Rhetoric, Responsibility, and the Reach of Rome: When Political Hyperbole Becomes International Law
Rhetoric, Responsibility, and the Reach of Rome: When Political Hyperbole Becomes International Law
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™
February 24, 2026
Premise
In a courtroom that aspires to be both temple and theatre, the prosecution’s opening statement against a former head of state rests on two pillars: the public pronouncements of that leader about a domestic campaign against illegal drugs, and the assertion that domestic remedies were unavailable because the Department of Justice, then led by Secretary Crispin Remulla, declared as much. If these two pillars are allowed to bear the weight of international criminal jurisdiction, what becomes of ordinary political speech? If a leader’s bluster about “destroying enemies” or hyperbolic threats of violence can be transmuted into criminal responsibility, do we not risk converting every rhetorical excess into a prosecutable act? Is the International Criminal Court the proper forum to adjudicate what the prosecution frames as a failure of domestic justice, or is this a jurisdictional overreach dressed in the language of moral urgency? These are not merely rhetorical flourishes; they are the structural questions that determine whether a political narrative becomes a legal case.
Background and Claims
The prosecution’s narrative, as presented in the opening, threads together public statements, statistical claims, and a bleak assessment of domestic accountability. The argument runs: the former President’s public pronouncements about the drug war created an environment in which extrajudicial killings occurred; domestic institutions failed to deliver justice; therefore, the ICC must step in as a court of last resort. But does the syllogism hold? If the prosecution’s premise is that public rhetoric equals criminal command, then any leader who speaks in apocalyptic metaphors—“destroy your enemies,” “we will rain fire”—could be swept into the same legal net. Is that the jurisprudence we want? Or are we witnessing a rhetorical sleight of hand that conflates political hyperbole with criminal intent? The prosecution’s reliance on the claim that domestic remedies are unavailable because of political influence—an argument echoed in public statements by the DOJ’s leadership—raises a second question: if the domestic executive or its allies are alleged to be obstructing justice, why were domestic remedies not pursued when the same officials were in office? The tension between political timing and legal remedy is not a mere procedural quibble; it is the hinge on which the ICC’s jurisdiction swings.
Jurisdiction and the Arithmetic of Allegation
Numbers have a peculiar rhetorical power. The prosecution’s opening reportedly moved from a list of specific victims to broader claims about thousands killed in the drug war. How many is “thousands”? How many is “tens of thousands”? The external legal representative’s invocation of a figure like 30,000 is rhetorically devastating—but where is the evidentiary ledger that ties that number to a specific criminal command? The prosecution’s case, as summarized in public reporting, alleges murders in particular locales and timeframes, and the ICC’s own case file lists specific charges and alleged conduct. Yet the leap from operational police actions—authorized, the prosecution concedes, as “legitimate operations” where officers may use force in self-defense—to a centrally directed policy of extermination requires more than rhetorical amplification; it requires proof of command, intent, and a pattern that links words to orders. If the prosecution’s jurisdictional claim rests on the assertion that domestic courts cannot or will not act because of political influence, then the burden is to demonstrate that domestic remedies were exhausted or rendered ineffective. The ICC is a court of last resort; its moral and legal legitimacy depends on a careful showing that local avenues were closed. Otherwise, the ICC risks being perceived as a substitute for political contestation rather than a tribunal of last recourse.
Anecdote and Satire
Permit a brief anecdote in the spirit of legal satire. Imagine a world in which every politician’s campaign slogan is a criminal indictment waiting to be filed. “Make the city safe” becomes a charge of incitement; “we will crush corruption” becomes a conspiracy to commit violence; “I will be tough on crime” becomes a blueprint for mass murder. Is this not a deliciously absurd legal universe? Yet satire often reveals truth by exaggeration. The prosecution’s rhetorical strategy—repeating the word “impunity” like a talisman—functions less as evidentiary proof and more as moral punctuation. “Impunity” is a powerful moral accusation; it is also a blunt instrument when deployed without the supporting scaffolding of domestic procedural failure. To call a justice system “impotent” or “compromised” is to make a claim about institutions, not merely about personalities. If the prosecution’s repeated invocation of impunity is meant to substitute for proof, then the courtroom risks becoming a stage for moral theater rather than a forum for legal demonstration. Is that what we want from international justice? Or do we want a tribunal that insists on the hard work of connecting facts to law?
Reflections on Sovereignty and Political Context
The ICC’s role in the global justice architecture is contested terrain. Critics note that many populous states remain outside the Rome Statute, and that the Court’s reach is uneven and often perceived as reflecting geopolitical fault lines. If the prosecution’s narrative is framed primarily through a Western lens—emphasizing certain human rights norms while neglecting local context—does that not risk alienating the very populations whose suffering the Court seeks to address? Moreover, when domestic political realignments produce prosecutions that coincide with rivalries between powerful families or factions, the line between justice and political retribution can blur. The present administration’s posture toward the former President, and the political dynamics between rival political clans, complicate the narrative that the ICC is simply correcting a domestic failure. Is the ICC being asked to adjudicate crimes, or to arbitrate a political settlement? The answer matters because the legitimacy of international justice depends on its perceived impartiality and its restraint from becoming an instrument of political vendetta.
Legal Particulars and Moral Rhetoric
Let us return to the legal particulars. The ICC’s mandate is to prosecute the gravest crimes—genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes—when national jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to do so. The prosecution must therefore show not only that crimes occurred, but that they fall within the Court’s temporal and material jurisdiction and that domestic remedies were inadequate. The opening statement’s rhetorical flourish—comparing a leader to historical monsters or invoking the specter of mass extermination—may be rhetorically effective, but it is not a substitute for the chain of evidence that links policy to practice. If the prosecution’s case is to be persuasive, it must move beyond moral indignation and supply the evidentiary architecture: orders, communications, patterns of conduct, and the failure of domestic institutions to investigate and prosecute. Otherwise, the ICC risks being accused of moralizing without legal rigor. Is it fair to the victims to proceed on the basis of rhetorical force rather than demonstrable proof? Is it fair to the accused to be tried in a forum whose jurisdiction is contested on procedural grounds? These are uncomfortable questions, but they are the ones that must be answered if the Court is to maintain both legal credibility and moral authority.
Conclusion
If the prosecution’s opening statement is a call to conscience, it is also a test of legal discipline. The invocation of impunity, the amplification of casualty figures, and the appeal to international moral outrage are powerful rhetorical tools—but they cannot replace the painstaking work of proving command responsibility and the exhaustion or obstruction of domestic remedies. The ICC’s legitimacy depends on its restraint and its fidelity to the rule that it is a court of last resort, not a political theater. If we allow every political hyperbole to be transmuted into criminal liability, we risk hollowing out political speech and expanding criminal jurisdiction in ways that may do more harm than good. Conversely, if we demand too little from the prosecution, we risk denying victims the rigorous adjudication they deserve. The balance is delicate, and the stakes are high: justice for victims, protection of political speech, and the preservation of international law’s moral and legal credibility. Which of these goods will the Court prioritize? The answer will shape not only the fate of one former leader, but the future contours of international criminal justice itself.
Ctto:
---
If you like my any of my concept research, writing explorations, art works and/or simple writings please support me by sending me a coffee treat at my paypal amielgeraldroldan.paypal.me or GXI 09163112211. Much appreciate and thank you in advance.
Just featured at https://www.pressenza.com/2026/01/the-asian-cultural-council-global-alumni-network-amiel-gerald-a-roldan/
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ curatorial writing practice exemplifies this path: transforming grief into infrastructure, evidence into agency, and memory into resistance. As the Philippines enters a new economic decade, such work is not peripheral—it is foundational.
I'm trying to complement my writings with helpful inputs from AI through writing. Bear with me as I am treating this blog as repositories and drafts.
Please comment and tag if you like my compilations visit www.amielroldan.blogspot.com or www.amielroldan.wordpress.com
and comments at
amiel_roldan@outlook.com
amielgeraldroldan@gmail.com
A multidisciplinary Filipino artist, poet, researcher, and cultural worker whose practice spans painting, printmaking, photography, installation, and writing. He is deeply rooted in cultural memory, postcolonial critique, and in bridging creative practice with scholarly infrastructure—building counter-archives, annotating speculative poetry like Southeast Asian manuscripts, and fostering regional solidarity through ethical art collaboration.
Recent show at ILOMOCA
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16qUTDdEMD
https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go?messageThreadUrn=urn%3Ali%3AmessageThreadUrn%3A&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressenza.com%2F2025%2F05%2Fcultural-workers-not-creative-ilomoca-may-16-2025%2F&trk=flagship-messaging-android
https://alumni.asianculturalcouncil.org/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAPlR6NjbGNrA-VG_2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHoy6hXUptbaQi5LdFAHcNWqhwblxYv_wRDZyf06-O7Yjv73hEGOOlphX0cPZ_aem_sK6989WBcpBEFLsQqr0kdg
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ started Independent Curatorial Manila™ as a nonprofit philantrophy while working for institutions simultaneosly early on.
The Independent Curatorial Manila™ or ICM™ is a curatorial services and guide for emerging artists in the Philippines. It is an independent/ voluntary services entity and aims to remains so. Selection is through proposal and a prerogative temporarily. Contact above for inquiries.
Comments