Venezuela's Maduro and Philippines' Duterte 'Kidnapping' Compared: Social Media Reacts to Striking Similarities

The internet is ablaze with comparisons this week following the dramatic extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by United States forces on Saturday. For many in the Philippines, the event feels like a case of history repeating itself—albeit on a different continent—evoking memories of the arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte just ten months ago.

As news broke that Maduro had been flown to New York to face narco-terrorism charges, social media platforms X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook were flooded with posts drawing parallels between the two strongmen. Both leaders, once feared for their iron-fisted rule and deadly crackdowns, have now been removed from their home soil to face international justice. However, the methods of their removal have sparked a fierce debate over the definition of 'justice' versus 'kidnapping.'

A Tale of Two 'Extractions'

The arrest of Nicolás Maduro on 3 January 2026 was a military operation. Reports confirm that elite US forces conducted a raid to capture the Venezuelan leader, who has long been indicted in the US for drug trafficking and leading the 'Cártel de Los Soles.' He was immediately transported to the US to stand trial.

This aggressive move comes nearly a year after the Philippines witnessed its own historic upheaval. On 11 March 2025, former President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested in Manila. Unlike the raid on Maduro, Duterte's custody was transferred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Interpol at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. He was then flown to The Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity linked to his bloody 'war on drugs,' which left thousands dead.

While the destinations differ—New York for Maduro and The Hague for Duterte—the image of an untouchable leader suddenly placed in handcuffs has resonated globally.

The 'Kidnapping' Narrative

The core of the social media storm lies in the word 'kidnapping.' When Duterte was arrested last year, his supporters and legal team fiercely branded the execution of the ICC warrant as an 'abduction' and a violation of Philippine sovereignty. Supporters argued that because the Philippines had withdrawn from the ICC in 2019, the court had no jurisdiction, making the arrest illegal.

'This is the plane they used to kidnap my dad,' Duterte's daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, was quoted by supporters as saying during the emotional events of March 2025.

Now, a similar narrative is emerging regarding Maduro. Supporters of the Bolivarian revolution are calling the US operation an 'illegal invasion' and a 'kidnapping' of a sitting head of state. Interestingly, even some of Duterte's staunchest critics in the Philippines have expressed unease regarding the Maduro situation.

Former Senator Leila de Lima, a key figure who was jailed under Duterte, released a statement condemning the US action against Maduro, warning that 'might makes right' tactics undermine international law, whereas Duterte's arrest was conducted under a treaty-based mandate.

Netizens Weigh In

Social media platform X (formerly Twitter) has exploded with posts drawing direct comparisons between the two situations. The column 'Nosy Tarsee' noted that many users are framing the US airstrikes as similar to Duterte's own war on drugs—specifically, the use of lethal force against suspected drug figures without a trial.

The irony has become a major talking point online. Users argued that if Duterte faces charges for killings in a domestic drug war, the US should technically face scrutiny for actions that resulted in deaths on Venezuelan soil and waters.

This has fuelled the narrative among Duterte's supporters that the ICC is a tool of the West. They recall that the US, particularly under Donald Trump, has previously sanctioned the court for attempting to probe US actions in Afghanistan.

However, experts cited in the report point out the legal complications. While Venezuela is an ICC member—which theoretically allows the court to investigate crimes on its territory even by non-members—the US has never ratified the Rome Statute. This makes enforcement against American officials highly unlikely.

Furthermore, there are distinct differences in the accusations. Duterte's charges stem from a systematic campaign involving police operations and 'kill lists' that targeted civilians. In contrast, the US claims its actions are lawful counter-narcotics precision strikes.

While the US actions have resulted in reported deaths—including eight in one incident—they are distinct from the mass civilian casualty patterns observed during the Philippine drug war.

Sovereignty vs Justice

The events have forced a difficult conversation about where the line is drawn between sovereignty and human rights. Human Rights Watch has documented extensive abuses in both countries. In Venezuela, the crackdown following the 2024 disputed election saw killings, enforced disappearances, and the arbitrary detention of opposition figures.

Similarly, in the Philippines, the drug war left a trail of death that the ICC is now prosecuting. The timeline of killings in the Philippines, which began almost immediately after Duterte took office in 2016, resulted in thousands of deaths, often of poor urban dwellers. The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) had previously named Duterte 'Person of the Year' for his role in empowering corruption and organised crime while dismantling the rule of law.

For the families of victims in both nations, the method of capture matters less than the result. 'Whether by warrant or by raid, seeing them in a courtroom is the only thing that counts,' shared a member of a Manila-based victim support group.

As Duterte awaits his trial in The Hague and Maduro sits in a New York cell, the world watches two different paths to the same destination: a prison cell far from the palaces they once commanded. The debate over whether these acts constitute 'kidnapping' or 'justice' is likely to continue, but for the victims of their regimes, the distinction is merely academic.