Philippine Ghost Projects as a Crime Against Humanity

Megan Pagaduan March, 2026

Share with:

When an act is a crime against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute, the ICC gets involved. Under Article 7, the ICC has prosecuted crimes like murder, enslavement, and torture.[1]

Corruption is not a crime against humanity under Article 7. Instead, corruption is regulated by the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), an international treaty that binds parties to prevent, criminalize, and cooperate internationally against corruption.[2] As of September 2025, 192 countries have ratified the UNCAC, expressing their commitment to anti-corruption efforts within their borders.[3]

Yet, the UNCAC has no teeth. Corruption remains a largely unchecked issue, including in the 192 countries which ratified the UNCAC, such as the Philippines. Although a party to the UNCAC, the Philippines endures systemic corruption and is facing national protests and riots for a major corruption scandal.[4] Highly prone to typhoons and heavy flooding, the Southeast Asian country was recently struck by a series of devastating floods that resulted in significant loss of livelihood, widespread displacement, and destruction of thousands of homes.[5] The impact of the floods puzzled Filipinos given that the government invested over $20.3 billion USD in flood prevention projects over the past 10 years.[6] It turns out much of these were “ghost projects.”[7] The projects did not exist. Recent government investigations and public pressure exposed the widespread corruption by politicians and contractors, who pocketed the money to fund their luxurious lifestyles.[8]

Because the UNCAC falls short of providing adequate enforcement mechanisms, this Article argues that corruption should be considered a crime against humanity, particularly under (1)(k) of the Statute in order to invite ICC jurisdiction.

What Is A Crime Against Humanity?

Under Article 7, a crime against humanity must be (1) “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack (2) directed against any civilian population, (3) with knowledge of the attack.”[9] Once an act fulfills all these elements, it must then fall within any of the enumerated acts in Article 7(1)(a)-(k).[10]

There are two ways in which a crime can be considered a crime against humanity under the enumerated acts.[11] First, most simply, the conduct in question can fall under one of the clearly defined preexisting acts listed in Article 7(1)(a)-(j).[12]

Second, “it is possible that particular conduct is not covered by already enumerated inhumane acts, but nevertheless amounts to an inhumane act and is therefore criminalized through the catch-all clause ‘other inhumane acts’ codified in Article 7(1)(k).”[13] Article 7(1)(k) captures unenumerated acts that may be a crime against humanity if they are “of similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”[14] A crime is not an “other inhumane act” when it cannot be classified as “inhumane” or because it did not cause serious suffering or injury. If such is the case, it is not a crime against humanity.

The Ghost Projects As A Crime Against Humanity

The central question is whether this corrupt scheme in the Philippines is a crime against humanity under Article 7. It should be. The ghost projects were (1) committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack that was (2) directed against any civilian population, (3) with knowledge of the attack.

First, the ghost projects were widespread, with at least 421 ghost projects marked as “completed” nationwide, but were in reality, nonexistent.[15] While there is some evidence that suggests the corruption underlying the ghost projects is systematic, the fact that they were widespread alone fulfills this prong.[16]

Second, the ghost projects were directed against the civilian population. The definition of “civilian population” under Article 7 is broad: where there is no armed conflict, the civilian population includes “all persons except those who have the duty to maintain public order and have the legitimate means to exercise force.”[17] Non-civilians, for example, would include the police and the military.[18] Therefore, here, the civilian population is regular Philippine citizens. The ghost projects could be said to be directed against Philippine citizens because politicians misused funds that deprived them of flood prevention, making them vulnerable to the disastrous impacts of typhoons.

Third and finally, the politicians and contractors behind the ghost projects had knowledge of the attack. This prong does not require the perpetrators to have intended the widespread attack against the civilian population; awareness is enough. Article 30(2)(b) of the ICC statute states that a person has intent “in relation to a consequence, [where] that person means to cause that consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events.”[19] Here, the politicians and contractors had awareness because of the gross misuse of funds: up to 70% of flood prevention funds were lost due to corruption[20], and politicians and contractors knew or had to have at least been aware that without flood-control infrastructure, Philippine citizens would be left “deeply vulnerable” to the highly destructive typhoons that frequently hit the Southeast Asian country.[21] This was supported by the fact that typhoons are no stranger to the Philippines; flood-control infrastructure offered a solution for decades.[22] Thus, at the bare minimum, there was awareness of the attack.

“Other Inhumane Acts” Under Article 7(1)(k)

The inquiry then hones in on whether the ghost projects fall under one of the enumerated acts in Article 7(1) or if it constitutes an “other inhumane act” under Article 7(1)(k). It is the latter.

The ghost projects do not fall under one of the acts listed in Article 7(1)(a)-(j). But, they can be said to be an “other inhumane act” under (k) because the ghost projects are “of similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”[23]

The ghost projects are of similar character because of their devastating impact, aligning most with 7(d), deportation or forcible transfer of population. While the government is not directly displacing Filipinos, the ghost projects, in essence, have. In just September 2025, at least 400,000 Filipinos were evacuated from their homes and displaced as a result of tropical storms.[24] Arguably, the tropical storms—not corrupt politicians—displace Filipinos.

However, corruption plays an undeniable role in that displacement: flood control projects are meant to offset the impact of these storms, yet politicians steal those project funds. Due to corruption, these projects are nonexistent, unfinished, or mismatched to flood risks, leaving citizens in flood-prone areas highly vulnerable to displacement and evacuation once storms hit.[25] This raises the question of whether flood prevention infrastructure would reduce Filipino displacement. The answer is “yes.”[26]

Further, despite that ghost projects do not have the same shock factor as other acts enumerated in Article 7(1)(a)-(j) do, their consequences are as inhumane. In addition to displacement, the ghost projects have caused both “great suffering” and “serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.” Without proper flood control, floods directly cause widespread deaths, drowning, heart attacks, hypothermia, shock, wounds from submerged wreckage, electrocution, chemical contamination, and animal bites.[27] Indirect consequences can include “infection ailments, starvation, physical and mental disabilities triggered or worsened by flood conditions, and diseases incidental to displacement and impoverishment.”[28]

Conclusion

the ICC in regulating corruption may appear extreme. But, Article 7(1)(k) “allows Crimes Against Humanity to evolve to meet new international needs and norms[.]”[29] The consequences of corruption are consistent with crimes against humanity, and the UNCAC has proved insufficient in actually preventing and criminalizing corruption.

  1. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, HOW THE COURT WORKS (2025).↑
  2. UNITED NATIONS, CORRUPTION AND ECONOMIC CRIME BRANCH, LEARN ABOUT UNCAC (2025).↑
  3. UNITED NATIONS, CORRUPTION AND ECONOMIC CRIME BRANCH, SIGNATURE AND RATIFICATION STATUS (2025).↑
  4. Transparency International, Our Work in Philippines, Corruption Perceptions Index (2024).↑
  5. Tropical Storm Bualoi Kills At Least 4, Displaces 400,000 in Philippines, AL JAZEERA, Sept. 26, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/26/tropical-storm-kills-at-least-4-displaces-400000-in-philippines.↑
  6. Michael Beltran, Battered by Typhoons: Why Aren’t Philippine Flood Control Projects Working?, AL JAZEERA, Sept. 19, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/19/battered-by-typhoons-why-arent-philippine-flood-control-projects-working.↑
  7. James Patrick Cruz, At Least 421 Ghost Flood Control Projects Uncovered Nationwide – Dizon, RAPPLER, Oct. 9, 2025, https://www.rappler.com/philippines/dpwh-uncovers-ghost-flood-control-projects-october-9-2025/.↑
  8. Id.↑
  9. Rome Statute art. 7.↑
  10. Iris Haenen, Classifying Acts as Crimes Against Humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 14 GERMAN L.J. 797, 809 (2013).↑
  11. Id.↑
  12. Id.↑
  13. Id.↑
  14. Rome Statute, art. 7(1)(k).↑
  15. Carmela Fonbuena, ‘She Died Because of the Flood’: Filipinos Rise Up as Outrage Over Corruption Scandal Grows, THE GUARDIAN, Oct. 15, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/15/filipinos-rise-up-outrage-corruption-scandal-flood-control.↑
  16. Rome Statute does not require the attack to be both widespread and systematic, evidenced by the insertion of the word “or” in the statute.↑
  17. Prosecutor v. Kayishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement, ¶ 127 (May 21, 1999).↑
  18. Id.↑
  19. Article 30(2)(b) of the ICC Statute.↑
  20. Neil Jerome Morales, Philippines Says Up to 70% in Flood Budget Is Lost to Corruption, BLOOMBERG, Sept. 1, 2025, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-02/philippines-says-up-to-70-in-flood-budget-is-lost-to-corruption.↑
  21. Fonbuena, supra note 2.↑
  22. Chad de Guzman, Filipinos Call for ‘Radical Change’ in Mass Protests Over Flood Money Corruption, TIME MAGAZINE, Sept. 21, 2025, https://time.com/7319164/philippines-flood-control-projects-corruption/.↑
  23. Rome Statute, supra note 14.↑
  24. AL JAZEERA, supra note 5.↑
  25. Marlejo Ramos, How Flood Control Projects Fail the Poor in the Philippines, CONTEXT, Sept. 30, 2025.↑
  26. See Ares Gutierrez, UP Experts: DPWH Drowning in Failed Projects, Systemic Dysfunction Fuels Infrastructure Crisis, THE MANILA TIMES, Oct. 9, 2025. (“When the P774-million Sunog Apog Pumping Station is allegedly corrupted or mismanaged, it means families in Tondo are left defenseless against typhoons, risking their homes, health and economic stability.”)↑
  27. PARLIAMENTARY INSTITUTE OF CAMBODIA, OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIETAL IMPACTS OF FLOODS IN THE PHILIPPINES 3–4 (2019).↑
  28. Id.↑
  29. GILLIAN MACNEIL, LEGALITY MATTERS, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE PROMISE OF THE PROHIBITION ON OTHER INHUMANE ACTS 119 (Gerard Werle & Moritz Vormbaum, eds., 2021).↑