Ides of March

"Beware of the ides of March" – William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

On March 11, 2025, news of former President Rodrigo Duterte's arrest and his subsequent handover to The Hague, the Netherlands, shook the country. This happened upon his return to the country after a trip to Hong Kong, where he was immediately met by authorities, culminating in a chartered flight to The Hague where the former President will face charges before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity under Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute, committed in the Philippines between November 1, 2011, and March 16, 2019, when he was the Davao City mayor and later President, concerning his controversial war on drugs. 

The event coincided with the deepening rift between former allies and two of the country’s powerful political clans. Duterte's supporters decried the betrayal by the Marcoses. After all, the Duterte patriarch had been instrumental in the return of the Marcoses to power. On the other hand, President Bongbong Marcos found a convenient alibi: his administration did not cooperate with the ICC; it was simply complying with its obligation to Interpol in executing the arrest.

The once-powerful political clan, with a supermajority in Congress and wide popular approval, is now in survival mode, exhibiting the fleeting nature of power. While the father will face the judges in The Hague, his daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, will face an impeachment trial. Thus, the 2025 midterm election proves to be an existential battle. The election of senators will be pivotal in the impeachment proceedings against the Vice President in the Senate. If Sara is impeached, it will mean a nail in the coffin for any presidential aspirations in 2028. The Marcoses may have the upper hand, but they also know, as Davao City Mayor Baste Duterte said, that "cornered animals become aggressive." The Dutertes' influence is still a force to be reckoned with. The once-hailed end of anarchy between political families, the alliance between the two clans, has devolved into another family feud tearing the nation apart.

Yet it would be a mischaracterization to brand the arrest as just another extension of the feud—the ICC has already started its investigation since 2018. His critics hailed the arrest as a step toward accountability. However, important issues hound Duterte's prosecution in The Hague, such as the jurisdiction of the ICC. The Philippines deposited a written notification of withdrawal from the Rome Statute on March 17, 2018, which took effect a year later. Although the ICC claims to retain jurisdiction while the country was still a state party, others decry this as an affront to our sovereignty: that Duterte, a Filipino, should be tried before Philippine courts for crimes allegedly committed against Filipinos, by Filipino judges.

Legal challenge regarding Duterte's arrest are pending before the docket of the court of last resort, an institution whose docket is now bombarded with high-profile controversies, such as the transfer of PhilHealth excess funds, Maharlika funds, alleged irregularities in the 2025 GAA, and the Vice President's impeachment in the House of Representatives. Anent, we will leave the legal issues to the luminaries.

Yet curiously, things changed with the shifting winds. Now, the strongman and punisher is portrayed as the persecuted old man. Now, due process, which some once shunned or even held in contempt, suddenly matters. Those who once hated protesters and discredited the legacy of EDSA now want to take to the streets. In social media, the Dutertes seem to be winning the court of public opinion. Reverence for the rule of law in this country—a pillar of strong and just institutions—is wanting.

If the appeal to pity does not work, then ad populum, false dichotomy, then absurdity. The most absurd claim, perhaps, is that opposing the war on drugs is siding with the "criminals." This is a non-sequitur and a bigoted view. The issue is about the rule of law. Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution is clear: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws." This means that we must defer to our institutions so that what will prevail is the force of law, not the law of force. 

Laws evolved from a historical backdrop, cognizant that humans are capable of great evils and horrors, especially when acting with the deep conviction of having a good reason. In her book The Bill of Rights, Marjorie Fribourg reminded us: "Time has taught its old lessons. Well-meaning people burnt witches. Well-meaning prosecutors have convicted the innocent. Well-meaning objectives espoused by those not grounded in history can lure us from protecting our heritage of equal justice under the law."

In his Theory of Justice, John Rawls invited us to imagine ourselves in an original position where we are unaware of our specific place in society—our distinguishing characteristics, privileges, and status. In this "veil of ignorance," we would most likely choose principles that maximize liberties and justice. Birth is a lottery. Imagine if, instead of living in this era, we were born as an indio during Spanish colonization, a slave during the slave trade, a subject during the reign of kings, or a free thinker during the Inquisition. We would perhaps be willing to pay anything just to have rights, to be seen as human, to be heard, or to be given a fair process.

We have not always lived under a democratic republic. We were once subjects before we became citizens. Those who lived before us fought so we could enjoy the liberties we have today. But rights are not clothes we can wear when they suit us and remove when they do not; they are not tools we can drop when inconvenient and wield when they align with our agenda. Rights are indivisible. We cannot call for due process and deny it to others.

In Valeroso vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009), the court declared that the "Bill of Rights is the bedrock of constitutional government. If people are stripped naked of their rights as human beings, democracy cannot survive and government becomes meaningless." This is why the Bill of Rights precedes the articles on governmental power. When our leaders took their oaths, they swore not only to exercise the powers granted to them but also to defend and uphold the entire Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. Moreover, Justice Douglas called us to exercise vigilance: "The challenge to our liberties comes frequently not from those who consciously seek to destroy our system of government but from men of goodwill—good men who allow their proper concerns to blind them to the fact that what they propose to accomplish involves the impairment of liberty" (cited in Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-29169, August 19, 1968).

Perhaps we do not realize the importance of rights because we are privileged to enjoy their protection. But we must remember that we can criticize the government today, post our sentiments on social media, and even make scathing remarks and curses against the administration; that we can take to the streets to peaceably assemble and express our grievances is thanks to the guarantees offered by our Constitution. Our rights are only secure insofar as we are willing to uphold them and not let them erode in the face of misguided expediency. “The liberties of none are safe unless the liberties of all are protected.” It is conceded that we need a war on drugs, but it must be a war waged within the bounds of the law, not beyond. And for every wrong, let justice and accountability run its course.