Malacañang on Friday denied receiving any information suggesting that former President Rodrigo Duterte tried but failed to obtain asylum abroad in the days leading up to his arrest at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport upon arriving from Hong Kong.
Reacting to online scuttlebutt, Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro told Palace reporters in Filipino, “We did not receive any information like that. Those are not the kinds of reports that reached the Palace.”
This came on the heels of a GMA-7 report, among other sources, suggesting that Duterte attempted to secure refuge in China to avoid capture when it became apparent that the issuance of an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant was imminent.
However, the same reports said, the former leader’s last-ditch plea for asylum was rejected by China’s leadership.
It was also suggested that, after being turned away by Beijing, with whom he supposedly maintained close relations, Duterte had no other option but to fly back home on the morning of March 11.
Castro noted that the extent of Malacañang’s knowledge at that point was that the former president was on his way back to Manila, and it had no insights into Duterte’s dealings when he was in Hong Kong.
“That’s all we know,” she emphasized.
For his part, former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque tried to refute Duterte’s supposed asylum bid, saying China is not party to the 1951 Convention on the Rights of Refugees and Asylum Seekers.
“It would be impossible for Tatay Digong to apply there because there is no machinery for the application of asylum in China and Hong Kong,” he said in a social media post.
Meanwhile, an ICC-accredited lawyer called the recent surrender of Duterte to the ICC by Philippine authorities “valid and lawful.”
Citing a 2015 ruling, international law expert Joel Butuyan referred to the Ongwen case, where the ICC determined that arresting countries are not strictly required to follow Article 59 procedures of the Rome Statute, as long as the fundamental rights of the accused are upheld.
“The argument that it was a warrantless arrest is inaccurate because an international court issued a valid warrant,” he said.
“Even an e-warrant, which is acceptable under both Philippine law and ICC procedures, was used,” he added.
His remarks came after Vice President Sara Duterte questioned the legality of her father’s surrender, arguing that a local court order was necessary.
Butuyan explained that Republic Act 9851, which mirrors the Rome Statute, grants the Philippine government discretion to surrender suspects directly to the ICC without the need for a domestic court order.
“Article 17 of RA 9851 allows for the direct surrender of a suspect if a valid warrant exists,” he said. “Furthermore, Article 59 simply requires verification of the accused’s identity and ensures their rights are respected.”
Butuyan also dismissed claims that the surrender constituted extraordinary rendition—an unlawful practice of transferring suspects without legal proceedings.
He clarified that Duterte’s arrest followed established legal procedures, with his rights protected throughout the process.
Editor’s Note: This is an updated article. Originally posted with the headline “Palace: No info on Duterte’s alleged asylum plea to China.”