Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte finds himself at the center of an international legal storm, as his legal team mounts a fierce challenge against the International Criminal Court (ICC) over its decision to proceed with charges linked to his controversial war on drugs. The high-stakes legal battle, unfolding in The Hague, has drawn global attention—not only for its implications for Duterte personally, but also for the precedent it could set for international justice and accountability.
On October 30, 2025, Duterte’s lawyers formally appealed the ICC’s recent decision to move forward with the case, seeking his immediate and unconditional release from detention. This appeal follows the ICC judges’ ruling the previous week, which confirmed the court’s jurisdiction over Duterte’s case, despite arguments from his defense team that the investigation was not fully initiated until after the Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2019. According to Reuters, Duterte’s legal counsel maintains that the arrest and continued detention of the former president are unlawful, challenging both the basis and the process of the ICC’s actions.
The legal proceedings have been anything but straightforward. Duterte, who served as president from 2016 to 2022, was arrested in March 2025 on an ICC warrant linking him to thousands of deaths during his administration’s bloody anti-drug campaign. The campaign, which drew sharp criticism from human rights groups and international observers, saw thousands of alleged narcotics peddlers and users killed in what many have described as extrajudicial operations. While Duterte’s supporters argue his policies were necessary to combat rampant drug crime, critics have long accused him of sanctioning widespread abuses and flouting the rule of law.
In the Notice of Appeal dated October 28 and filed with the ICC Appeals Chamber, Duterte’s legal team—led by defense counsel Nicholas Kaufman and associate counsel Dov Jacobs—sought to overturn the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber’s October 23 ruling. That ruling had affirmed the court’s jurisdiction over alleged crimes against humanity connected to Duterte’s war on drugs. The defense’s request was clear: “The defense respectfully requests the Appeals Chamber to reverse the impugned decision, find that there exists no legal basis for the continuation of proceedings against Mr. Rodrigo Roa Duterte, and order his immediate and unconditional release,” the document stated, as reported by The Manila Times.
The Appeals Chamber, presided over by Judge Erdenebalsuren Damdin and including Judges Tomoko Akane, Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, Solomy Balungi Bossa, and Gocha Lordkipanidze, now faces the weighty task of reviewing the appeal. At the heart of the defense’s argument is the claim that the Philippines’ 2019 withdrawal from the Rome Statute—the treaty that established the ICC—should have stripped the court of authority to investigate crimes allegedly committed while the country was still a member. However, the Pre-Trial Chamber previously ruled that the withdrawal did not affect the ICC’s ability to investigate actions that occurred when the Philippines was still a state party, a position that aligns with established international legal practice.
In tandem with the appeal, Duterte’s attorneys also filed a motion asserting that the 80-year-old former president is unfit to stand trial due to cognitive decline. A decision on whether Duterte’s health will affect the proceedings is not expected until mid-November, according to Reuters. This health-based argument adds another layer of complexity to the case, raising questions about the intersection of humanitarian considerations and the demands of international justice.
But while Duterte’s legal team presses for his release, the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) has mounted a vigorous opposition. In a separate filing on the same day as the appeal, OPCV Principal Counsel Paolina Massidda urged the Appeals Chamber to reject Duterte’s request for interim release, arguing that his continued detention is both necessary and legally justified. In a detailed 20-page submission, Massidda contended that none of the defense’s arguments demonstrated any error in the Pre-Trial Chamber’s earlier decision to deny Duterte’s release.
Massidda cited several factors in support of continued detention. She pointed to Duterte’s enduring political influence, his past behavior, and his extensive network of supporters as indicators that he could flee if released. Notably, Massidda referenced public statements by Duterte’s family and allies—including Vice President Sara Duterte—calling for his return to the Philippines as evidence of a “significant risk that the suspect might abscond.”
Further, Massidda highlighted Duterte’s recent election as mayor of Davao City and his son’s concurrent role as vice mayor, arguing that this political base could facilitate obstruction or interference with legal proceedings. “His detention remains necessary under Article 58(1)(b) of the Rome Statute,” Massidda wrote, underscoring the potential for Duterte to evade justice or exert undue influence over witnesses if granted release.
The OPCV also dismissed the defense’s claim that Duterte’s health warranted release on humanitarian grounds. According to Massidda, the court had already reviewed Duterte’s medical status and found no acute or life-threatening illness that would require treatment outside the ICC detention center. Proposed state guarantees for conditional release were similarly rejected, with Massidda noting the lack of “enforceable mechanisms” to ensure Duterte’s presence before the court if released. She concluded by urging the Appeals Chamber to “dismiss the defense appeal in its entirety” and affirm the Pre-Trial Chamber’s September 26 decision maintaining Duterte’s detention to secure his appearance, prevent interference with witnesses, and avert the commission of further crimes.
For many observers, the case presents a test of the ICC’s ability to hold powerful figures accountable for alleged human rights abuses, even years after they leave office. Supporters of the court argue that allowing political leaders to evade scrutiny by withdrawing from international treaties would undermine the very foundation of global justice. Critics, however, contend that the ICC’s actions risk infringing on national sovereignty and question whether the court is the appropriate venue for addressing such complex, politically charged cases.
Back in the Philippines, the case has triggered a maelstrom of political debate. Duterte’s family and supporters have rallied behind him, framing the ICC proceedings as an affront to Philippine sovereignty and a politically motivated attack. Meanwhile, human rights advocates and families of victims of the drug war see the case as a long-overdue step toward justice and accountability.
As the legal wrangling continues in The Hague, all eyes are on the ICC Appeals Chamber, which must weigh the competing claims of justice, due process, and humanitarian concern. The outcome will not only determine Duterte’s immediate fate but could also reverberate far beyond the courtroom, shaping the future of international law and the global fight against impunity.
With a decision on Duterte’s fitness to stand trial expected by mid-November, and the Appeals Chamber’s review of the jurisdictional challenge underway, the world waits to see whether the former president will face trial or secure his release. For now, the case stands as a stark reminder of the enduring tensions between national sovereignty and international accountability—a debate that, in the case of Rodrigo Duterte, is playing out on the world’s biggest legal stage.
