Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s ongoing legal battle with the International Criminal Court (ICC) has taken another dramatic turn, as his defense team formally appealed the court’s decision to deny him interim release ahead of his high-profile war crimes trial. The move, confirmed by his lead counsel Nicholas Kaufman, comes amid a swirl of legal arguments, political controversy, and deep divisions both within the Philippines and among international observers.
On October 12, 2025, Duterte’s lawyers lodged an appeal with the ICC Appeals Chamber, challenging the Pre-Trial Chamber’s earlier ruling that upheld his continued detention. According to Reuters, Kaufman’s central argument rests on Duterte’s advanced age and frail health, suggesting these factors should warrant compassion and justify his release while awaiting trial. “The denial of Duterte’s request is erroneous,” Kaufman insisted, highlighting that the appeal was filed more than a week after the initial decision.
The ICC, however, remains unconvinced. In a ruling made public from The Hague, judges emphasized that Duterte’s detention is essential to guarantee his appearance at trial, prevent interference with witnesses, and avoid any obstruction of justice. The court pointedly noted the former president’s enduring political influence and his repeated public statements rejecting the ICC’s authority—factors the judges said increased the risk of flight or disruption to the legal process.
At the heart of the proceedings are grave allegations: Duterte is charged with crimes against humanity, specifically murder, tied to thousands of killings during his administration’s notorious “war on drugs” and his earlier tenure as Davao City mayor. The ICC issued a warrant for his arrest in March 2025, leading to his surrender and subsequent detention in The Hague. According to BBC and Reuters, Duterte has consistently maintained his innocence, denouncing his arrest as unlawful and tantamount to kidnapping.
The legal wrangling has not been limited to the defense. Families of victims of extrajudicial killings (EJKs)—whose loved ones perished during Duterte’s anti-drug campaign—have expressed hope that the ICC will maintain its hard line. On October 12, 2025, legal counsel for these families, Atty. Gilbert Andres, told DZMM they are prepared to present their views and concerns to the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber. “We are ready to give the position of the victims,” Andres said, affirming the families’ determination to seek justice under international law.
Andres also addressed the question of Duterte’s influence, noting that despite holding no official position, the former president’s sway remains considerable. “He was even given an award by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Senate Resolution No. 114 shows he is very influential,” Andres said, referencing the Senate’s call for the ICC to consider house arrest for Duterte on humanitarian grounds. Andres strongly disagreed with Duterte’s son, Davao City 1st District Rep. Paolo Duterte, who called the ICC’s decision a “gross and disgraceful miscarriage of justice” and “political theater.” Instead, Andres cited Article 58 of the Rome Statute, arguing that the ICC has a legal basis for its actions, and expressed doubt that Duterte would voluntarily return to the ICC if granted temporary release.
Meanwhile, the legal debate over the ICC’s jurisdiction has been stoked by a widely circulated opinion piece published on October 13, 2025. The article argues that the ICC’s authority over Duterte—and the Philippines more broadly—is fundamentally flawed on several grounds. First, it claims the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, was never properly published in the Philippines’ Official Gazette, rendering it unenforceable under the country’s constitution. Second, the principle of complementarity, which requires the ICC to defer to a functioning national judicial system, should apply—given the Philippines’ record of prosecuting high-profile figures. Third, the opinion points to the Philippines’ formal withdrawal from the ICC, suggesting the court has no standing to pursue cases involving its citizens.
The piece further describes Duterte’s arrest and detention as “unlawful and unconstitutional,” alleging complicity by certain high-ranking Philippine officials. It also highlights reports—unconfirmed by the ICC—that Duterte was found unconscious in his cell and hospitalized, underscoring concerns about his health. Notably, the defense’s request for interim release was based in part on claims of cognitive decline and unfitness for trial.
In rejecting these arguments, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber cited Article 60 of the Rome Statute and maintained that Duterte’s continued detention is justified by the risks he poses, both in terms of flight and potential interference with witnesses. The court noted that Duterte enjoys full access to medical care, including psychiatric services, at the ICC detention facility. Furthermore, the judges referenced public statements by Duterte’s family members—including Vice President Sara Duterte’s controversial remarks about “breaking Mr. Duterte out of the ICC Detention Center”—as evidence of ongoing resistance to the court’s authority.
Critics of the ICC’s decision, particularly those sympathetic to Duterte, have pushed back hard. The aforementioned opinion piece argues that Duterte’s voluntary return to the Philippines on March 11, 2025—despite knowing he faced imminent arrest—undercuts the claim that he is a flight risk. “He could have stayed in Hong Kong or rerouted his flight to Davao, where supporters could have shielded him,” the article asserts. It also disputes the notion that Duterte poses a threat to witnesses, pointing out that no retaliation occurred during his presidency, even as accusations and testimonies mounted against him.
Yet for many observers, the ICC’s firm stance is a crucial test for international justice and accountability. The court’s decision to keep Duterte in detention—pending a separate, still-unresolved motion regarding his fitness to stand trial—signals the seriousness with which it views the charges. As preparations for trial continue, the world watches closely, aware that the outcome could shape the future of human rights enforcement in the region and beyond.
For now, Duterte remains in the ICC detention center in The Hague, awaiting the next chapter in a legal saga that has gripped the Philippines and drawn global scrutiny. Both his supporters and detractors continue to marshal their arguments, but the final verdict will rest with the international court—and, perhaps, with history itself.
