The arrest of former President Duterte has sparked a political power struggle in the Philippines that has far-reaching global implications.

The extradition of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court in The Hague serves as a significant indicator for the realm of international law, particularly as the prevailing sentiment appears to be shifting away from global accords. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, has recently leveled accusations against the court, claiming it is involved in “illegitimate and baseless actions directed against America and our close ally Israel.” Over the course of its 23-year history, it has incarcerated 21 individuals and secured convictions for 11.

Nonetheless, the bulk of the defendants find themselves still awaiting trial – either due to being at large or having passed away. The arrest warrants issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are, in fact, more indicative of a broader trend rather than an isolated incident. The arrest of the first Asian former head of state, particularly with the backing of his own nation, carries considerable weight and significance.

The campaign against drugs, spearheaded by Duterte, resulted in the loss of 6,000 lives from 2016 to 2022, as per official statistics. Nevertheless, it is estimated by human rights organizations that the death toll could reach as high as 30,000. It is reported that police death squads have executed drug users and sellers, along with other perceived adversaries of the regime, all without the due process of a trial.

Merely a handful of these cases underwent investigation, culminating in a mere four convictions, all of which involved low-ranking police officers. Since last week, the families of the victims have found a renewed sense of hope regarding justice. Duterte made history as the first Asian former head of state to be extradited to the International Criminal Court in The Hague by Philippine authorities, following an Interpol arrest warrant, upon his return from a trip to Hong Kong. He faces allegations of crimes against humanity spanning from 2011 to 2019, during which time he held the dual roles of mayor of Davao, a city in the southern Philippines, and president of the country.

In March 2018, President Duterte took the significant step of revoking the ratification of the Rome Statute, which serves as the foundational treaty for the International Criminal Court. In 2017, Filipino lawyer Jude Sabio lodged a complaint against Duterte and his “war on drugs” in The Hague – a customary initial move towards a formal complaint. Since that time, both Duterte and his successor, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., have contended that the International Criminal Court lacks jurisdiction over the Philippines and have declined to engage with the prosecution.

What accounts for the abrupt shift in collaboration with the court and the proactive extradition of Duterte? It seems improbable that President Marcos has suddenly taken action driven by a genuine commitment to international law. Instead, he is wielding the situation as a tool in a domestic power struggle between two prominent political families: Marcos and Duterte.

In 2022, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte, who currently serves as the Vice President of the Philippines, achieved an astonishing landslide victory in the elections. The Dutertes presumably anticipated that this alliance would bolster their daughter Sara Duterte’s bid for the presidency in 2028. Since that time, their relationship has been characterized by a series of ongoing scandals and a progressively severe tone. The previous and present presidents have openly leveled accusations against one another regarding drug abuse and mental instability.

The vice president finds themselves embroiled in a significant investigation concerning the embezzlement of public funds, while simultaneously facing impeachment proceedings on serious charges that encompass bribery, corruption, and abuse of office. The ultimate rupture, however, occurred with her deeply contentious declaration that she had engaged an assassin who would eliminate Marcos should anything befall her. By extraditing Duterte, Marcos has undoubtedly crossed a significant threshold that could very well disrupt the political landscape of the Philippines.

It is widely acknowledged that a select group of influential families maintain significant economic and political clout in the Philippines. Recent developments pose a significant challenge to the established equilibrium within these dynasties, presenting two potential scenarios: The arrest may very well serve to reinforce the influence of the Duterte family. Should it manage to present itself in The Hague as the target of a political conspiracy, this could potentially garner extra votes and rally support for his family and its associates in the forthcoming Senate and local elections in May. Public backing for him remains robust, with numerous individuals perceiving the extradition as a violation of national sovereignty. Senators concerned about their re-election prospects may choose to distance themselves from the vice president’s impeachment proceedings to safeguard their votes.

A second scenario posits that the adversaries of the Duterte clan will capitalise on this moment, striving to signal the onset of the decline of their dynasty. At this juncture, it seems appropriate, given that the family is reeling and its energies are directed towards the clan leader in The Hague. The arrest of Duterte and the unsuccessful Supreme Court petition filed by his son, Paolo Duterte, reveal that Marcos’s strategies were more astute than anticipated, highlighting a significant underestimation by the Dutertes.

Nonetheless, the decline of the clan and its affiliates ought not to be misconstrued as a conclusion to the island nation’s brash approach to strongman politics. Instead, the ensuing void would encourage the other dynasties to assert their positions.

The Philippines consistently champions adherence to international law on the global stage, especially regarding the ongoing tensions in the South China Sea. It appears quite reasonable that the Philippine authorities have acted upon the international arrest warrant issued for Duterte. Nevertheless, these occurrences are not happening in isolation, but rather within the context of the significant power struggle between China and the United States.

As President Marcos endeavors to cultivate a mutually advantageous relationship with the Trump administration for the Philippines, reports have emerged suggesting that Duterte was in Hong Kong seeking asylum in China – a claim that Sara Duterte has categorically refuted. On the day of Duterte’s arrest, the spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a caution during a routine press conference, advising against the politicization of the International Criminal Court and highlighting concerns over double standards. It is yet to be determined how Duterte’s imprisonment will affect the geopolitical power dynamics or, if required, be leveraged for specific purposes.

What is indisputable, however, is that the families of the victims of the “war on drugs” are entitled to justice and reparations. It is imperative for progressive factions to seize this opportunity to scrutinize the ongoing extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. With the forthcoming elections on the horizon, this could serve as a cohesive story for the disjointed political landscape.

Moreover, it is imperative for the progressive opposition to earnestly advocate for the Philippines’ reinstatement in the International Criminal Court, ensuring that extradition transcends mere domestic political tactics. European diplomats and politicians have consistently emphasized that the rule of law in the Philippines should be assessed based on its handling of Duterte. Therefore, it would be prudent for German and European foreign policy to maintain a balanced approach in supporting the aforementioned demands.