The Fate of the President

At least two heads of state (albeit one former) await judicial decisions on their fate

Last week, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested by order of the International Criminal Court. The arrest took place aboard the plane carrying Duterte from Hong Kong to Manila. The ICC accuses the former Philippine leader of crimes against humanity committed during his tenure as president, even before 2019. Although he did not kill anyone himself, the court argues that the president allegedly issued criminal orders during his declared war on the drug mafia, resulting in thousands of Filipino casualties.

There are many peculiarities in this case. Normally, countries do not abandon their citizens to the mercy of the legal systems of other states or groups of states. But here, a president — albeit a former president — has been arrested. Moreover, the Philippines has withdrawn its ratification of the Rome Statute — the document under which the ICC operates — making the arrest, as well as the charges, legally null and void.

There is also a strong element of politics and score-settling. Clearly, the arrest would not have taken place without the involvement of the current Philippine authorities, and that involvement is obvious. Local newspapers report that some 7,000 police officers were involved in the operation to capture Duterte. It is highly likely that Duterte’s opposing political clan, the Marcos clan — one of whose members is the current president of the Philippines — is behind this. The arrest comes on the eve of national and local elections in which the Duterte clan and the former president himself plan to take an active part. It appears that this is a move to eliminate a powerful political opponent using the ICC as a tool.

Moreover, the Marcos family is firmly aligned with Washington, and last year it took the extraordinary step of agreeing to host American intermediate-range ballistic missiles on its territory that threaten several provinces in the People’s Republic of China. Duterte would not have allowed it. As early as 2019, while attending a meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, he publicly opposed U.S. policy, and even before that he had called President Obama a «son of a bitch». The former Philippine president’s return to politics could theoretically threaten U.S. positions. So many interests have converged, and the ICC has been cynically used as a tool.

Duterte’s arrest is reminiscent of the abduction of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milošević in Belgrade in 2002. He was also inexplicably put on a plane and sent to The Hague to appear before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In the six years that followed, the judges were never able to reach a verdict against Milošević, and he died in prison under mysterious circumstances.

The fate of another president — that of the Republic of Korea — now hangs by a thread. Last week, he was released from detention in Seoul, where he had been held on charges of mutiny and unlawful declaration of martial law. South Korea’s Constitutional Court is now reviewing the legality of the parliament’s impeachment.

Based on decisions regarding other presidents of the Republic of Korea — Roh Moo-hyun in 2004 and President Park Geun-hye in 2017 — commentators assumed that a verdict would be announced on March 14, but this did not happen. By law, the Constitutional Court must announce its verdict within 180 days of the president’s impeachment, which would have been December 14, 2024, so there is still plenty of time. Although the court is unlikely to delay, with the country divided into two camps — supporters and opponents of Yoon — a procedural decision is needed to calm the situation.

By June of this year at the latest, Yoon’s fate will be decided. Either he will return to the post of head of state or he will resign permanently and early presidential elections will be called in Korea. Much depends on the balance of political forces and the position of the People Power Party, to which Yoon belongs. Its leadership faces a difficult choice — either to effectively, if indirectly, take responsibility for Yoon’s actions and stand by him, or to distance itself and prepare for new presidential elections, which it will most likely lose to the opposition. The election will most likely be won by Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the opposition Democratic Party and Yoon Suk-yeol’s closest rival, who lost to him in the last election by just half a percent of the vote.

The situation in the country is heated, and any decision is fraught with political complications. Earlier, the dispute over the presidency almost led to shootings. However, it is possible that the leading political forces will manage to find a reasonable compromise.

The uniqueness of the situation also lies in the fact that there are currently two people holding the status of president in the Republic of Korea. While the fate of the temporarily impeached Yoon Suk-yeol is being decided by the Constitutional Court, Vice Premier Choi Sang-mok is temporarily fulfilling the duties of the head of state.

As for Yoon himself, it is preferable that he be reinstated, otherwise he could face jail or at least the end of his career. In South Korea’s political tradition, inadequate leaders are dealt with harshly. South Korean presidents have often met tragic ends. Since the beginning of this century, one leader was impeached and sentenced to 24 years in prison, another former president was sentenced to 17 years in prison, and yet another committed suicide.

It would be logical to list the names of other presidents who were persecuted and met unfortunate ends. But unfortunately, the list is long and the stories are varied — in short, it is a topic in its own right.

A logical question arises: Is the prosecution of presidents an inherent feature of modern democracy? In the Republic of Korea, for example, many believe that it is a fundamental right of the Korean people to hold a former leader accountable if there is a serious reason to do so. In political contests, opponents successfully use this right.

However, this issue is resolved differently by different peoples and countries.