The International Criminal Court is the culmination of the humanitarian ideal to close the curtains on the 20th-century era of unpunished atrocities. It stands as a tribunal of last resort, where even those long shielded by impunity can be held to account. The prospect of former President Duterte’s release puts that standing in jeopardy. 

Over the past six months, Mr. Duterte’s legal team, led by Nicholas Kaufman, filed a barrage of motions: a challenge to the ICC’s jurisdiction, a motion seeking provisional release under the custody of a third country, a motion to disqualify members of the prosecution, and a motion to disqualify two judges over alleged bias. In an effort to drag out the proceedings, Mr. Duterte’s lawyers have held the subject in every light and legal technicality it was capable of. Most have been denied, with others still pending review. 

The most recent of these attempts was the request for indefinite adjournment of proceedings on account of Mr. Duterte’s alleged deteriorating health. The request asserted that Mr. Duterte is “not fit to stand trial as a result of cognitive impairment in multiple domains,” adding that “his condition will not improve and, for this reason, the Pre-Trial Chamber must adjourn all legal proceedings in his case indefinitely.” To the alarm and dismay of drug war victims, the chamber granted a limited postponement, stopping short of the indefinite adjournment requested. For the defense, the decision effectively passes the ball back, shifting the focus to Mr. Duterte’s capacity to stand trial. 

There is reason to question the narrative of Mr. Duterte’s cognitive decline.

It is worth noting that only six months ago, Mr. Duterte delivered an hour-long campaign speech to a packed stadium in Hong Kong. Ahead of his flight to The Hague—and his appearance before the Pre-Trial Chamber—he underwent medical examinations and was deemed fit on both accounts. Joel Butuyan, an ICC-accredited lawyer, pointed to anecdotes from Mr. Duterte’s children, who in recent months have attested to his mental acuity. 

“It trumps the medical findings of what doctors are saying,” Mr. Butuyan said. Just two weeks ago, all four of Mr. Duterte’s children visited him, recalling conversations about Philippine politics and exchanges of jokes.

The chamber must navigate cautiously in dealing with the former president, whose relentless pursuit of his aims often disregards moral and legal boundaries.

An ill-founded indefinite adjournment of Mr. Duterte’s case would serve to further undermine the already loose authority of international law and imperil the credibility of the ICC as the sole global forum with the power to override virtual impunity granted by judiciaries unable and unwilling to try grave abuses. While Mr. Duterte’s prosecution is, by international standards, relatively modest, it is also one whose outcome could signal whether far more consequential cases will ever be pursued with equal rigor, like those involving Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin. It would be a national embarrassment for the morass of Philippine politics to be the death knell of international law. 

If the Philippines is to maintain its regained standing in the free world, the Filipino people must not only move on from Mr. Duterte’s time of unabashed brutality, which took the lives of thousands—we must also condemn it unreservedly.

Such exercise of moral relativism is antithetical to the Catholic identity of the Philippines. Every human being possesses an inherent and inviolable dignity, which is intrinsic and cannot be lost; even those accused of crimes retain their God-given dignity. It was in that spirit that the framers of the Constitution enshrined, in the very first section of the Bill of Rights, the guarantees of due process and equal protection.

Amid calls from Mr. Kaufman and Partido Demokratiko Pilipino to allow Mr. Duterte to return to the Philippines, President Marcos Jr. must stay the course in upholding the country’s commitments to the international community, and must make clear to the world that it neither harbors nor tolerates perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Facilitating Mr. Duterte’s return would be a serious blunder for Mr. Marcos. Any attempt at reconciliation with the former president and his allies is unlikely to result in unity and could instead afford Vice President Sara Duterte the presidency in 2028.

Just last month, Senator Chiz Escudero remarked to The Marynette that Mr. Marcos “simply wants to get his term over and done with.” At the very least, he should seek to leave behind an enduring legacy that ended the bloodshed of thousands of Filipinos—and ensure that such a legacy lasts beyond his time in office.