippine Courts?

The issue of accountability for extrajudicial killings (EJK) linked to the Philippine war on drugs, particularly during former President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration, has reignited a global conversation on where justice can best be pursued. With the Philippine House of Representatives QuadCommittee recently blocking the release of investigative transcripts to the International Criminal Court (ICC), a critical question emerges: should the victims of EJK seek justice within the Philippine legal system, or is the ICC the more viable route to ensure accountability? This debate strikes at the core of Philippine sovereignty, judicial capability, and the commitment to human rights.

The reported scale of EJK cases under Duterte’s presidency is staggering. Official estimates initially tallied EJKs in the thousands, but human rights groups contend that the true figure is much higher, possibly exceeding 20,000. The victims, often from underprivileged communities, were typically accused of drug-related offenses and subjected to violent crackdowns that bypassed due process. This systemic disregard for legal protections raises the question of whether Philippine courts are equipped or willing to prosecute these cases impartially, given the past trends in accountability.

Examining the Philippine judiciary’s historical handling of EJK and other human rights violations paints a complex picture. Despite a constitutional framework that mandates justice and protection of human rights, the Philippine justice system has faced challenges—chief among them, political interference, inefficiencies, and issues with institutional independence. Cases involving police misconduct or high-level abuses have rarely resulted in substantial convictions. This reality is highlighted by the 2009 Maguindanao massacre case, where justice took a decade to be served, and even then, many perpetrators evaded full accountability. While some reform efforts aim to enhance judicial efficiency and transparency, a pattern of acquiescence persists in cases where the accused wield significant political or military influence.

The ICC, established to address crimes of mass atrocity when national systems fail to act, becomes relevant in light of these judicial limitations. The ICC’s jurisdiction includes cases involving genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Extrajudicial killings linked to state operations under Duterte’s drug war align with the category of crimes against humanity, positioning the ICC as a potential venue for justice.

A close look at the ICC’s track record reveals both strengths and challenges. The court has successfully prosecuted high-profile individuals, such as in cases involving state-led violence in Sudan, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, the ICC also faces practical and political hurdles, particularly when securing arrests and gathering evidence. Unlike Philippine courts, the ICC relies on cooperation from member states for enforcement, and its power to compel actions across borders is limited. The QuadCommittee’s refusal to release key investigation records complicates the ICC’s ability to proceed, potentially hindering a full investigation.

One of the most significant developments in recent years was former President Duterte’s public acknowledgment of responsibility for the EJKs, casting his role in a clearer light and inviting scrutiny. His statements not only confirmed his awareness but suggested an implicit endorsement of tactics that bypassed legal safeguards. This admission becomes an invaluable piece of evidence in any court aiming to establish responsibility for EJKs. Given that Duterte’s own statements could be used against him, the Philippine justice system’s previous inaction on this front reinforces doubts about its willingness to pursue cases impartially.

Evaluating the merits and drawbacks of pursuing EJK justice through the ICC or Philippine courts requires a clear-eyed look at both institutions’ capacities. The Philippine courts’ pros are tied to sovereignty: allowing the domestic system to address EJK cases would honor national jurisdiction and underscore local accountability. Philippine institutions are arguably best positioned to understand the cultural and social dynamics behind these crimes. Additionally, if the judiciary could be empowered to address high-level abuses transparently, it might foster public trust in the rule of law. However, the cons—persistent institutional weaknesses, susceptibility to political pressures, and a historical pattern of leniency for security forces—strongly challenge this path’s viability. Victims and families who lost loved ones to EJKs may understandably doubt that Philippine courts, even in their best form, could impartially handle such cases.

Turning to the ICC, the advantages include its relatively impartial stance and an established framework for handling crimes against humanity. The ICC can provide a degree of independence that national courts may struggle to achieve, especially when former and current officials implicated in EJKs remain influential within the state apparatus. Additionally, ICC proceedings would not only hold key figures accountable but also signal to other nations that extrajudicial methods of governance will face scrutiny. Yet, significant challenges also exist, as ICC operations are often protracted and limited by state cooperation. Without access to Philippine investigative records, the ICC’s case may lack the evidence needed to secure a conviction, and its verdicts may be seen as symbolic rather than effectively enforced.

In weighing these options, the Philippines stands at a critical juncture. The ICC could offer justice with an international stamp of legitimacy, aligning with universal human rights standards. Yet, achieving substantive justice depends on the full cooperation of Philippine authorities, which appears increasingly unlikely given the legislative roadblocks. Philippine courts, while imperfect, retain jurisdiction and proximity to the cases and communities affected. However, historical reluctance to prosecute abuses of power remains an insurmountable barrier for many who seek accountability.

A definitive decision hinges on both pragmatic and principled considerations. While the ICC represents an essential mechanism to check state-led atrocities, its practical limitations and the Philippine government’s unwillingness to cooperate limit its effectiveness. Conversely, the Philippine judiciary holds the theoretical authority to prosecute EJKs, but its track record and political entanglements call into question its impartiality and resolve.

Ultimately, for victims and advocates of justice, the ICC stands out as the best hope, despite the obstacles, due to its impartiality, broader human rights mandate, and ability to catalyze global awareness. Although challenges in evidence collection and enforcement persist, the international community’s attention on this case could exert pressure on Philippine authorities to allow fair trials, even within domestic courts. Thus, while both avenues have limitations, an ICC investigation—if supported by a strong coalition of nations—represents the best path to secure justice for EJK victims and signal the unacceptability of such state-led violence.