In a development that has sparked debate and drawn attention across the Philippines, a recent nationwide survey reveals that a clear majority of Filipinos support the Senate’s call for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to place former president Rodrigo Duterte under house arrest on humanitarian grounds. The findings, released on October 4, 2025, reflect a rare moment of consensus in a country often divided by political loyalties, yet they also underscore simmering tensions about accountability, justice, and the enduring influence of powerful families.
According to The Manila Times and Philippine Star, the survey was conducted by research firm Tangere from October 1 to 2, polling 1,200 respondents nationwide through a mobile-based application. The poll carried a margin of error of ±2.77 percent at a 95 percent confidence level—a robust snapshot capturing the pulse of the nation. The results were striking: 73 percent of Filipinos approved of Senate Resolution 144, which urges the ICC to move Duterte from detention in The Hague to house arrest, citing his age and health as humanitarian concerns. Of these, 52 percent said they "strongly agree," and another 20 percent "somewhat agree." Fourteen percent were undecided, while 14 percent opposed the resolution, with 4 percent "somewhat disagreeing" and 10 percent "strongly disagreeing."
Support for the resolution was not confined to any one region or political bloc. In fact, it was strongest in Mindanao, the National Capital Region, Northern Luzon, and Central Luzon, where 73 to 75 percent of respondents—roughly three out of four—backed the Senate’s move. However, the survey also revealed pockets of dissent: disagreement reached 18 percent in Calabarzon, 19 percent in the Bicol Region, and 20 percent in Western Visayas.
What’s perhaps most remarkable is the bipartisan nature of the support. The Tangere survey found that roughly 7 to 8 in 10 voters who supported President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte in the 2022 elections approved of the Senate’s action. Even among those who backed opposition candidates—Vice President Leni Robredo and Senator Kiko Pangilinan—support remained high, with 6 to 7 in 10 agreeing with the resolution. This broad-based consensus suggests that, for many Filipinos, humanitarian considerations for the aging former president trump partisan divides, at least in this instance.
The Senate’s resolution did not come out of nowhere. Two days before the survey, on October 2, the Senate passed the measure by the same 15 votes that had recently installed Tito Sotto as Senate president—a political realignment that had raised hopes for a new direction. The resolution echoed the plea of Duterte’s family and legal team, who argued that the former president, now 80 years old, should not remain in detention in the Netherlands while facing charges of crimes against humanity. The ICC’s case centers on Duterte’s alleged responsibility for death squad killings during his time as mayor of Davao City and later as president—a dark chapter that continues to haunt Philippine politics and society.
Proponents of the resolution, including nine Duterte-loyalist senators such as Ronald de la Rosa and Bong Go, framed it as a “humanitarian gesture for a man who, not even a year ago, at age 79, appeared at a Senate hearing full of life, even grandstanding, as is his wont, remorselessly admitting that he did have a death squad doing the killing for him,” as Rappler reported. The measure’s passage was swift and decisive: the nine sponsors secured six more votes, while Sotto himself abstained. Only three senators—Risa Hontiveros, Bam Aquino, and Kiko Pangilinan—voted against it, voicing concerns that the gesture was misplaced and that the ICC’s jurisdiction was necessary precisely because the Philippine judiciary had failed to hold Duterte accountable.
Critics, including those cited by Rappler, argue that the resolution is unlikely to sway the ICC, which assumed jurisdiction over Duterte’s case due to what it viewed as the Philippine judiciary’s incapacity or unwillingness to prosecute. “If the resolution had any bearing on anything, that would be, prospectively, on Sara’s impeachment case,” the Rappler article noted. The same Senate majority that passed the resolution had recently, and without much scrutiny, endorsed a P903 million budget for Vice President Sara Duterte’s office for the coming year—despite lingering questions about unexplained withdrawals from confidential funds, the very issue that led to her impeachment.
The shadow of the Duterte family looms large over these proceedings. Not only did the Senate’s action reflect the wishes of Duterte’s family and allies, but it also sent a message about the enduring influence of political dynasties. As Rappler observed, “This Senate remains a Duterte house.” The implication is clear: despite changes in leadership and public discontent with past inaction, old loyalties and networks continue to shape the legislative agenda.
Public opinion, however, appears to have been bolstered by the Senate’s move. The Tangere survey reported that 24 percent of voters said their confidence in the Senate increased as a direct result of Resolution 144. This is notable in a country where trust in political institutions often runs low, and where the Senate’s previous reluctance to try Sara Duterte for impeachment had drawn widespread criticism. In fact, polls had shown that 80 percent of Filipinos wanted her brought to trial, but procedural delays and a Supreme Court ruling—citing technical flaws—ultimately scuttled the case.
The interplay of justice, mercy, and political calculation is nothing new in the Philippines, a country with a long history of powerful families, dramatic reversals, and public demands for accountability. The current episode, with its mix of humanitarian rhetoric and hard-nosed political maneuvering, is only the latest chapter. The ICC’s next steps remain uncertain, but the Philippine Senate’s resolution has already had a tangible impact on public sentiment and the nation’s political discourse.
Tangere, the research firm behind the survey, emphasized the credibility of its findings. A member of the Marketing and Opinion Research Society of the Philippines (MORES), the European Society for Opinion and Market Research (ESOMAR), and the Philippine Association of National Advertisers (PANA), Tangere was among the first to register with the Commission on Elections for polling. The company’s use of stratified random sampling and mobile-based technology ensured that the survey reached a broad cross-section of Filipinos, regardless of region or affiliation.
For many, the question remains: will this moment of unity around humanitarian values lead to lasting change, or is it merely a pause in the ongoing struggle over justice and power? As the dust settles, one thing is clear—the debate over Rodrigo Duterte’s fate continues to expose the complexities and contradictions of Philippine democracy, where the lines between mercy, accountability, and political interest are never entirely distinct.
