In a landmark decision that reverberated from The Hague to Manila, International Criminal Court (ICC) judges have unanimously rejected former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction, clearing the way for his crimes against humanity case to move forward. The ruling, made public on Thursday, October 23, 2025, marks a pivotal moment in the long-running legal saga surrounding Duterte’s controversial war on drugs—a campaign that, according to estimates, left thousands dead and drew global condemnation.
Duterte, now 80, and his legal team had argued that the ICC lacked authority to prosecute him because the Philippines withdrew from the court before a formal investigation began. Their defense hinged on a technicality: since the Philippines’ withdrawal became effective in 2019 and the ICC’s investigation was not formally opened until 2021, they contended the court had no standing to proceed. "We anticipated this decision and will appeal it," Duterte’s lead lawyer Nick Kauffman told The Associated Press, signaling the defense’s intention to keep fighting the case at every turn.
But the ICC’s pretrial panel saw things differently. In their 32-page decision, the judges made it clear that countries cannot “abuse” their right to withdraw from the Rome Statute—the treaty that established the ICC—“by shielding persons from justice in relation to alleged crimes that are already under consideration.” According to Reuters, the court ruled that even if an official investigation only began after withdrawal, the prosecution’s preliminary examination, announced in February 2018, was substantial enough to say the matter was already under the court’s consideration.
This nuanced legal distinction proved decisive. As Rappler reported, the court’s ruling addressed a novel question: Can a country escape ICC scrutiny simply by withdrawing once it becomes aware that alleged crimes are being investigated? The answer, at least for now, is a resounding no. The pretrial chamber judges—Motoc, Alapini-Gansou, and Flores Liera—stressed that Article 127 of the Rome Statute “appropriately balances the right of a State to withdraw from the Statute with the overall objective of the Statute of putting an end to impunity.”
For human rights advocates, the decision was a relief. Many had feared that a contrary ruling would create a dangerous loophole, allowing governments to evade responsibility for grave crimes by simply exiting the ICC as soon as investigations loomed. As the judges wrote, “It also guarantees that the right of a State to withdraw from the Statute is respected, while ensuring that it is not able to abuse that right by shielding persons from justice in relation to alleged crimes that are already under consideration by the Court.”
The charges against Duterte span from November 1, 2011—when he was still mayor of Davao City—through March 16, 2019, the date when the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC became effective. During his presidency from 2016 to 2022, Duterte’s anti-drug campaign became notorious for its brutality. According to the Philippine National Police, more than 6,000 people were killed in anti-drug operations. Human rights groups, however, claim the real toll could be as high as 30,000, citing extrajudicial killings and a pattern of impunity for law enforcement.
The ICC’s involvement began in earnest in February 2018, when prosecutors announced a preliminary investigation into the violence. Just a month later, Duterte announced the Philippines’ intention to withdraw from the court—a move widely interpreted by human rights groups as an attempt to sidestep accountability. The investigation was formally opened in September 2021, after the withdrawal had taken effect.
Duterte’s defense team, led by Kauffman and Dov Jacobs, had invoked other provisions of the Rome Statute—specifically Articles 12 and 13—in their challenge. They argued that these articles require an investigation to be initiated while a country is still a state party to the ICC. The court disagreed, finding that these clauses must be read in concert with Article 127, which states that withdrawal does not affect proceedings already underway. As BBC and AP explained, this interpretation ensures that justice cannot be thwarted by procedural maneuvers.
However, the legal wrangling is far from over. Duterte’s lawyers have indicated they will appeal the jurisdiction decision, maintaining their client’s innocence and continuing to argue that his arrest in March 2025 was unlawful. Duterte, who was transferred to The Hague following his arrest, has steadfastly denied the charges of crimes against humanity. The ICC, for its part, has kept Duterte in detention, citing him as a flight risk.
There’s another twist: Duterte’s health has become a central issue in the proceedings. Last month, judges postponed a pretrial hearing after his lawyers claimed he was “not fit to stand trial” due to alleged cognitive decline. The court has appointed a panel of independent medical experts to assess Duterte’s fitness, with a report expected by the end of October and a decision likely by mid-November. The legal concept of “unfit for trial” is a high bar to clear; mere illness isn’t enough. As Rappler notes, experts and judges must determine whether Duterte is oriented in time and place and understands the nature of the proceedings.
The Duterte administration has previously sought to block the ICC’s investigation by arguing that Philippine authorities were already looking into the same allegations, rendering the ICC’s involvement unnecessary. In 2023, appeals judges at the ICC dismissed this argument, affirming that the court could resume its investigation as a “court of last resort.”
For many in the Philippines and beyond, the ICC’s decision is more than just a legal technicality—it’s a statement about accountability and the limits of political maneuvering. The ruling sets a significant precedent for future cases, making it clear that withdrawal from international treaties cannot be used as a shield against prosecution for serious crimes.
As the process moves forward, all eyes remain on the ICC’s next steps: the outcome of Duterte’s medical evaluation, the possible appeal on jurisdiction, and, ultimately, whether a former head of state will face trial for alleged crimes committed under his watch. The stakes are high, not just for Duterte, but for the future of international justice and the global fight against impunity.
With the court’s decision, the path is now open for the ICC to determine whether Duterte will be held to account for the bloodshed that marked his war on drugs. Whatever happens next, the world will be watching closely.
