Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte’s legal fate at the International Criminal Court (ICC) has taken another dramatic turn, as allegations of cognitive impairment and claims of legal misconduct swirl around the high-profile case. The proceedings, rooted in Duterte’s controversial war on drugs, continue to capture national and international attention as both his defense team and representatives for victims push their arguments before the Pre-Trial Chamber 1 (PTC 1) in The Hague.
On July 18, 2025, Duterte’s legal team formally submitted a report to the ICC indicating that the 80-year-old former leader was exhibiting signs of cognitive impairment. According to Inquirer, this evaluation—performed by a medical professional at the ICC Detention Center—matched the results of a separate neuropsychology report from May. The defense’s five-page, heavily redacted filing stated, “The cognitive faculties affected, including Mr. Duterte’s [redacted] are precisely those required to work on his legal case and with his defense team.” The submission, made public only this week, was accompanied by Duterte’s own consent for the turnover of his medical records to the court.
Lead counsel Nicholas Kaufman emphasized the lack of consensus on the extent or gravity of Duterte’s medical condition, pointing out that there is “an absence of clarity or consensus” regarding the severity of the impairment. Kaufman argued that the court should first determine Duterte’s fitness to participate in pre-trial proceedings before moving forward with the confirmation of charges hearing—a pivotal stage in the ICC process.
However, lawyers representing the families of drug war victims are pushing back, insisting that Duterte’s reported health problems should not be allowed to stall the process. Kristina Conti of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) told the press, “That’s why he can defer to his lawyer if he is not feeling well. So there’s a valid basis for the confirmation of charges [to be held] as soon as possible.” Conti further noted that the Rome Statute allows accused persons to waive their in-person attendance at hearings through a written request to the chamber, making in-person participation non-essential if the accused is unwell.
Human rights lawyer Neri Colmenares, also of NUPL, described the defense’s move as “premature,” arguing that Duterte’s fitness should be determined by the trial court, not the PTC, where the case is still at the pre-trial stage. Colmenares pointed out that the defense’s own application “admitted there is no clarity or consensus on the severity or cause of the alleged cognitive impairment. In fact it admitted that Duterte has sufficient cognitive facility to decide to allow the release of his medical records,” as quoted by Inquirer.
Meanwhile, the legal drama has been complicated by accusations of misconduct against Duterte’s chief lawyer. On September 28, 2025, a coalition of 54 civil society groups and individuals—including lawmakers—filed a formal request with the ICC to discipline Nicholas Kaufman for allegedly distorting facts in his pursuit of interim release for Duterte. According to VERA Files, the complaint accused Kaufman of “engaging in disinformation,” citing two instances where he allegedly misrepresented the positions of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) and Philippine government officials. The coalition’s letter asserted that such actions “dangerously erode the trust of victims in this independent judicial process as capable of delivering truth-telling and accountability.”
In one cited incident, Kaufman claimed in a June 12 filing that the OTP agreed to interim release under certain terms, a claim the OTP “explicitly denied.” In another, he was accused of mischaracterizing statements by Presidential Press Undersecretary Claire Castro, implying government support for Duterte’s interim release—a position the government had not actually taken.
The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber 1 had already postponed the confirmation of charges hearing, originally set for September 23, after the defense requested an indefinite adjournment. As VERA Files reported, the PTC granted only a “limited postponement” to allow time to examine the cognitive impairment claim. According to Kristina Conti, there are no official guidelines on the duration of such a postponement, but as a general rule, the PTC has 120 days to decide on the matter. Conti expressed hope for a resolution before the ICC’s vacation period in December.
The stakes of the proceedings remain high. If the PTC finds Duterte unfit to stand trial, the case could still proceed against alleged co-perpetrators, including former Philippine National Police Chief Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa and former Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II. The Document Containing the Charges (DCC), filed on July 4 and made public on September 22, lists three counts of murder as crimes against humanity, involving 49 incidents. These include the murder of 19 people in Davao City between 2013 and 2016 (when Duterte was mayor), the murder of 14 “high-value targets” nationwide during his presidency, and the murder or attempted murder of 45 people in barangay clearance operations also during his presidency.
As VERA Files explained, the ICC process is methodical and multi-layered. After the confirmation of charges hearing, if the PTC finds sufficient evidence, the case moves to trial before a new chamber of three judges. Duterte would then formally plead guilty or innocent, and both prosecution and defense would present their cases. Victims, through their lawyers, would also have the opportunity to participate and share testimony. The ICC provides for protective measures for witnesses and, if a conviction is secured, can impose penalties including imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture of assets. Both sides retain the right to appeal any verdict.
Despite the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC in March 2019, the court asserts jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed while the country was still a member state. If the case results in a conviction, victims could be eligible for reparations such as monetary compensation, rehabilitation, and medical support—either funded by the convicted party or, if necessary, by the ICC’s Trust Fund for Victims.
For now, the case remains in a holding pattern as the PTC weighs Duterte’s fitness for trial and considers the disciplinary complaint against his lead counsel. The next steps for victims’ lawyers involve clarifying the implications of the DCC and making their voices heard on the postponement of proceedings. With the ICC’s 120-day window ticking and new developments emerging almost weekly, the world watches to see whether justice for the victims of the Philippine drug war will finally move forward—or remain mired in procedural delays.
As the ICC deliberates, the outcome will shape not just the fate of a former president, but the global conversation on accountability for crimes against humanity.
