The Philippine diplomatic community has been thrown into the spotlight after a controversial social media post, allegedly authored by the country’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, accused the Marcos administration of handing former President Rodrigo Duterte over to foreign authorities, sparking a flurry of responses from government officials and reigniting debates about sovereignty, justice, and diplomatic conduct.
On October 15, 2025, Foreign Affairs Secretary Ma. Theresa Lazaro announced she would personally reach out to Ambassador Teodoro Locsin Jr. to clarify whether he was indeed behind the Facebook post that set off the latest political firestorm. According to GMA News and the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Lazaro told reporters, "I cannot confirm if that is [him]. There must be a reason for that. Let me give a phone call first to Ambassador Locsin." She added, "Mag-uusap muna kami," emphasizing her intent to speak directly with the ambassador before making any further statements.
The Facebook post in question, attributed to an account bearing Locsin’s name, did not mince words. It declared, "Rodrigo Duterte was not arrested by the ICC, he was abducted by Filipinos in the Philippines and handed over to foreigners." The statement referred to the recent transfer of Duterte to The Hague, where he is currently detained and awaiting trial before the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of crimes against humanity stemming from his bloody war on drugs. The post continued, "If he is guilty of crimes, we thereby confessed our country’s and our state’s inability to hold him to account. We thereby foreswore the first attribute of sovereign independence—an effective justice system."
Locsin’s post did not stop at criticizing the government’s actions. He went further, lambasting the very notion of foreign intervention in Philippine affairs: "The idea that foreigners especially Westerners can judge us is beyond disgusting; it is treason. The deepest imaginable. It is a confession begging for foreign domination in purely national affairs; and by willing and complicit admission." According to GMA News, the post was published over the weekend prior to October 15, 2025, and as of press time, Locsin had not publicly confirmed or denied authorship.
The ambassador’s remarks touched a nerve, not least because of his prominent role in Philippine diplomacy. Locsin, a former journalist and lawmaker, served as Foreign Affairs Secretary under Duterte before being appointed by President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. as ambassador to the United Kingdom in 2022. His tenure has been marked by a reputation for bluntness, but this latest episode has raised questions about the boundaries of diplomatic speech and the responsibilities of envoys abroad.
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), for its part, has so far refrained from issuing a formal statement on the matter. However, it has reiterated longstanding guidelines for diplomats, reminding both career officers and political appointees to maintain strict political neutrality—particularly on social media. During election seasons, diplomats are expressly warned against campaigning for candidates, as such actions are considered election offenses under Philippine law.
The controversy comes against the backdrop of heightened political tensions in the Philippines. The Facebook post referenced the "Trillion People Marches"—massive anti-corruption protests held on September 21, 2025, led by activists and civil society leaders critical of Duterte’s record. The post argued that such protests, while a sign of public anger, also underscored the perceived inability of domestic institutions to hold powerful figures accountable. "No wonder there are ‘Trillion People Marches’ for just that reason—the inability of domestic justice to hold grand theft auto-appropriation to account. But Trillion People Marches only admit that while we can get angry, we cannot meaningfully govern ourselves," it read.
Adding fuel to the debate, Senator Imee Marcos publicly expressed support for Locsin’s view. As reported by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, she stated, "I agree with what Ambassador Locsin said that president Duterte was not arrested by the ICC, but was surrendered by the Republic of the Philippines." When pressed about whether Locsin’s remarks were appropriate for a diplomat, Marcos demurred: "I don't know, because I'm not a diplomat." She further commented on Locsin’s unconventional background, saying, "Teddy Boy (Locsin) started as a writer, a media personality, just like you. He became a politician, and not a diplomat so to speak."
The legal saga surrounding Duterte’s detention has been closely followed both at home and abroad. The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Duterte through Interpol, charging him with crimes against humanity for his actions during his tenure as Davao City mayor and later as president. His transfer to The Hague marked a dramatic turn in Philippine politics, with supporters decrying the move as an affront to national sovereignty and critics arguing it was a necessary step toward justice.
The issue of foreign involvement in Philippine affairs remains deeply contentious. Locsin’s post, whether or not he ultimately claims authorship, has tapped into long-standing anxieties about external influence and the capacity of the country’s institutions to address high-level wrongdoing. The language of "treason" and "foreign domination" echoes historical grievances dating back to colonial times, when the Philippines struggled to assert its independence against powerful outside actors.
At the same time, the DFA’s reminder to diplomats about political neutrality highlights the delicate balance required in representing national interests abroad. Diplomats are expected to project unity and professionalism, even as domestic politics remain fractious. The current episode has put that expectation to the test, raising questions about how personal views—especially when aired publicly—can intersect with official duties.
For now, the ball is in Secretary Lazaro’s court. She has pledged to speak directly with Ambassador Locsin to determine the facts and, presumably, to chart a course forward that preserves both the integrity of the diplomatic corps and the principles of open discourse. As the country watches and waits, the incident serves as a potent reminder of how quickly political debates can spill over into the international arena—and how the words of a single ambassador, posted online, can reverberate far beyond the confines of official channels.
As the dust settles, the Philippine government faces a familiar challenge: reconciling its commitment to sovereignty and justice with the realities of global scrutiny and the ever-present power of social media. The outcome of Secretary Lazaro’s conversation with Ambassador Locsin may well set the tone for how similar controversies are handled in the future—and just how much room remains for personal expression within the world of diplomacy.
