Duterte’s Arrest and Interpol’s Dilemma: Navigating Article 3 Neutrality Amid ICC Jurisdictional Controversy

Following the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) issuance of an arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity stemming from Duterte’s “war on drugs,” Duterte was detained abroad, with reports suggesting that information circulated through Interpol channels facilitated the arrest. Although the ICC does not directly issue Red Notices, it routinely relies on Interpol diffusions and alerts to internationalize its arrest efforts.

This cooperation places Interpol in a difficult position. Under Article 3 of its Constitution, Interpol is strictly prohibited from undertaking “any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.” The Organization’s credibility depends on scrupulous neutrality, particularly in politically sensitive cases. Arresting a former head of state—especially one whose alleged crimes occurred during his time in office—almost inevitably carries political implications, no matter the gravity of the underlying charges.

The Duterte case is further complicated by a major jurisdictional question. The Philippines formally withdrew from the ICC in March 2019, shortly after the Court began a preliminary examination into Duterte’s anti-drug policies. While the ICC maintains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed during the Philippines’ membership period, this claim is hotly contested within the Philippines and among Duterte’s supporters. Critics argue that the Court’s continuing assertion of authority over a non-member state renders the entire process politically suspect.

For Interpol, this situation is especially perilous. Providing assistance to an international tribunal whose jurisdiction is disputed—and whose actions are viewed by many as politically motivated—risks violating both the letter and spirit of Article 3. Even if Interpol acts with the purest of intentions, its involvement could be perceived as taking sides in a fundamentally political dispute.

This is not the first time Interpol has faced such a dilemma. Previous ICC-related requests concerning figures like Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi have similarly forced the Organization to navigate between facilitating international justice and maintaining strict neutrality. However, Duterte’s case is distinctive because it arises after Interpol’s recent internal reforms, which were intended to insulate the Organization from political misuse—including strengthened oversight by the Commission for the Control of Files (CCF).

The Duterte arrest underscores the urgent need for Interpol to apply heightened scrutiny to all cooperation requests involving international tribunals, particularly where jurisdiction is contested or political sensitivities are acute. Neutrality under Article 3 is not merely a formality; it is essential to preserving Interpol’s legitimacy and operational effectiveness.

In the pursuit of justice, Interpol must ensure that it does not become an instrument of political agendas, however noble the cause may appear. The Organization’s continued ability to command the trust of all 196 member countries depends on its unwavering adherence to its constitutional principles—even in the most difficult cases.

—

Image: Unsplash