On September 8, 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber I made a decision that has sent ripples through both the Philippines and the international legal community: the confirmation of charges hearing for former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, originally scheduled for September 23, 2025, would be postponed. This move follows a request from Duterte’s defense team, led by British-Israeli lawyer Nicholas Kaufman, who argued that the former president is not fit to stand trial due to alleged health concerns.
Duterte, who stands accused of crimes against humanity related to his administration’s bloody war on drugs, was arrested at Ninoy Aquino International Airport on March 11, 2025. After his arrest—carried out by the Philippine National Police in cooperation with Interpol—Duterte was transferred to the ICC detention facility in The Hague, Netherlands. He made his initial appearance before the Pre-Trial Chamber via video link on March 14, 2025, according to reports from Inquirer and Reuters.
The confirmation of charges hearing is a pivotal moment in ICC proceedings. As explained by the ICC and reported in Rappler, "the purpose of the confirmation of charges hearing is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the person committed each of the crimes charged." If the charges are confirmed, the case moves to the next phase: a full trial before a Trial Chamber.
The defense’s request for an indefinite adjournment, filed on August 18, 2025, claimed Duterte’s health made him unfit to participate in the proceedings. The majority of the Pre-Trial Chamber—Presiding Judge Iulia Motoc and Judge Reine Adelaide Alapini-Gansou—agreed to the postponement, stating that a limited delay was necessary to adjudicate the defense’s request and related matters. They emphasized that a new date would be set once these outstanding issues had been addressed.
However, not everyone on the Chamber agreed with this course of action. Judge María del Socorro Flores Liera issued a robust dissent, arguing that the hearing should have proceeded as planned. In her opinion, as quoted by Inquirer, "The Pre-Trial Chamber is statutorily mandated only to reach those specified conclusions through the confirmation process." She added that "pre-trial and trial proceedings are indeed different in nature, each held independently with clearly differentiated objectives," and stressed that the pre-trial stage serves a "much more limited function." Liera further asserted, "Matters of fitness and the assessment of the same are exclusively within the competence of the Trial Chamber, not the Pre-Trial Chamber."
The ICC’s decision to postpone Duterte’s hearing is not without precedent. As Reuters notes, the ICC has previously delayed confirmation of charges hearings due to health concerns. Notably, in 2012, the hearing for former Côte d’Ivoire president Laurent Gbagbo was indefinitely postponed for similar reasons. Gbagbo, charged with crimes against humanity, eventually went to trial in 2016 and was acquitted in 2019—a verdict that drew criticism from political analysts and human rights groups, including Amnesty International, for what they saw as the ICC’s failure to deliver justice for victims of post-election violence.
Another recent example involves Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, a Sudanese commander charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. The ICC moved his confirmation of charges hearing from February to May 2021 to give the prosecution more time to disclose evidence. His trial began in April 2022 and concluded in December 2024, though a verdict has yet to be announced.
Despite these precedents, Reuters points out that the ICC has never actually found a suspect unfit for trial, raising questions about whether Duterte’s case will set a new standard or follow the established pattern of eventual proceedings.
Meanwhile, the legal and political stakes surrounding Duterte’s case remain high. The Office of the Prosecutor applied for his arrest warrant in February 2025, alleging that Duterte is individually responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator for the crime against humanity of murder. The alleged crimes occurred between November 1, 2011, and March 16, 2019, encompassing the period when the Philippines was a member of the ICC during Duterte’s presidency.
In addition to the postponement, Duterte’s defense team has filed several other motions, including requests for interim release, the disqualification of ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, and challenges to the court’s jurisdiction over the allegations. The Pre-Trial Chamber is now tasked with issuing a new schedule and procedures for the hearings, as well as addressing these outstanding legal matters.
The postponement has drawn criticism from those seeking accountability for the thousands of deaths attributed to Duterte’s drug war. Kristina Conti, a lawyer representing drug war victims, told Reuters, "We will not fall for a desperate, time-worn, and calculated ploy to paint himself aggrieved." This sentiment reflects the frustration felt by victims’ families and human rights advocates who have long called for justice and transparency in the aftermath of the drug war.
Adding further intrigue to the case, news of the postponement broke shortly after retired police officer and whistleblower Royina Garma agreed to testify against Duterte. Garma’s decision follows the earlier testimony of former Davao Death Squad hitman Edgar Matobato, who had provided evidence for the prosecution. On September 8, 2025, Philippine Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla confirmed that Garma was in Malaysia to meet with ICC representatives, according to Rappler.
As the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber works to resolve these procedural hurdles, the eyes of the world remain fixed on The Hague. The outcome of the hearings—and whether they proceed expeditiously or become mired in further delays—will be closely watched by both Duterte’s supporters and detractors. For those seeking justice for the victims of the drug war, the postponement is a setback, but not the end of the road.
The ICC’s next steps will determine not only the future of Duterte’s case but also the court’s ability to deliver justice in complex, high-profile international cases. With a new hearing date yet to be set and significant legal questions still unresolved, the saga continues—leaving victims, advocates, and observers alike awaiting the next chapter in this landmark case.
