The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) ongoing case against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has taken a dramatic turn, as prosecutors now argue that public statements made by his daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, could jeopardize her father’s bid for interim release. According to documents posted on the ICC website and reported by Inquirer and other Philippine news outlets, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has cited several of Sara Duterte’s recent remarks as evidence that the Duterte family refuses to recognize the court’s legitimacy—and could interfere with proceedings if the elder Duterte were to be freed.
The controversy centers on a slew of statements Sara Duterte made in July and August 2025, both in public speeches and media interviews. On July 19, standing before a crowd of supporters and later speaking to journalists, the vice president claimed her father was “kidnapped” by the ICC. She insisted that his arrest in Manila in March was “illegal,” a refrain she would repeat in subsequent appearances. The OTP, led by Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang, highlighted these claims in an eight-page filing opposing Rodrigo Duterte’s request for temporary liberty.
But it didn’t stop there. In what she described as a joke, Sara Duterte said she had discussed breaking her father out of ICC detention with a colleague. In a Facebook livestream, she even called on viewers to “collaborate on a jailbreak.” These comments, which might have been brushed off as political theater in another context, took on new weight as the ICC prosecutor argued they demonstrated a clear unwillingness to accept the court’s authority.
According to the OTP’s opposition, Sara Duterte also accused the ICC of colluding with the Philippine government and paying for “fake witnesses” to testify against her father in the crimes against humanity case. In her July 19 speech, she went so far as to blame the Government of the Netherlands for participating in what she called the “extraordinary rendition” of Rodrigo Duterte. She criticized the ICC for “accepting Mr. Duterte with open arms despite having been kidnapped from his own land,” as quoted in the prosecutor’s filing.
These incendiary statements have become central to the prosecution’s argument that granting interim release to the former president would be risky. The OTP maintains that such rhetoric reflects a pattern: the Duterte family, it says, has repeatedly refused to accept the legitimacy of the legal proceedings. “These examples demonstrate a pattern of the Duterte family refusing to accept the legitimacy of the legal proceedings against Mr. Duterte and should mitigate against granting the interim release,” the OTP wrote.
Adding to the complexity, Sara Duterte told the media on August 19 that her father wished to return to his hometown of Davao City—where he was elected mayor in absentia during the May 2025 elections. However, due to what the Department of the Interior and Local Government described as “physical and legal reasons,” Vice Mayor Sebastian Duterte, Rodrigo Duterte’s son, has been serving as acting mayor. The prosecution noted that Rodrigo Duterte’s desire to return home, if granted interim release, “echoes his family’s stated intention to ensure his return to the Philippines.”
The OTP’s concerns don’t end with public statements. Prosecutors argue that releasing the former president would allow him to reconnect with family and close associates, thereby increasing the likelihood of interference with the case. “Mr. Duterte’s release would provide him greater access to his family and associates and thereby increase likelihood of interference with the case against him,” the filing stated.
Meanwhile, Rodrigo Duterte’s defense team has mounted its own counteroffensive. In August, his lawyer Nicolas Kauffman filed a request for an indefinite adjournment of proceedings, citing the former president’s alleged cognitive deficiencies. At 80 years old, Kauffman argued, Duterte is “unfit to stand trial.” The ICC has since reset Duterte’s confirmation of charges hearing, which was originally scheduled for September 23, 2025. As of now, no new date has been announced—leaving the proceedings in a state of limbo.
The saga has gripped the Philippines, with supporters and critics of the former president watching closely. The allegations of “kidnapping” and “illegal arrest” have fueled nationalist sentiment among Duterte’s base, while his detractors point to the ICC’s careful documentation of the former president’s own statements—such as his infamous pledge to “double” the killings in Davao City if re-elected mayor—as evidence of the seriousness of the charges he faces.
According to Inquirer, the ICC prosecutor’s latest filing is not just a technical objection; it’s a warning about the broader implications of political rhetoric in high-profile international cases. The prosecution’s argument is that public denial of the court’s legitimacy, coupled with threats of jailbreaks—even if made “in jest”—undermine the legal process and could embolden supporters to take disruptive action.
For the Duterte family, the stakes are high. If the ICC denies interim release, Rodrigo Duterte will remain in detention in The Hague, far from the political power base he cultivated in Davao City and Manila. If released, he could return to the Philippines, potentially reigniting political tensions and complicating the ICC’s efforts to ensure a fair trial. The court, for its part, must weigh the risk of interference against the rights of the accused—a delicate balancing act made even more difficult by the charged atmosphere surrounding the case.
It’s not just about one man’s fate, either. The ICC’s handling of the Duterte case is being closely watched by legal experts, human rights advocates, and governments around the world. The court’s willingness to pursue charges against a former head of state, and its insistence on upholding international legal standards despite political pushback, could set important precedents for future cases involving alleged crimes against humanity.
Meanwhile, the Philippine government’s official position remains cautious. While Sara Duterte’s statements have drawn fire from the ICC prosecutor, the administration has yet to take a definitive stance on the court’s jurisdiction or the legitimacy of the proceedings. As the legal saga drags on, the country’s political landscape remains as polarized as ever, with each new development adding fuel to an already heated debate.
For now, all eyes are on The Hague as the ICC weighs its next move. Will the former president be granted interim release, or will the prosecutor’s warnings about interference and denial of legitimacy carry the day? Whatever the outcome, the case is shaping up to be a defining moment not just for the Duterte family, but for the Philippines’ relationship with international justice.