The International Criminal Court (ICC) has delivered a landmark decision in the ongoing case against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, affirming its jurisdiction and clearing the path for trial on charges of crimes against humanity. The ruling, issued by Pre-Trial Chamber I on October 23, 2025, has sent ripples through the Philippines and the international legal community, effectively dismantling the defense’s claims and setting a precedent for how withdrawals from the Rome Statute are interpreted in ongoing cases.
Duterte, who led the Philippines from 2016 to 2022, stands accused of orchestrating a brutal anti-drug campaign marked by thousands of extrajudicial killings. Estimates of the death toll during his presidency range from over 6,000, according to national police records, to as many as 30,000, as claimed by human rights groups, as reported by The Hindu. The ICC’s investigation covers alleged crimes committed between November 1, 2011—when Duterte was still mayor of Davao City—and March 16, 2019, the day the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC became effective.
Duterte’s arrest in March 2025 and subsequent transfer to The Hague marked a pivotal moment. His legal team, led by Nicholas Kaufman, immediately challenged the ICC’s authority, arguing that the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019—before a full investigation was formally launched—meant the court had no jurisdiction. Salvador Medialdea, Duterte’s former executive secretary, went so far as to describe the arrest as an “abduction” and “kidnapping,” a claim that ICC judges met with a notably passive response during the proceedings, as detailed by Philippine Daily Inquirer.
The ICC’s decision, however, was unequivocal. The Chamber stated that “countries can’t ‘abuse’ their right to withdraw from the Rome Statute ‘by shielding persons from justice in relation to alleged crimes that are already under consideration.’” The judges pointed to Article 127(2) of the Statute, which makes clear that withdrawal “shall not prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court.” This principle, the Chamber explained, ensures that states cannot simply walk away from their obligations when serious crimes are at stake.
Prosecutors had announced a preliminary investigation into the Philippine situation as early as February 2018, well before the country’s withdrawal took effect. Although a formal investigation was only opened in 2021, the court ruled that the preliminary examination was substantial enough to consider the alleged crimes “already under consideration.” This point was crucial: the Chamber found that the Philippines’ subsequent actions, particularly the surrender of Duterte to the ICC in March 2025, “provide irrefutable proof that it considers that the Court can exercise jurisdiction over the crimes alleged in this case,” according to the ICC’s published decision.
Despite the Philippines’ formal exit from the ICC in 2019—a move widely viewed as an attempt to escape international accountability—the government’s cooperation in handing over Duterte demonstrated continued engagement with the ICC’s processes. The Chamber noted that such cooperation “was not merely symbolic but consistent with the Statute’s framework,” and that the surrender “demonstrated the State’s recognition of the Court’s continuing jurisdiction.”
The defense’s argument that the ICC lacked jurisdiction was further undermined by the fact that the court had already begun examining the situation before the Philippines’ withdrawal. According to Reuters, “judges disagreed, saying that even if an official investigation sanctioned by judges only started in 2021, the prosecution’s preliminary examination was substantial enough to say it was a matter already under consideration.”
For the families of the victims, the ruling brought a measure of hope. Neri Colmenares, chair of Bayan Muna and one of the lawyers representing drug war victims, said the decision “practically destroyed the Dutertes’ claim that he was kidnapped.” Colmenares urged, “We ask Duterte to stop employing delaying tactics and instead allow the confirmation of charges and trial to move forward. The families of the victims have long awaited the justice they were denied by him,” as quoted in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
The confirmation of charges hearing, originally slated for September 2025, was postponed after Duterte’s lawyers requested a halt to all pretrial proceedings, citing alleged cognitive issues that could impair his defense. The ICC has since appointed a panel of medical experts to assess Duterte’s fitness to stand trial, with a report due by the end of October 2025 and a decision on how his health will affect proceedings expected by mid-November. For now, the court has ruled that Duterte must remain in detention, considering him a flight risk, as reported by The Hindu.
Duterte’s legal team, undeterred by the ICC’s latest decision, has vowed to appeal. “Given that the matter was extensively litigated and adjudicated in the prosecution’s favor prior to the former president’s arrest, the Defense anticipated this decision and will appeal it,” Nicholas Kaufman told the Inquirer and Associated Press. The defense continues to maintain Duterte’s innocence, arguing that the charges are politically motivated and that Philippine authorities had already investigated the allegations—an argument the ICC has previously dismissed.
The case has not only tested the limits of international justice but has also highlighted the complex relationship between national sovereignty and global accountability. While Duterte’s supporters have accused the ICC of political interference, human rights advocates argue that the court’s persistence is a necessary check on impunity for the gravest crimes. The ICC’s decision resonates far beyond the Philippines, sending a clear message that withdrawal from the Rome Statute cannot be used as a shield against prosecution for crimes already under scrutiny.
As the proceedings move forward, the world watches closely. The next steps include the confirmation of charges hearing and potential issuance of additional arrest warrants for Duterte’s alleged co-perpetrators, as reported by ABS-CBN. The outcome will have profound implications not only for Duterte and his legacy, but also for the future of international criminal law and the fight against impunity worldwide.
For the victims’ families, the ICC’s affirmation of jurisdiction is a long-awaited step toward justice—one that has been years in the making and that, at last, seems possible.