Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest being ‘warrantless’ false – lawyer

Vice President Sara Duterte addresses people gathering outside the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, on March 14, 2025, as former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte appears for the first time before International Criminal Court to face crimes against humanity charges.  —File photo by Nicolas Tucat | Agence France-Presse

MANILA, Philippines — The claim that former President Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest was “warrantless” is false.

Joel Butuyan, a lawyer accredited by the International Criminal Court (ICC), explained this at a Palace press conference on Friday, saying the arrest was valid under Philippine laws even if the Philippines was no longer an ICC member.

“There was a warrant of arrest, and it was issued by an international court, of which we were a member. So, this is not a warrantless arrest — because there was indeed a warrant covering the arrest of the former president,” he said, speaking in a mix of Filipino and English.

Butuyan also explained that Duterte’s arrest was valid under Philippine laws, even if it is no longer under the jurisdiction of the ICC.

On Thursday, Vice President Sara Duterte said her father was forcibly taken — in a “warrantless arrest” — by the Philippine National Police upon his arrival in Manila from Hong Kong on March 11. The former president is facing a crimes against humanity case arising from his drug war at the ICC.

But Butuyan denied this, citing Republic Act No. 9851, which he said mirrored the Rome Statue — allowing the Philippines to directly surrender a suspect to an international court when a warrant has been issued.

He also cited Article 59 of the Rome Statute, which states that an arrest can go through a competent judicial authority, but it cannot question the validity of the warrant.

However, Butuyan also pointed out that, according to a 2015 ICC decision, an arresting country has no obligation to follow the entire procedure in Article 59, as long as the core provisions of the article are followed.

“So, it’s not necessary to go through domestic judicial authority, as long as the substance of Article 59 is complied with, which includes verifying the identity of the accused and ensuring the accused’s rights are respected. In the case of former President Duterte’s arrest, he was read his Miranda rights,” Butuyan said.

This means a local court order was also no longer necessary to enforce the ICC-issued warrant.

“So, that’s pursuant to our domestic law on arrest — and then he [Duterte] had a lawyer there — not only one but two. So, the substance ng Article 59 was actually complied with… The implementation of the warrant of arrest was valid,” he said.

Butuyan also clarified that an electronic warrant would be enough for such an arrest.

He also reiterated that, though the Philippines was no longer in the jurisdiction of the ICC, the international court still had jurisdiction over the crimes committed while the country was still a member.

READ: Palace: ICC has jurisdiction on cases when Duterte was mayor until 2019

‘Not an extraordinary rendition’

The lawyer also disputed the vice president’s claim that his father’s arrest constituted extraordinary rendition.

According to Butuyan, extraordinary rendition refers to the arrest of an individual in another country with no need for an arrest warrant — which wasn’t the case with Duterte and the ICC.

“This has a warrant of arrest issued by an international court, and it is not a country-to-country transfer. So what happened here is not extraordinary rendition,” he said.