On Friday, November 28, 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) Appeals Chamber handed down a decisive ruling: former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, now 80 years old, must remain in detention in The Hague as he awaits trial for crimes against humanity. The decision came after Duterte’s legal team mounted a vigorous appeal, citing his advanced age, declining health, and what they argued were errors in the earlier court’s assessment of risk and humanitarian factors. But the ICC’s judges were unmoved, finding no grounds to overturn the prior decision and ordering Duterte’s continued detention.
The ruling, reported by multiple international outlets including Inquirer, Reuters, and Interaksyon, marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal saga surrounding Duterte’s controversial war on drugs—a campaign that, according to official police reports, left at least 6,000 people dead, with human rights groups and the ICC prosecutor estimating as many as 30,000 fatalities.
Presiding Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, joined by Judges Tomoko Akane, Solomy Balungi Bossa, Gocha Lordkipanidze, and Erdenebalsuren Damdin, delivered the Appeals Chamber’s unanimous verdict. The panel upheld the earlier findings of Pre-Trial Chamber I, which had denied Duterte’s initial request for interim release back in September. The Pre-Trial Chamber, after a comprehensive review of the facts, concluded that Duterte’s release would pose “risks to witnesses, evidence, and the integrity of the investigation,” as outlined in Article 58(1)(b) of the Rome Statute.
Duterte’s defense team had raised three main grounds for appeal. First, they argued that the Pre-Trial Chamber had erred in finding that Duterte posed a risk if released. Second, they claimed the Chamber had wrongly rejected guarantees offered by a state willing to receive him. And third, they insisted the court failed to properly weigh humanitarian considerations, especially in light of Duterte’s age and health. But the Appeals Chamber found no merit in any of these arguments, stating, “the defense failed to identify errors in the Pre-Trial Chamber’s reasoning or to demonstrate that the Pre-Trial Chamber’s conclusions were unreasonable.”
The ICC’s ruling came despite Duterte’s absence from the courtroom—he had waived his right to be present for the reading of the judgment. His grandson, Omar Duterte, spoke to reporters afterward, insisting that his grandfather was not a flight risk and should have been granted interim release. “Half the time, while we are talking, he doesn’t even know why he’s in there, in detention,” Omar Duterte said, highlighting concerns about the former president’s mental state.
In Manila, the decision reverberated through Filipino society. Families of victims of the drug war gathered to watch the hearing unfold, holding signs that read, “Duterte’s detention is our safety, no to interim release.” The ruling was met with visible relief and even celebration among some victims’ families. Sheerah Escudero, whose brother was killed in 2017, told Reuters, “The trial must go on. It must continue until it is proven that Duterte is guilty.”
The ICC’s arrest warrant alleges that Duterte “created, funded, and armed death squads” during his time in office from 2016 to 2022. While police figures put the number of suspects killed during anti-drug operations at 6,200, activists and the ICC prosecutor have argued that the true death toll could be far higher, possibly up to 30,000. Throughout, Duterte has maintained that he only instructed police to kill in self-defense and has repeatedly defended his administration’s crackdown. He has been quoted as saying he was ready to “rot in jail” if that was the price for ridding the Philippines of illicit drugs.
Duterte’s legal team has not given up, however. They have filed several other motions seeking to have the entire case dismissed, arguing that his arrest was unlawful and that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the Philippines, which withdrew from the court in 2019. According to Interaksyon, his lawyers maintain that the ICC’s authority does not extend to Duterte, given the country’s formal exit from the treaty. The court, however, has thus far rejected these jurisdictional arguments, reiterating that it retains the right to prosecute crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member state.
Article 59 of the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, allows for interim release of arrested individuals under certain conditions. The Pre-Trial Chamber must be satisfied that the accused will not flee and will not obstruct the administration of justice. In Duterte’s case, both the Pre-Trial and Appeals chambers determined that the risks remained too great to justify release, especially given the former president’s enduring influence in the Philippines. Prosecution and victims’ representatives strongly opposed any interim release, warning that Duterte could use his network and power to interfere with witnesses or evidence.
For now, Duterte remains in the ICC’s detention facility at Scheveningen Prison in The Hague. The former president faces three counts of murder over 49 killings directly linked to his administration’s anti-drug campaign, known as Oplan Tokhang. While his camp has argued that he is unfit to stand trial, the court has not been persuaded to grant him any special consideration on humanitarian grounds.
The Duterte family, for their part, issued a statement from Manila accepting the court’s decision “with peaceful hearts.” The family’s acceptance contrasts with the ongoing efforts by Duterte’s lawyers to challenge the proceedings at every turn.
As the pre-trial process moves forward, the world watches closely. The case has become a touchstone for international justice, testing the reach and resolve of the ICC in holding powerful leaders accountable for alleged human rights abuses. The outcome could set a precedent for how the court navigates complex questions of jurisdiction, state sovereignty, and the rights of the accused—especially when those accused once held the highest office in their land.
With Duterte’s appeal for interim release now firmly rejected, the stage is set for a potentially historic trial. For the families of those killed in the drug war, and for observers of international justice, the next chapters promise to be both contentious and consequential.
