A wave of online falsehoods from supporters of former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte has emerged following his arrest by the International Criminal Court (ICC), with analysts arguing the misinformation campaign could not only fail to help his case but also backfire by affecting judicial decisions on his interim release.
Duterte was arrested at the Manila airport on March 11 as he returned from Hong Kong and was then placed on a government-paid private flight to The Hague, where he faces charges of crimes against humanity for the thousands of extrajudicial killings that occurred during his administration’s violent war on drugs.
Even before the aircraft left Manila, Duterte loyalists began circulating fake stories, including claims that the Philippine Supreme Court had granted a temporary restraining order to halt his transfer.
02:23
Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte arrested under ICC warrant
Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte arrested under ICC warrant
Their fabrications grew bolder from there. When the former president appeared before ICC judges on March 14 for an initial hearing, his supporters falsely claimed the case had been dismissed, when in fact the judges swiftly set his first hearing date for September.
Joel Butuyan, one of only five Filipino lawyers accredited to the ICC and president of the Centre for International Law, told This Week in Asia, “I don’t think it’s going to affect the ongoing case in the ICC with respect to the merits. But it might potentially affect any application for interim release.”
The fake reports have ranged from the outlandish to the malicious. One post purported to show Russian President Vladimir Putin refusing peace talks with Ukraine for as long as the ICC held Duterte. Another rumour claimed the Supreme Court accepted a petition with 16 million signatures demanding President Ferdinand Marcos Jnr’s resignation and was going to rule on it.
In a statement released on Monday, the high court condemned rumours about itself and Duterte being granted a temporary restraining order as “acts of disinformation” and said they would be referred “for appropriate action.”