A CEBUANO lawyer accredited by the International Criminal Court (ICC) has urged United States President Donald Trump to stop his administration’s campaign against the international tribunal, describing its sanctions against ICC officials and legal practitioners as unprecedented and lacking basis under international law.
Also read: First Visayan lawyer joins ICC List of Counsel
In a letter dated Thursday, October 15, 2026, lawyer Rameses Victorius Gatchalian Villagonzalo criticized Trump’s efforts to impose sanctions on ICC judges, officials, prosecutors and lawyers, describing the measures as unprecedented and without basis under international law.
“Your campaign for the dismantling of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and imposing sanctions against its judges, officials, prosecutors and lawyers is simply unprecedented, illegal and sans bases under international law,” Villagonzalo wrote.
Addressed to Trump at the White House in Washington, D.C., the letter also accused the US president and Secretary of State Marco Rubio of misunderstanding the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC.
“Your ignorance of the Rome Statute and the ICC should only be confined to yourself and Mr. Rubio,” Villagonzalo wrote.
He urged Trump to reconsider his administration’s position and argued that its actions did not necessarily reflect the views of the American public.
“For all we know, the entire American people are not with you on this matter. Back off!” he wrote.
The letter comes amid renewed tensions between Washington and the ICC over the tribunal’s investigations and prosecutions involving US allies.
On February 6, 2025, Trump signed an executive order authorizing sanctions against individuals involved in ICC actions targeting US personnel or those of its allies, including Israel.
The measures allow the US government to block property and assets under its jurisdiction and impose entry restrictions on designated individuals.
The Trump administration’s opposition to the court has centered on its position that the ICC lacks legitimate authority to investigate or prosecute nationals of countries that have not consented to its jurisdiction in the circumstances cited by Washington.
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute.
On October 9, 2026, the Trump administration imposed further sanctions targeting the ICC, intensifying its confrontation with the court.
The measures drew criticism from the tribunal and concern from European officials over their implications for international justice and the rule of law.
The dispute has particular relevance to the Philippines, where former president Rodrigo Duterte faces charges of crimes against humanity before the ICC over alleged killings linked to his administration’s war on drugs.
On April 23, 2026, ICC judges confirmed the charges against Duterte and committed him to trial. The court later ruled that he was fit to stand trial, with proceedings scheduled to open on November 30, 2026. Duterte denies the allegations.
The Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019, but the ICC has maintained jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed while the country was still a member.
Villagonzalo’s letter did not specifically address Duterte’s case. Instead, it focused on the US administration’s actions against the ICC and the legal professionals working with the tribunal.
Villagonzalo became the first lawyer from Cebu and the Visayas to be admitted to the ICC List of Counsel in November 2025, and the sixth Filipino to receive the accreditation, SunStar Cebu previously reported.
Admission to the list qualifies a lawyer to be considered for professional roles before the tribunal, including work involving the defense, prosecution or legal assistance, subject to the ICC’s applicable procedures and requirements.
The letter bears Villagonzalo’s signature and identifies him by his Philippine attorney’s roll number and ICC List of Counsel reference number.
It also lists copies furnished to United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane.
The document states that it was sent to and acknowledged through the White House’s official email for the president. However, the document alone does not independently establish the extent of any response from the White House. (CAV)