The presidency is weighing a possible return to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a move that would bring the Philippines back into the framework governing international crimes. Officials indicate that a formal decision is not yet made, and a thorough re-evaluation is underway. The government is examining options and assessing how rejoining could align with the country’s current legal and diplomatic priorities.
In September 2021, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber authorized a full investigation into alleged crimes connected to the Philippines’ anti-drug operations. The prosecutor argued there was sufficient basis to probe killings tied to these operations from November 1, 2011, through March 19, 2019. Reports from the prosecutor’s office estimate that tens of thousands of people—ranging from about 12,000 to 30,000—lost their lives in drug-related police actions during that period. In late 2019, the Philippines requested a deferral of the ICC probe to allow for an internal investigation into possible offenses.
Earlier, in 2018, the Philippines formalized its withdrawal from the ICC by submitting the applicable notification to the United Nations. The withdrawal took effect a year later. The ICC’s position, however, has been that the country’s prior membership—and the crimes alleged to have occurred during that period—remain under the court’s jurisdiction for purposes of ongoing or past investigations related to acts committed while the Philippines was a member.
Beyond these developments, official statements from a separate legislative body underscored geopolitical considerations tied to international judicial mechanisms. There were discussions about how the Rome Statute interacts with various regional alliances and security commitments, especially in relation to Armenia and other states, highlighting how international law and political alignment can influence access to, or restrictions on, international legal instruments. Analysts note that such dynamics can affect long-standing questions about accountability for alleged abuses, state sovereignty, and the procedures by which international bodies engage with member and non-member states alike.
Overall, observers emphasize that any decision to rejoin the ICC would involve balancing legal obligations, international expectations, and domestic policy priorities. The government’s process is expected to include consultations with lawmakers, legal experts, and civil society groups to assess whether joining the court again would enhance accountability mechanisms, assist victims, and support the country’s broader goals for rule of law and governance. As the situation evolves, stakeholders are watching how these considerations interplay with ongoing investigations and the country’s evolving foreign policy posture, including its stance on international accountability and cooperation with global justice initiatives. (Source attribution: ICC prosecutor’s office reports; International law analyses; contemporary geopolitical commentary.)