Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, once known for his tough rhetoric and unyielding stance on crime, now finds himself at the center of a high-stakes legal battle before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. As of October 28 and 29, 2025, Duterte’s legal team and the counsel for victims have been locked in a tense back-and-forth over the legitimacy of the ICC’s case, the court’s jurisdiction, and whether Duterte should be granted interim release as he awaits further proceedings.
Duterte, who served as president from 2016 to 2022, was arrested and extradited to The Hague in March 2025 on an ICC warrant linking him to numerous deaths during his administration’s controversial war on drugs. According to GMA Integrated News, the ICC Prosecutor specifically charged him with 49 incidents of murder and attempted murder, both during his presidency and his earlier tenure as mayor of Davao City. While official government records put the number of drug-related killings during his administration at around 6,200, human rights groups have long argued that the true toll could be as high as 30,000, due to unreported and related slayings.
On October 23, 2025, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I ruled that the court did, in fact, have jurisdiction over Duterte’s case—despite the Philippines’ formal withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019. As reported by Free Malaysia Today, the judges determined that the ICC retained authority to investigate crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member state, dismissing the defense’s argument that no full-fledged investigation had begun before the withdrawal.
Unsurprisingly, Duterte’s legal team, led by Nicholas Kaufman and Dov Jacobs, quickly mounted a challenge. On October 28, they filed a four-page notice of appeal, asking the ICC Appeals Chamber to reverse the Pre-Trial Chamber’s ruling. The defense argued there was “no legal basis for the continuation of proceedings against Mr. Rodrigo Roa Duterte,” and called for his “immediate and unconditional release.” Their appeal was filed under Article 82(1)(a) of the Rome Statute, which allows either party to contest jurisdictional decisions, and was submitted within the five-day window stipulated by Rule 154(1) of the ICC’s procedural rules, as The Philippine Star detailed.
At the heart of Duterte’s appeal is the assertion that his arrest and detention are unlawful, given the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC. His lawyers maintain that the tribunal’s authority lapsed when the country exited in 2019, and that any subsequent investigation or prosecution is illegitimate. They have also pushed for the court to halt all legal proceedings, citing Duterte’s alleged cognitive decline and declining health. A panel of medical experts appointed by the ICC is currently reviewing his fitness to stand trial, with a report expected by the end of October and a verdict anticipated by mid-November, according to Devdiscourse.
Yet, as Duterte’s defense presses for his release, the Office of the Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) has been equally adamant in urging the ICC to keep him in detention. In a 20-page redacted response submitted on October 28 and 29, OPCV Principal Counsel Paolina Massidda argued that Duterte remains a “crystal clear” flight risk. The OPCV pointed to his political influence, past behavior, and extensive network of supporters—factors that, in their view, make it likely he could abscond if released.
“The possibility of Mr. Duterte absconding remains visible and no material was placed before the Chamber showing that such a possibility is imaginary,” the OPCV wrote in its formal submission, as quoted by Manila Bulletin. The victims’ counsel also highlighted public statements from Duterte’s family, including his children and Vice President Sara Duterte, who have openly contested his detention and even floated the idea of facilitating his escape. These remarks, OPCV asserted, only reinforce concerns about Duterte’s willingness and ability to evade ICC proceedings.
The OPCV further dismissed the defense’s arguments as “mere disagreement with the factual findings of the Chamber,” stating, “Simply offering alternative explanations or expressing mere disagreement with the conclusions that the chamber drew from available facts or the weight it accorded to particular factors is not enough to establish a clear error.” The counsel insisted that Duterte’s detention is necessary under Article 58(1)(b) of the Rome Statute, both to secure his appearance and to prevent interference with witnesses or the commission of further crimes.
On the question of humanitarian release, Duterte’s legal team presented medical records indicating declining cognitive abilities and argued that he is unfit to stand trial. However, the OPCV, referencing the Pre-Trial Chamber’s prior review, countered that no “acute crisis or life-threatening” condition exists that would justify interim release. “The medical records presented by the defense did not indeed suffice to justify an interim release,” the OPCV noted, adding that the diagnosis “fails to meet the threshold” for such action.
In addition, the OPCV rejected the defense’s claim that the proposed guarantees from a host country for conditional release were sufficient. The victims’ counsel argued that these guarantees lacked “enforceable mechanisms” to ensure Duterte’s continued presence before the court, and thus could not offset the risk of flight or interference.
As the legal wrangling continues, the ICC Appeals Chamber—composed of Presiding Judge Erdenebalsuren Damdin and Judges Tomoko Akane, Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, Solomy Balungi Bossa, and Gocha Lordkipanidze—will now consider both the jurisdictional appeal and the request for interim release. The outcome could set a significant precedent for international justice, especially regarding the reach of the ICC over leaders of states that have withdrawn from the Rome Statute.
Meanwhile, Duterte remains detained at the Hague Penitentiary Institution, his fate hanging in the balance as both sides await the upcoming medical panel’s report and the Appeals Chamber’s rulings. For the victims’ families and human rights advocates, the proceedings represent a rare opportunity for accountability in a case that has gripped the Philippines and drawn international scrutiny. For Duterte and his supporters, the battle is far from over, as they continue to challenge the legitimacy of the court and the charges brought against him.
With the ICC’s decisions on jurisdiction, interim release, and Duterte’s fitness to stand trial all due in the coming weeks, the case stands at a pivotal moment—one that will resonate well beyond the walls of The Hague.
