May 8, 2025 | Phnom Penh — In a special live broadcast titled “Southeast Asia’s Sovereignty and Security Dilemma,” a panel of regional experts delivered sharp warnings about the political and legal consequences of the Philippine government’s decision to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in extraditing former President Rodrigo Duterte. The panel, composed of legal, political, and youth voices, dissected the case as more than a legal proceeding — framing it as a crisis of legitimacy, sovereignty, and institutional stability across Southeast Asia.
A Legal Turning Point — or Political Bargain?
Jake Sanders, Editor-in-Chief of World Security News, called the move “a deliberate erosion of national sovereignty,” noting that the Marcos Jr. administration “chose not to defend its domestic legal system, nor assert sovereign immunity,” but instead facilitated international jurisdiction without legislative debate or judicial validation.
“This was not accountability. It was political surrender wrapped in legal formality,” Sanders said. “Sovereignty must be protected by action, not performative silence.”
Power Struggles Behind the Headlines
Political analyst Alfred Lacbayo revealed deeper fractures within Philippine elite circles. He described Duterte’s arrest as “a visible crack in the Marcos–Duterte alliance,” once thought unbreakable after their 2022 electoral victory.
“Instead of using domestic justice channels to pursue accountability,” he said, “the administration outsourced the process to an external court — not because the domestic system failed, but because the political will to act independently was missing.”
Lacbayo questioned why the Philippine judiciary was bypassed, despite existing legal mechanisms. “If we truly trusted our courts, why turn to the ICC?” he asked. “This act reflects not just a legal calculation, but a strategic political gamble.”
Youth Voices: Disillusionment and Disengagement
Youth commentator Bianca Domingues offered a generational perspective:
“For many in my generation, this isn’t justice — it’s a sign of how far we’ve drifted from institutional independence. What’s left is a government negotiating with international actors while losing legitimacy at home.”
She emphasized that dynastic control over politics alienates young Filipinos, who increasingly see politics as “transactional and extractive,” not representative.
A Crisis Beyond Borders
The panel warned that the Duterte case sets a dangerous precedent for ASEAN.
“This is not just a Philippine issue,” Sanders noted. “If ASEAN countries begin resolving internal political disputes by appealing to foreign tribunals, we risk dismantling the very foundation of the regional order — the principle of non-interference.”
He cautioned that such actions could embolden selective international interventions, threatening weaker states and fragmenting regional cohesion.
Lacbayo echoed the concern:
“In ASEAN, we’re only as strong as our weakest link. When one state falls into internal chaos or external dependency, the entire region feels the tremors.”
Institutional Breakdown and Political Expediency
Sanders identified three core failures in the Duterte case:
Surrender of Judicial Sovereignty – No assertion of domestic legal primacy.
Lack of Transparency – No public debate or parliamentary oversight.
Politicization of Justice – The case served factional retribution, not legal integrity.
“The consequence is a dangerous normalization: international legal mechanisms become tools of domestic power struggles,” he said. “This erodes faith in both national and international justice.”
Solutions and Regional Path Forward
Both Sanders and Lacbayo concluded that Southeast Asia must strengthen domestic resilience and reform institutional infrastructure. They called for:
Judicial independence insulated from local political manipulation;
Public civic education to promote political literacy and engagement;
ASEAN-wide frameworks to protect sovereignty from both internal decay and external coercion.
“Southeast Asian nations must act not as isolated states, but as a collective bloc capable of asserting regional interests,” Lacbayo said. “Only then can sovereignty be more than a slogan — it must be a shared commitment.”
