MANILA,Philippines — The arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has ignited a firestorm of political debate,exposing deep divisions within the nation’s leadership. On Thursday, March 20, Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro publicly countered criticisms leveled by Vice President Sara Duterte regarding the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ (AFP) involvement in the controversial arrest. Teodoro asserted that military intervention to prevent the arrest would have been “an anathema to civilian authority.”

The core of the dispute lies in the AFP’s support of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in executing the warrant for Duterte’s arrest, leading to his transfer to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. This action has sparked a national debate about sovereignty, international law, adn the role of the military in a democratic society. The situation resonates with ongoing debates in the U.S. regarding the balance between national interests and international legal obligations, similar to discussions surrounding the U.S.’s relationship with the ICC.

The AFP’s Constitutional Mandate

Secretary Teodoro emphasized that the AFP acted within its constitutional mandate by providing support to the PNP. His remarks were delivered during a Senate foreign relations committee hearing, chaired by Sen.Imee Marcos, focusing on the circumstances surrounding Duterte’s arrest. Teodoro clarified the AFP’s role, stating, “We were deputized to support the PNP and it is part of the constitutional duty of the armed forces to follow processes.”

He further explained the potential consequences of military interference: “If we were to question those orders even under color of law, under color of right, then it would amount to the armed forces acting unilaterally on its own, which is an anathema of civilian authority over the military.” This principle of civilian control over the military is a cornerstone of democratic governance, a concept deeply ingrained in the U.S. system, where the President serves as the Commander-in-Chief.

Teodoro stressed that for this specific operation, the AFP’s jurisdiction “ends in providing support to the PNP.” This delineation of responsibilities is crucial in maintaining order and preventing the overreach of military power, a concern echoed in U.S. debates about the posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

Vice President Duterte’s Rebuke

Adding fuel to the already raging fire, Vice President Sara Duterte used the same Senate hearing to voice her sharp criticism of the military’s actions (or perceived inaction). “Why did the AFP stand idly by while a former Commander-in-chief was taken from a military base under questionable circumstances? how could they allow a foreign tribunal to override our constitutional guarantees?” she questioned.

The Vice President also lamented the perceived “silence” of the armed forces.”Under whose authority did the PNP act? Why did it enforce a foreign warrant without the Philippine court order? Why didn’t they at least bring PRRD before a judge as required by the Rome Statute itself? Even more disturbing is the silence of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,” she stated, highlighting concerns about due process and the enforcement of international warrants within the Philippines.

These criticisms strike at the heart of the debate surrounding the ICC’s jurisdiction and the balance between national sovereignty and international accountability. The U.S. has a complex relationship with international courts, often asserting its own legal supremacy while engaging in selective cooperation. This tension is mirrored in the Philippines, where duterte’s arrest has triggered a re-evaluation of the country’s relationship with international legal bodies.

Notably, Vice President Duterte has previously expressed distrust of the military, opting to hire private security after her security detail was pulled last year. This backdrop adds another layer of complexity to her critique, suggesting potential underlying tensions between the Vice President and the AFP.

Malacañang’s Justification

in contrast to the Vice President’s stance, Malacañang, the Philippine presidential palace, has consistently maintained the legality of Duterte’s arrest. They cite Republic Act 9851, the Philippine Act on Crimes against International Humanitarian Law, which allows authorities to “surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court.” This legal basis underscores the government’s commitment to cooperating with international legal processes, despite the political fallout.

This situation mirrors debates within the U.S. regarding the extradition of individuals to face charges in foreign courts. The U.S. often navigates complex legal and political considerations when deciding whether to honor extradition requests, balancing its commitment to international law with concerns about due process and national sovereignty.

Senate Inquiry and Air Force Absence

The Senate hearing also raised questions about the absence of Air Force representatives, especially considering that Villamor Airbase was the departure point for the chartered plane that transported Duterte to The Hague. it was also at Villamor Airbase where Duterte was read his Miranda rights, a detail that adds a layer of intrigue to the air Force’s apparent absence from the hearing.

Secretary Teodoro addressed this absence, stating that he made the call to answer questions on behalf of the Air Force. “As we will not go into operational details. I made the call that the Armed Forces will answer considering our supporting role and principal role to the PNP,” he explained, suggesting a desire to control the narrative and prevent possibly sensitive details from being disclosed.

Prior to the Senate hearing, Air Force Spokesperson Col. Ma.Consuelo Castillo clarified that it was “normal” for the Air Force’s secured base facilities “to be used as arrival or departure points for air movements of certain crucial personalities.” this statement attempts to downplay the significance of Villamor airbase’s role, portraying it as a routine logistical function.

Military Neutrality and Concerns about Unrest

Faced with mounting political pressure, the Philippine military has publicly declared its commitment to neutrality. On wednesday, March 19, philippine Army spokesperson Colonel Louie Dema-ala stated that soldiers shoudl remain focused on their duty to protect the sovereignty of the country “without becoming entangled in partisan politics.” This declaration underscores the military’s desire to avoid being drawn into the political fray, a sentiment that resonates with the U.S. military’s apolitical stance.

The AFP has also actively sought to quell rumors of mass resignations and unrest within its ranks following Duterte’s arrest. This proactive approach highlights the military’s awareness of the potential for dissent and its efforts to maintain stability and unity. Claims of military unrest following a controversial political event often accompany heightened tensions globally,and the Philippine military is actively combating this potential issue.

This concern mirrors anxieties in the U.S. regarding political polarization and its potential impact on military cohesion. Maintaining morale and discipline within the armed forces in the face of divisive political issues is a critical challenge for military leaders worldwide.

Implications for U.S.-Philippine Relations

The arrest of Rodrigo Duterte and the ensuing political turmoil could have meaningful implications for U.S.-Philippine relations. The U.S. has historically maintained a close security alliance with the Philippines, but Duterte’s presidency was marked by periods of strained relations due to his controversial policies and anti-American rhetoric. The current crisis could further complicate this relationship, depending on how the U.S.responds and how the situation unfolds.

The U.S.may face pressure to take a stance on the ICC’s involvement and the legitimacy of Duterte’s arrest.Balancing its commitment to human rights and international law with its strategic interests in the region will be a delicate balancing act for U.S. policymakers.

The Path Forward: A Nation Divided

The arrest of Rodrigo Duterte has exposed deep divisions within Philippine society and its leadership. The conflicting statements from the Defense Secretary and the Vice President underscore the lack of consensus on how to address the ICC’s inquiry and the legacy of Duterte’s presidency. As the legal proceedings move forward, the Philippines faces the challenge of navigating these divisions and upholding the rule of law while maintaining political stability.

The situation serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between national sovereignty, international law, and domestic politics, a dynamic that resonates far beyond the borders of the Philippines. For the United States, the crisis presents both challenges and opportunities to reaffirm its commitment to democratic values and its strategic partnership with the Philippines.

Key players and Their Stances