2 hours ago
1
Courts both in the Philippines and in The Hague, Netherlands are now at the receiving end of “fake news” or disinformation attacks following former president Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest last week over crimes against humanity.
On the same day Duterte was arrested through a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on March 11, his longtime ally Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa filed a petition with the Supreme Court (SC), asking for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO). This order could have stopped the implementation of the arrest against the former chief executive whose drug war killed nearly 30,000 people, according to tallies of human rights groups.
But disinformation broke out on the night of March 11, with “fake news” reports claiming that the High Court had already issued a TRO in favor of Duterte. This was not true as there was no issued TRO and the SC only said it had conducted a special raffle for the petition. (READ: [DECODED] How online supporters made a victim of Duterte after ICC arrest)
Duterte’s lawyer Israelito Torreon, along with Raul Lambino and Philip Salvador, went to the SC compound on Tuesday night, claiming they went there to verify the information they received. The High Court’s operating hours were only from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
“As far as the TRO is concerned, we received news. Kasi kanina, na-issue na raw ‘yong TRO (Because earlier, it was said the TRO had been issued),” Torreon said in an SMNI interview.
Supporters used the disinformation on the TRO to claim Duterte cannot be flown to the Hague because of the SC order. This also triggered the supporters protesting outside of Villamor Air Base on March 11 — where Duterte was held before he was flown to the Netherlands — adding to their growing outrage at the arrest.
Even in social media platforms, the disinformation about the issuance of the TRO had spread. On March 12, SC spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting issued a statement to dispel the disinformation, announcing that the court had in fact denied the issuance of a TRO in favor of Duterte.
“After a virtual deliberation on the 94-page petition, the SC, by majority vote, found that the petitioners failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right for the immediate issuance of a TRO,” Ting said in a statement.
Later, the SC also uploaded the court’s full resolution on Dela Rosa’s petition, further countering the “fake news” that the High Court had ruled in favor of Duterte.
More ‘fake news,’ attacks vs SC
Social media posts from Meta accounts “Choose Libungan” and “Bernard Flores Maicon” also showed a fabricated SC document, dated March 16, titled “Supreme Court Receives Petition on 16 Million Signatures Calling for President Marcos’ Resignation.” The SC noted that the same Meta accounts claimed in other posts that the SC en banc would convene on March 17 to discuss the fake petition.
“This is completely untrue. The Supreme Court has not received any such petition, and no En Banc session is scheduled today for this matter,” the High Court said.
“These acts of disinformation, including previous false reports on March 11, 2025, alleging that the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order, will be submitted for appropriate action. The Supreme Court will investigate these incidents and take necessary measures, including the imposition of proper sanctions on those responsible,” the SC added.
Duterte supporters also started to flood the SC’s Meta posts with comments. In the SC’s March 10 posts, the general tone of the comments was along the lines of urging the High Court to intervene on Duterte’s ICC situation. The comments started to appear shortly after the former president’s arrest at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
Hours after the arrest, Meta users continued to flood the SC’s March 11 posts, with the general tone becoming more assertive and aggressive.
When the SC announced that it had acted upon and raffled Dela Rosa’s petition, the Duterte supporters started to post positive comments on the SC posts, with some thanking it for its action. But as pointed out, the action was not an issuance of a TRO, but only a procedural matter, since all petitions are raffled off to respective divisions.
On March 12, a day after Duterte’s arrest, commenters started to post negative comments against the SC. The sentiments focused on criticizing the High Court, with some claiming that the local justice system was no longer working.
The SC posts that followed were flooded with negative comments about the SC. In particular, some of the Duterte supporters mobbed the High Court’s March 17 post about the SC justices’ presence in the Philippine Women Judges Association’s 2025 Annual Convention.
The comments centered on the claims that the local courts are no longer working, with some calling the judiciary a failure.
The SC does not allow comments on its YouTube page, while the reply tabs on the High Court’s X account were not as flooded compared to its Meta account.
Apart from Dela Rosa’s TRO, three of former president Rodrigo Duterte’s children filed three separate writ of habeas corpus petitions for their father’s return from the ICC. The SC consolidated the three petitions into one, and the SC required Philippine government officials named as respondents in the petition to submit their comments.
The petitions are still pending before the High Court, but some legal experts said the SC does not have jurisdiction over the ICC.
ICC not spared
Even the ICC was not spared from disinformation. During Duterte’s arrest, there was a claim from the Duterte camp and supporters that the former president was arrested without a warrant. This is not true as the ICC implemented its warrant through the Interpol, and the copy of the warrant became available later on. (READ: ICC warrant: Rodrigo Duterte used DDS, law enforcers to kill ‘criminals’)
Duterte’s former executive secretary Salvador Medialdea, who flew to The Hague with the former president, also claimed that he was forced to go on the plane without a visa. This claim lacked context as the Philippine embassy in the Netherlands said that upon landing, they secured a 15-day visa for the lawyer so he could assist Duterte.
After Duterte’s arrival in The Hague, Medialdea also claimed that his former principal was missing: “We are told that there is no President Duterte at this facility, we are at a loss at this time and lokohan na ‘to (this is foolish).” ICC spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah was quick to refute this claim and said that Duterte was in the ICC custody at the ICC detention center in Scheveningen and was admitted for medical checkups.
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, who pursued the case against Duterte, has also been victimized by disinformation. Khan’s video was posted in the Meta group “Protect Vice President Sara Duterte,” where the prosecutor’s statement was taken out of context to falsely claim that Duterte was not found guilty of the charges against him.
This has already been fact-checked by Rappler and has been rated as false.
Duterte supporters also targeted Presiding Judge Iiula Motoc and left negative comments on the judge’s Meta photos. The commenters accused the judge, who heads the pre-trial chamber that handles Duterte’s case, of allegedly bringing chaos to the Philippines.
“You are not here in the Philippines but you’re one who brought chaos here. Only former President RODRIGO DUTERTE makes this place safer than ever, safe for us ordinary Filipinos except addicts and drug lord during his term,” one of the comments read.
The supporters also spammed Motoc’s Meta and LinkedIn profile, with comments urging the judge to return Duterte back to the Philippines. Although there were a few comments showing support for Motoc, majority of the responses centered on how Duterte should be brought back due to the alleged effectiveness of his drug war and because of his age.
Similar to Duterte’s misogynistic remarks, Motoc was also subjected to similar attacks in some of Duterte supporters’ Meta posts.
On top of these, some Meta users also shared a photo of a woman with First Lady Liza Marcos, who was supposedly Judge Motoc. This insinuated bias on the part of the ICC chamber against Duterte. The woman in the photo was not Motoc, and in addition, ICC judges are known for their independence and Judge Motoc has no known connection to the Marcoses and even to the Philippines.
Photo grabbed from MetaImplications
“All the more that the ICC trial should push through because there’s a climate of fear, intimidation, misinformation and bullying in the country,” ICC-accredited lawyer and Centerlaw president Joel Butuyan told Rappler when asked about the implications of the growing attacks on courts.
Apart from the SC and ICC, drug war victims in the Philippines also face online harassment from the former president’s supporters. ICC assistant counsel to the victims Kristina Conti said this “bullying” gave the ICC reason to believe that the case should be handled by the international tribunal to ensure fairness and peace.
It might also affect Duterte’s interim release since according to Conti, the current climate shows that the former president and supporters are “threats” to the victims and their counsels. In addition, the ICC assistant counsel noted that the perpetration of the narrative that alleged drug suspects deserved their fate under Duterte could be a sign that there was a systematic attack — an element of the crimes against humanity.
“Let me remind also that there’s a fifth case the ICC is hearing — offenses against the administration of justice (article 70, Rome Statute). Be careful those who attack the courts, prosecutors, and/or judges, because it might add to Duterte’s existing cases,” Conti added.
In their warrant, the all-women judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber I noted in their justification to order Duterte’s arrest the influence he wields in the country. To ensure that he will face trial, there will be no interference in the probe, and to ensure the witnesses’ safety, a warrant had been issued against Duterte. – Rappler.com
