Sovereignty and Accountability:
A Nation’s Test of Integrity
Recent discussions on Philippine sovereignty have taken center stage as the possibility of former President Rodrigo Duterte facing accountability before an international tribunal gains traction. Nationalist rhetoric has resurged, with many insisting that only the Filipino people should decide the fate of their own leaders. Yet, the same voices were silent when foreign powers encroached on the country’s territory, constructed infrastructure on its lands, and undermined its national interests. This selective invocation of sovereignty raises a crucial question: is sovereignty about protecting the nation, or is it merely being used to shield individuals from accountability?
The Limits of Sovereignty in a Globalized World
The notion that international legal mechanisms infringe upon national sovereignty disregards the reality of a globalized legal order. The Philippines, like many other nations, has voluntarily entered treaties that impose specific obligations—one of which is participation in Interpol, an entity that facilitates international cooperation in law enforcement. If adherence to such agreements is truly an attack on sovereignty, then withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC) should have been accompanied by severing ties with Interpol and similar institutions.
More importantly, the Philippines did not arbitrarily join the ICC—it incorporated the Rome Statute into its legal system as part of its commitment to the principles promoted by the United Nations. To hear people now invoke sovereignty simply because a controversial figure is involved raises an unsettling question: does sovereignty mean blindly defending a leader regardless of their actions? If one were Haitian, would they support Papa Doc Duvalier simply because he was Haitian, despite the atrocities he committed? Nationality alone does not absolve a leader from responsibility.
Accountability Is Not a Threat to Sovereignty
The argument that international legal action against Duterte constitutes a violation of Philippine sovereignty overlooks a fundamental truth: the ICC does not interfere in nations where justice functions impartially. If the courts were truly independent, if justice were dispensed fairly, and if the welfare of the people was the highest law, there would be no need for entities like the ICC. Theoretically, people may always find reasons to complain, but in reality, when justice systems fail to act on widespread abuses—such as the use of the war on drugs as a war against the poor—international mechanisms become necessary.
The ICC only steps in when a nation is unwilling or unable to prosecute serious crimes on its own. Duterte’s administration had years to ensure that the country’s judicial institutions remained credible and effective. Instead, the government obstructed investigations, dismissed accountability measures, and rejected scrutiny. Now, when the consequences of these choices emerge, the same leaders who failed to strengthen the justice system decry foreign intervention.
Nationalism and the Integrity of Nation-Building
As an observer, to use nationalism to defend a leader known for his abuses is itself a mockery of those who genuinely stood for nationalism and the desire for nation-building. Nationalism is not about blind loyalty to a leader—it is about building a nation based on justice, accountability, and the rule of law. Those who claim to stand for the country while supporting someone who disregarded legal and moral principles are, in reality, undermining the very foundation of the nation they claim to protect.
Character building is nation-building. A society that tolerates impunity, excuses lawlessness, and justifies abuses as necessary evils weakens its own moral fabric. If a leader’s actions are excused despite their clear violations of the rule of law, it is not just governance that suffers, but the very character of the nation itself.
A Lesson in Consequence
Duterte and his legal team had the opportunity to insulate the Philippines from international legal scrutiny by withdrawing from all related agreements. However, they failed to do so. Now, faced with the possibility of international accountability, they argue that sovereignty is under attack. But true sovereignty is not about shielding individuals from justice—it is about ensuring that justice is served within the nation’s own institutions.
This situation is more than just a legal dispute; it is a test of the nation’s integrity. If the Philippines had upheld justice impartially, there would be no reason for the ICC to be involved. The fact that international legal mechanisms are even being considered is an indictment of the country’s own failure to hold its leaders accountable. In the end, the question is not why the ICC exists—it is why the Philippines failed to render justice before the international community had to step in.