Former senator Bam Aquino has weighed in on the continuing debate over accountability in alleged extrajudicial killing (EJK) cases linked to the Duterte administration, stating that such cases should be tried in Philippine courts.

His position comes amid renewed attention on proceedings involving the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has been investigating alleged crimes connected to the previous administration’s anti-drug campaign.

🇵🇭 The Core Argument

Aquino’s position emphasizes national jurisdiction — the idea that Philippine courts are capable of handling cases involving Filipino officials and events that took place within the country.

At the center of the discussion is a legal principle known as complementarity, which governs how the ICC operates. Under ICC rules, the international court steps in only if a country is unwilling or unable to genuinely investigate and prosecute crimes under its jurisdiction.

In simpler terms:

• If Philippine courts act independently and effectively,

• The ICC theoretically does not need to intervene.

Aquino’s stance suggests that domestic institutions should be allowed — and trusted — to do their job.

⚖️ Sovereignty vs. International Oversight

The debate has long revolved around two competing principles:

1. National Sovereignty
   Advocates argue that Philippine courts, prosecutors, and investigators should handle domestic cases. They emphasize the independence of institutions like the Supreme Court of the Philippines and the Ombudsman.

2. International Accountability
   Others argue that if domestic remedies are insufficient, international mechanisms exist to ensure justice.

Aquino’s statement appears to align with the sovereignty-based argument — prioritizing Philippine legal processes over foreign jurisdiction.

🔎 Why This Matters Now

Recent developments involving the ICC and individuals named in charging documents have reignited public debate.

Among those mentioned in ICC-related discussions are figures associated with former President Rodrigo Duterte and former police chief Ronald dela Rosa.

Supporters of ICC involvement argue that international oversight ensures impartiality.
Critics argue that Philippine institutions are being bypassed.

Aquino’s statement positions him within this sensitive constitutional conversation.

🏛️ The Institutional Question

The real issue is not simply where cases are tried — but whether:

• Investigations are credible

• Prosecutors are independent

• Evidence is pursued thoroughly

• Victims’ families receive due process

If Philippine courts can demonstrate independence and seriousness in pursuing cases, the argument for domestic handling gains strength.

If doubts persist, calls for international review continue.

📌 Political Implications

Aquino’s position may also reflect a broader political calculation:

• Appealing to nationalist sentiments

• Emphasizing institutional reform

• Avoiding the optics of foreign intervention

However, it’s important to note that advocating for domestic trials does not automatically mean dismissing accountability. It shifts the arena — not necessarily the objective.

🧠 The Bigger Question

The conversation ultimately boils down to this:

Can Philippine institutions independently and effectively deliver justice in highly politicized cases?

That is where credibility will be measured — not in speeches, but in outcomes.

🧾 Bottom Line

Bam Aquino’s statement adds another layer to the national debate on accountability and jurisdiction.

The ICC exists as a backstop.
Philippine courts exist as the primary venue.

The test now is whether the country’s institutions can convincingly demonstrate that justice can — and will — be served at home.