It’s a story that has gripped the Philippines and reverberated across international legal circles: the ongoing detention of former president Rodrigo Duterte at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, a saga marked by political maneuvering, legal wrangling, and increasingly urgent pleas from his family over his health and treatment. As the ICC weighs his request for temporary liberty, the drama is unfolding on multiple fronts—inside courtrooms, at press briefings, and within the halls of power in Manila.
The latest twist came on September 27, 2025, when Vice President Sara Duterte delivered a deeply personal and pointed statement. She revealed that her father, the former president, had been found unconscious on the floor of his ICC detention room. According to Philnews, Duterte was subsequently subjected to laboratory tests, but the family claims they received no explanation or timely information about what had happened. “These alarming developments raise grave concerns about the capacity of the ICC to guarantee the security and safety of FPRRD,” the vice president’s statement read, using her father’s initials.
To understand how the Philippines arrived at this extraordinary moment, it’s important to rewind to earlier this year. On March 12, 2025, Duterte was arrested by Philippine authorities in cooperation with Interpol, immediately upon his arrival from Hong Kong. He was swiftly flown to The Hague to face three counts of murder before the ICC, charges stemming from his time as Davao City mayor and his controversial national ‘war on drugs.’ The arrest was both dramatic and unprecedented, with the Philippine government facilitating his surrender to international justice—an act that has since become a focal point of political debate at home.
Since then, Duterte’s legal team has pressed for his interim release, citing both procedural grounds and his deteriorating health. The request is currently before the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I, which is also considering a bid to disqualify Prosecutor Karim Khan from the case and a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction. But as of late September, no decision has been handed down, leaving Duterte in legal limbo and his supporters increasingly vocal about his condition.
At the heart of the current controversy is a heated exchange between Duterte’s defense team and the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. On September 24, Palace press officer Claire Castro addressed reporters about Duterte’s bid for temporary liberty. Her remarks were quickly seized upon by Nicholas Kaufman, Duterte’s lawyer, who relayed them to the ICC in a September 26 filing. Kaufman claimed that the Philippine government had “now contemplated without objection” Duterte’s request for interim release to a still-undisclosed country, despite having facilitated his arrest and surrender just months earlier.
Castro fired back, accusing Kaufman of misrepresenting her words and “twisting facts.” In a statement sent to reporters and quoted by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, she said, “Attorney Kaufman appears to have mastered the art of twisting some facts.” She emphasized, “Again with emphasis, we want to be clear that the Marcos Jr. administration is not privy and has no hand to the former President Duterte’s ongoing trial before the ICC, particularly his request for interim release.”
Castro also clarified the government’s official stance: “As part of the legal process, no matter what the ICC decides, we will still respect it.” She stressed that the Philippine government is not a party to Duterte’s trial and can only observe developments in the crimes against humanity case, as well as the defense’s various pleadings to the court. The only parties invited by the chamber for comments or observations, she noted, are the prosecution, defense, and the victims.
This is not the first time Castro and Kaufman have publicly clashed. Their contentious exchanges date back to July, when Castro told Kaufman to “do better” after Duterte’s camp announced plans to submit a Senate report to the ICC in an effort to challenge the legality of Duterte’s arrest. Kaufman retorted that Castro should not interfere with his work and accused her of having an “unhealthy obsession” with him.
As the legal battle continues, the human drama has become impossible to ignore. Vice President Sara Duterte has emerged as her father’s most passionate advocate, repeatedly raising the alarm over his treatment in ICC custody. She has described his detention conditions as “inhumane,” citing not only the incident of him being found unconscious but also what she calls the ICC’s persistent neglect of his medical needs. “Even the most basic care for the complaint of an ingrown toenail—easily treatable—cannot be done swiftly,” she said in a statement, adding that the court has ignored the family’s requests for a 24-hour bedside caregiver.
Her criticisms have grown sharper in light of a recent welfare check conducted by the Philippine government on Duterte in detention. She argues that this intervention, far from reassuring the family, only “confirms” that the ICC has allowed state agents “to intrude upon him and exploit his frail and compromised health.” In her words, “This is nothing less than an abuse of power against a vulnerable individual.”
For their part, Duterte’s family and supporters see his continued detention as a form of punishment without conviction. They argue that the ICC’s actions amount to “cruel treatment” and “deprivation of basic dignity and proper care.” The vice president has gone so far as to call his arrest and ongoing surveillance “abduction” and a denial of his rights under Philippine law.
Meanwhile, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I faces mounting pressure to rule on Duterte’s requests. The defense has asked not only for his temporary liberty but also for the disqualification of the lead prosecutor and a fundamental challenge to the court’s authority to try him. These legal maneuvers are unfolding against a backdrop of intense political debate in the Philippines, where opinions about Duterte’s legacy and the ICC’s role remain sharply divided.
While the Marcos Jr. administration insists it has no hand in the case and is merely an observer, the reality is that every development is closely watched—and often hotly debated—by both domestic and international audiences. The question of Duterte’s health and safety in detention has only added urgency to an already fraught situation.
As the world waits for the ICC’s next move, the fate of Rodrigo Duterte hangs in the balance. The outcome will not only determine the future of a former president but could also set a precedent for how international justice is carried out in cases involving powerful political figures. For now, the story remains unfinished, its next chapter to be written in the shadow of The Hague’s imposing courthouse.