Who holds the powerful accountable? Judge Pangalangan on international justice and the rule of law in the Philippines

The ANU Philippines Institute welcomed former ICC Judge Raul C. Pangalangan for a Distinguished Guest Lecture examining the proceedings before the International Criminal Court involving former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and what the case reveals about sovereignty, domestic institutions, and the limits of international justice.

Drawing on his experience as both a former ICC judge and one of the drafters of the Rome Statute, Professor Pangalangan framed the Duterte proceedings as more than a criminal trial. Instead, he argued that they represent a continuing contest between international law, domestic politics, and competing understandings of national sovereignty.

Introducing the ICC as a "court of last resort," Professor Pangalangan explained that the Court intervenes only when national legal systems are unwilling or unable to genuinely investigate and prosecute the gravest international crimes. This principle of complementarity, he argued, lies at the heart of the Duterte case and has become one of its most fiercely contested legal and political questions.

Reflecting on his own time at the Court, Professor Pangalangan shared insights from landmark prosecutions involving war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the destruction of cultural heritage. These cases, he explained, illustrate the ICC's broader purpose: ensuring accountability when domestic justice systems cannot or will not act.

Turning to the Philippines, Professor Pangalangan traced the origins of the ICC investigation to the thousands of killings associated with Duterte's anti-drug campaign. While estimates vary, he noted that the campaign resulted in widespread allegations of crimes against humanity, with many victims being alleged small-scale drug users rather than major traffickers.

Rather than focusing solely on the evidence against Duterte, however, Professor Pangalangan examined how the case has unfolded within the Philippines itself. He argued that appeals to sovereignty and anti-colonial nationalism have become powerful political tools, with critics portraying the ICC as an external institution interfering in domestic affairs. Despite the Court's multinational composition, including judges and prosecutors from across the Global South, the narrative of the ICC as a "court of white men," he observed, has continued to resonate in public debate.

Professor Pangalangan also explored the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute following the opening of the ICC investigation. While withdrawal remains politically significant, he explained that it does not extinguish the Court's jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed while the Philippines was still a State Party. Instead, debates over withdrawal have become intertwined with broader questions about sovereignty, treaty obligations, and the relationship between international and domestic law.

A central theme of the lecture was the distinction between a legal system that is unable to prosecute crimes and one that is unwilling to do so. Professor Pangalangan argued that the Philippines possesses functioning courts and legal institutions, but he noted that the existence of functioning courts does not, by itself, resolve the question of complementarity; the central issue remains: Are those institutions willing to genuinely pursue accountability in cases involving powerful political figures? Citing recent political developments, he suggested that ongoing controversies surrounding the Duterte family illustrate the continuing challenges faced by domestic institutions in administering justice independently.

Concluding the lecture, Professor Pangalangan reflected on the enduring tension between legal principles and political realities. While doctrines such as complementarity and treaty withdrawal are framed in legal terms, he argued that their application is inseparable from questions of sovereignty, public opinion, and institutional independence. The ICC proceedings involving Duterte, he suggested, represent not only a significant moment in international criminal law, but also a broader debate about accountability, political power, and the role of domestic institutions in upholding the rule of law.

The ANU Philippines Institute warmly thanks Judge Pangalangan for making the journey to Canberra and taking the time to share his insights with the ANU community. The Institute also extends its appreciation to all attendees who joined the lecture and contributed thoughtful questions and discussion, helping to make the evening an engaging and thought-provoking exchange on international justice, sovereignty, and the rule of law.