The International Criminal Court (ICC) has once again found itself at the center of legal, ethical, and procedural scrutiny as it presses forward with the case against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. In a string of recent developments, the court has faced challenges not only from Duterte’s legal team but also from within its own processes, particularly regarding the selection of medical professionals tasked with evaluating Duterte’s fitness to stand trial.
On November 3, 2025, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I made headlines by disqualifying a neuropsychologist from the panel assigned to assess Duterte’s mental fitness. According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the chamber concluded that the doctor’s “sickeningly offensive” social media posts from the previous year rendered him “objectively incompatible with the independence, professionalism and impartiality necessary to perform duties before the court.” The decision, released in an eight-page redacted ruling, cited the doctor’s reposts and replies on X (formerly Twitter) as grounds for his removal. The chamber stated, “The social media activity attributable to [redacted], as set out in the defense’s request, renders him unsuitable to act as an expert in the panel.”
This was not the first time the ICC had to reconsider its choices for medical experts. The same neuropsychologist had been tapped to replace an original team member whose appointment was revoked on October 17, 2025, after it was discovered she was still suspended from medical practice. The repeated shake-ups have only added to the procedural complexity of the case, raising questions about the ICC’s vetting processes. The court’s Registry, responsible for administrative affairs, was censured by the chamber for its “failure to identify and take into account the abovementioned information during the preparation of the requested shortlist [of medical experts].” The chamber urged the Registry to “revise its working methods and relevant procedures.”
Following the disqualification, the ICC Registry was instructed to revoke the neuropsychologist’s access to any documents already provided, ensuring that no relevant information remained in his possession and reminding him of the continuing confidentiality of any information he had accessed. The Registry was also directed to admit another specialist to the accredited experts list, signaling the court’s intention to maintain the integrity of the evaluation process.
At the heart of these medical evaluations lies a critical question: Is Duterte, now 80 years old and detained at the Scheveningen prison in The Hague, physically and mentally fit to participate in trial proceedings? The ICC’s focus on Duterte’s fitness stems from ongoing challenges raised against previous expert assessments and broader concerns about his current health. These issues prompted the court to seek an independent and definitive medical evaluation, with the newly appointed team tasked with submitting a comprehensive health report by December 5, 2025. As reported by Inquirer and confirmed by other sources, the findings of this report are expected to guide the next procedural steps in the ICC’s ongoing review of the case.
The medical team’s formation, confirmed by Pre-Trial Chamber I, follows a pattern of scrutiny and contestation that has characterized the Duterte proceedings. While the ICC has not publicly disclosed the names or specialties of the selected experts, the swift timeline for the report’s completion suggests a sense of urgency within the chamber to resolve the question of Duterte’s fitness and move the case forward.
Duterte’s legal situation is as complex as it is high-profile. The former president faces three counts of murder, consolidated as a charge of crimes against humanity, in connection with at least 49 killing incidents during his controversial war on drugs. The case has drawn international attention, not just for the gravity of the charges but also for the broader questions it raises about accountability, sovereignty, and the reach of international law.
In addition to the medical proceedings, Duterte’s defense team has mounted a robust legal challenge to the ICC’s authority over the case. Led by Nicholas Kaufman, the defense filed an appeal on jurisdiction before the ICC Appeals Chamber, arguing that the court lost its authority to investigate the drug war killings when the Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2018. Their 21-page appeal brief challenged the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision on four specific grounds, all centering on interpretations of Article 127 of the 2002 Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC.
The defense contended, among other things, that a preliminary examination is “not a matter under consideration” within the meaning of Article 127, and that the Office of the Prosecutor should not be involved in interpreting the provision. They also argued that the chamber “erred” in finding that the “object and purpose” of the Rome Statute allowed the probe into the drug war to proceed and that Article 127 was “lex specialis”—a specific rule that should prevail over general ones.
The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I, however, was unpersuaded by these arguments. In a unanimous decision on October 23, 2025, the chamber affirmed its jurisdiction over Duterte’s case, emphasizing that the provisions of the Rome Statute should be “interpreted according to their ordinary meaning.” The chamber also rejected the defense’s assertion that the preliminary examination and the subsequent authorization to begin an investigation were “different matters.” As noted by the Inquirer, the court’s decision reflected a clear stance on the continuity of its mandate, regardless of the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC treaty.
While the legal wrangling continues, Duterte’s defense has requested an indefinite suspension of the pretrial proceedings, pending the outcome of the medical assessment. The court has yet to consider the findings from the medical team before ruling on this request. The expert panel, which now includes a forensic psychiatrist and a geriatric and behavioral neurologist alongside the soon-to-be-named replacement neuropsychologist, is expected to provide crucial input on Duterte’s ability to participate in his defense.
The stakes in this case are undeniably high. For supporters of Duterte, the proceedings are viewed as an infringement on national sovereignty and an attempt by foreign institutions to interfere in domestic affairs. For human rights advocates and critics of Duterte’s drug war, the ICC’s actions represent a vital step toward accountability for alleged abuses that claimed thousands of lives. The intense scrutiny of the court’s processes—from the selection of medical experts to jurisdictional debates—underscores the broader significance of the case, not just for the Philippines but for the international justice system as a whole.
As the December 5 deadline for the medical report approaches, all eyes remain on The Hague. The outcome of the fitness evaluation could determine the immediate future of the proceedings, while the jurisdictional battle will likely set important precedents for how the ICC handles cases involving former leaders and countries that have withdrawn from its treaty. For now, the drama continues to unfold, with each procedural twist adding another layer to a case already marked by controversy, complexity, and global attention.
With the ICC’s next steps hinging on the upcoming health assessment and the ongoing legal appeals, the world waits to see how this landmark case will move forward—and what it will ultimately mean for the pursuit of justice in the twenty-first century.
