In a development that has captured international attention, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte stands at the center of a historic legal battle at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The case, rooted in his administration’s bloody war on drugs, has seen both the prosecution and defense agree on basic facts of his identity and the structure of local government, while legal wrangling intensifies over the impartiality of the ICC’s chief prosecutor and the scope of the charges brought against Duterte.
According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a document dated September 1, 2025, and published on the ICC’s website, confirmed that both ICC prosecutors and Duterte’s legal team, led by Nicholas Kaufman, reached consensus on four foundational facts. These include Duterte’s full name and birthdate—Rodrigo Roa Duterte, born March 28, 1945, in Maasin, Southern Leyte—his Philippine nationality, the common use of the initials “PRRD” to refer to him, and the definition of a barangay as the smallest political and administrative unit in the Philippines. The agreement was formalized in a submission signed by both deputy prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang and Kaufman.
This procedural step, while seemingly minor, marks a rare moment of alignment in a case otherwise defined by bitter contention. The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber had instructed both sides back in April to attempt to reach agreement on alleged facts by September 1. However, as reported by INQUIRER.net, efforts to expand the list of agreed facts stalled when the defense accepted only four out of ten proposed by the prosecution. Both parties have agreed to revisit the matter once an undisclosed issue is resolved.
The backdrop to these legal maneuvers is the staggering human toll of Duterte’s anti-drug campaign. Official Philippine government data puts the number of deaths at a minimum of 6,000, but international organizations and the ICC prosecutor estimate the true toll to be between 12,000 and 30,000 from 2016 to 2019. As FRANCE 24 notes, the war on drugs was a campaign promise that quickly became synonymous with extrajudicial killings and widespread fear, leaving thousands of families shattered and searching for justice a decade later.
Families affected by the violence have not been silent. Many continue to fight for justice, even as the process drags on. “For victims, continued detention is the only mechanism to ensure that justice is pursued and that their safety is not compromised,” wrote Paolina Massidda, principal counsel for the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV), in a September 2 public submission to the ICC. The OPCV has been vocal in urging the court to deny Duterte’s requests for interim release, citing ongoing risks to both the integrity of the proceedings and the safety of witnesses and victims, who fear reprisals from Duterte’s supporters in the Philippines.
Duterte’s journey to the ICC dock has been swift and dramatic. A warrant for his arrest was issued on March 7, 2025. Just five days later, on March 12, Duterte was apprehended at Ninoy Aquino International Airport and detained at Villamor Air Base before being transferred to The Hague. His first pretrial appearance followed on March 14. The confirmation of charges hearing—a pivotal moment that will determine whether the case proceeds to a full trial—is set for September 23, 2025. Until then, Duterte remains in detention in The Hague, with his legal team preparing to contest the charges and raise preliminary challenges.
Yet the legal proceedings have been complicated by fierce disputes over the impartiality of the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan. As detailed by The Manila Times, Duterte’s defense has filed multiple motions challenging Khan’s fitness to oversee the case, citing a potential conflict of interest. Specifically, they point to Khan’s previous representation of more than 100 Philippine victims in a 2018 Article 15 communication—work that, according to the defense, was not disclosed in his application to become chief prosecutor and for which he did not secure proper waivers from former clients. The defense’s motion, made public on September 2, requests clarification on whether any current victims participating in the case overlap with Khan’s former clients.
These concerns have been amplified by unrelated allegations: Khan has temporarily stepped aside from his post following a United Nations investigation into sexual misconduct. In his absence, deputy prosecutors have assumed leadership of the Office of the Prosecutor. Duterte’s legal team has seized on this moment to submit a notification of evidence under Rule 121(6) of the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, signaling their intent to contest the prosecution’s charges and raise further preliminary challenges before the crucial confirmation hearing.
The OPCV, for its part, has pushed back hard against the defense’s efforts, especially Duterte’s renewed request for interim release. In her September 2 submission, Massidda argued that Duterte’s continued detention is necessary to protect both the process and the people involved. The OPCV warned that Duterte’s access to substantial evidence, including the identities of witnesses, combined with his enduring influence in the Philippines, makes the risk of intimidation or retaliation unacceptably high. The group dismissed the defense’s assurances that these risks could be managed, pointing to ICC jurisprudence that requires “acute justification” for any provisional or compassionate release—criteria, they argue, that Duterte does not meet.
While the legal teams spar in The Hague, the impact of Duterte’s policies continues to reverberate across the Philippines. FRANCE 24 reports that, ten years after the launch of the war on drugs, many families are still seeking accountability for loved ones lost. The fight for justice is deeply personal for those left behind, and the ICC proceedings are watched with a mixture of hope and apprehension.
Meanwhile, the issue of Duterte’s potential interim release looms large. The court must weigh the defense’s arguments against the prosecution’s insistence that only continued detention can guarantee justice and safety. The upcoming confirmation of charges hearing on September 23 will be a decisive moment—not just for Duterte, but for the broader question of accountability for human rights abuses in the Philippines.
As the world waits for the ICC’s next move, the case against Rodrigo Duterte stands as a stark reminder of the enduring consequences of political decisions and the long, often fraught path toward justice. The outcome will undoubtedly shape not only the legacy of Duterte’s presidency but also the international community’s response to allegations of crimes against humanity.