A Hollow Justification:
Why Using Russia, China, and the United States
to Reject the International Criminal Court is Deeply Flawed
In recent years, the question of whether the Philippines should rejoin the International Criminal Court (ICC) has sparked heated debate. As investigations into alleged human rights violations gain traction on the international stage, some voices within the country have called for rejecting international scrutiny altogether. They argue that justice should be dealt with exclusively within national borders and that global institutions have no place intervening in sovereign affairs.
Among those voices is Samuel Rusiana, who stated, “There is no need for the Philippines to join the International Criminal Court. What we should strengthen is our own justice system.” He added that not even the presidents of the United States or Russia—despite their graver human rights violations—have been held accountable by the ICC.
At face value, his statement appears to defend national sovereignty and judicial independence. However, the argument collapses upon closer scrutiny. Citing the absence of the United States, China, and Russia from the ICC as justification for the Philippines to do the same reveals a flawed and dangerous logic: that if powerful countries avoid international accountability, others should follow suit.
But must these three nations be the standard for how global justice is approached? All three have complex relationships with international law and often act based on strategic self-interest rather than a commitment to universal principles. Their refusal to join or comply with the ICC should not be seen as a badge of sovereignty, but rather as an indication of their geopolitical privilege.
In stark contrast stands the United Kingdom—an equally sovereign nation with a robust legal system that nonetheless remains a signatory to the ICC. Its participation signals that international cooperation on justice is not a weakness but a moral and institutional strength. It recognizes that domestic systems, no matter how developed, can benefit from and contribute to a broader framework of accountability.
To call international oversight “interference” may soon lead to the downplaying—if not outright erosion—of human rights. In fact, this erosion already manifested during the Duterte administration, when human rights activists were openly threatened. These were not idle words; they were backed by real consequences. Supporters applauded such threats, branding dissenters as accomplices in subversion against the state. But if expressing dissent and asserting social justice is deemed subversion, then so be it—for that has always been the cry of the oppressed, whether resisting a foreign colonizer or a domestic tyrant. History shows that when justice is silenced, movements for liberation often rise in its place.
Critics note the irony that a country like the Philippines, which frequently invokes democracy, liberty, and global cooperation, would cite authoritarian or self-interested powers as models for rejecting international justice. This contradiction is glaring: how can a state claim to uphold democratic values while resisting the very mechanisms designed to protect them?
Moreover, the argument that the Philippines should not participate in the ICC simply because certain major powers do not, is a race to the bottom. If global accountability mechanisms are abandoned on the basis that some countries ignore them, then no standard remains. By that logic, any international institution that exerts scrutiny—such as the United Nations—could be dismissed as “interference.”
Such reasoning reflects a narrow and defensive worldview. It views international scrutiny not as an opportunity for growth or reform, but as a threat to national pride. But mature democracies do not run from accountability; they embrace it, recognizing that justice transcends borders.
In truth, the ICC is not about punishing countries. It exists to ensure that no individual—regardless of office or influence—is above the law. To resist it is to resist that very principle. The Philippines, like any nation committed to the rule of law, should not fear participation. It should see in it a reflection of its highest democratic ideals.
If justice is truly the goal, then strengthening domestic institutions and engaging with international ones are not mutually exclusive—they are necessary complements. The world watches not only what the Philippines says about justice, but also how sincerely it is willing to pursue it.