Duterte’s Lawyer’s ‘Kidnapping’ Claim:
A Distraction from the Real Issue?
Nicholas Kaufman, the lawyer for former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, recently claimed that his client’s arrest by the International Criminal Court (ICC) was nothing more than “kidnapping.” This absurd assertion, framed as an “extrajudicial rendition,” distracts from the real issue: Duterte’s role in a brutal war on drugs that left thousands dead. Kaufman’s argument isn’t just legally weak, it’s an attempt to sideline the serious charges against Duterte, ones that demand accountability on the global stage.
What’s even more telling is the broader question this legal maneuver raises: If Duterte’s supporters truly believe in his innocence, why are they not helping him face justice in a legitimate international forum to clear his name? Why is their concept of justice so narrowly confined to a broken local system, riddled with corruption, impunity, and “hoodlums in robes,” as critics of the government would put it? Why does it take an international body like the ICC to investigate, prosecute, and possibly put Duterte on trial, while local courts—where this battle should have been fought from the start—have been complicit in turning a blind eye to the thousands killed in Duterte’s drug war?
Instead of supporting Duterte’s defense in a proper legal setting, his defenders are playing this distraction game, seeking to undermine the international process that could provide the impartial examination of the evidence that the local system failed to do. This is not about procedural technicalities; it’s about accountability for the systematic, state-sponsored killings under Duterte’s orders. Whether the death toll is 6,000 or 30,000, the ICC’s case hinges on proving that Duterte endorsed and encouraged extrajudicial killings, that his government turned a blind eye to atrocities, and that these actions amounted to crimes against humanity. It’s about powerful figures being held accountable when local systems have failed to do so.
Kaufman’s claim of “kidnapping” has already been dismissed by legal experts, including Atty. Joel Butuyan, an ICC-accredited lawyer, who called it a “rehashed” argument with no merit. Butuyan pointed out that Duterte’s arrest was in full compliance with the law, following valid legal procedures, with a warrant issued, and with Duterte’s rights respected. The ICC maintains jurisdiction over the case, as the crimes allegedly took place while the Philippines was still a member state. Kaufman’s attempt to discredit the ICC’s authority has already been debunked and will likely fail to prevent the trial from moving forward.
So why does this matter? It’s not just about the technicalities of international law. It’s about the fundamental question of justice: if Duterte’s supporters truly care about his innocence, why are they not pushing for him to face justice head-on, instead of playing this charade of resistance? Why are they trying to deflect from the clear evidence of wrongdoing that has led to Duterte’s arrest and international scrutiny? If they want to show they’re serious about justice, why not embrace the legal process that could clear his name rather than undermining it?
It’s striking how those who now rally to Duterte’s defense were the same voices that dismissed calls for justice during his reign—when victims of the drug war had nowhere to turn and the government refused to even acknowledge the deaths. These defenders now question the legitimacy of the ICC’s jurisdiction, despite it being backed by both the Philippines Supreme Court and international law. Where was their outrage when local calls for accountability were dismissed as “jest” or “nonsense”? They now speak of “dura lex sed lex”—the law is harsh, but it is the law—yet fail to apply it when the law might actually bring justice against Duterte. Does their understanding of justice stop at the local level, where powerful figures like Duterte could escape accountability? Or is justice only serious when it’s being handled by international bodies, and not the very same local systems they once disregarded?
This is a moment for the Philippines to truly examine its commitment to justice. Duterte’s defenders may be quick to claim he’s a victim of international politics, but they’re the ones avoiding the real question: Why, when it comes to serious allegations of extrajudicial killings and crimes against humanity, does it take the ICC to get to the truth when local courts have failed? If they really believe in Duterte’s innocence, they should help him face justice, not continue with this narrative of evasion. Because in the end, justice is not about protecting powerful individuals—it’s about ensuring accountability, no matter how high up the chain it goes.