Overview
False claims about the International Criminal Court (ICC) often circulate on social media, especially when they touch high-profile political topics. A common assertion is that the ICC has no evidence of crimes committed during former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war. This claim is misleading. While the ICC has faced political resistance and careful procedural steps, there is documented activity and materials that indicate prosecutors have been building and maintaining evidence relevant to potential crimes against humanity in the Philippines. Here, we unpack what the ICC has done, what “evidence” means in this context, and why the claim is considered false.
What the ICC did regarding the Philippines
The ICC opened a formal inquiry into the Philippines’ drug war after concerns were raised about possible crimes against humanity from 2011 onward. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has stated that it is examining alleged state actions, including extrajudicial killings and other related abuses, and assessing whether they fall within the Court’s jurisdiction and the limitations of admissibility. An official inquiry does not confirm guilt; it is a process to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed with a full investigation.
Evidence and documentation
In ICC proceedings, “evidence” encompasses a range of materials: investigative files, witness testimony, expert analyses, media records, and other documentary proof that could substantiate alleged crimes against humanity if the case proceeds to charges. The OTP has indicated it is collecting and evaluating evidence to assess the scope, pattern, and potential perpetrators. While the Philippines is not a party to the Rome Statute’s jurisdiction for all periods, the ICC has asserted jurisdiction for certain acts that may have occurred while the country was a member and for events that fall within the Court’s temporal and documentary reach.
Therefore, the assertion that there is “no evidence” is inaccurate. The ICC’s published notices and statements reflect ongoing evidentiary reviews as part of their mandate to determine whether crimes were committed and by whom. Note that the existence of evidence in an international investigative sense does not equal a court finding of guilt; it signals that prosecutors are evaluating whether there is a viable basis for formal charges.
Why the claim spread on social media
Social media reels and posts often oversimplify or misstate complex legal developments. The claim in question was amplified by a Facebook reel and other posts, which can mislead audiences into thinking that the ICC has dismissed or found no evidence. In reality, international investigations are often lengthy, with multiple stages, including preliminary assessments, admissibility determinations, and potential full investigations. The nuance of these steps is frequently lost in shortened formats, contributing to misinformation.
What this means for accountability in the Philippines
The ICC’s involvement (even as the process unfolds) signals international attention to potential crimes against humanity connected to the drug war. Advocates for accountability argue that international scrutiny can complement domestic bodies’ work, encourage documentation of abuses, and provide an external standard for human rights protections. Skeptics warn about sovereignty concerns and the practical limits of ICC jurisdiction. Regardless, the claim that there is “no evidence” at the ICC level is not consistent with the procedural reality of how international investigations operate.
Bottom line
In short, the statement that “the ICC has no evidence related to Duterte’s drug war” is false. The ICC has engaged in formal inquiry and is collecting and assessing materials that could support a future decision about charges. As with any ICC process, this is a careful, evidence-based procedure that evolves over time. For readers evaluating claims, it is important to distinguish between “evidence collected” and “charges filed” — they are not the same, and neither necessarily confirms guilt or innocence at this stage.
Related Questions
What is the difference between preliminary examinations and investigations in the ICC? How does jurisdiction work when countries withdraw from the Rome Statute? How can civil society groups access ICC updates on ongoing inquiries?
