Nearly four years after the International Criminal Court (ICC) launched its investigation into the Philippines’ controversial war on drugs, the case against former president Rodrigo Duterte is reaching a pivotal moment. On September 23, 2025, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I will convene in The Hague, Netherlands, to determine whether the charges against Duterte—including crimes against humanity—will move forward to a full trial. For the families of the thousands killed during Duterte’s six-year presidency, the hearing represents a rare chance to seek justice and confront the man they hold responsible for their suffering.
“The victims are prepared to confront Duterte and the painful memories of killings and abuses under his rule,” said lawyer Neri Colmenares, who represents victims through the network Rise Up for Life and for Rights. According to The Manila Times, the hearing is far more than a procedural step; it’s a moment for truth and accountability, not only for individual families but for the nation as a whole.
Preparations for the hearing are well underway. Under ICC rules, victims can formally participate by submitting applications to be recognized as “victims of the case.” Those admitted will have their interests represented by a team of legal experts, including lawyer Kristina Conti of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL). Importantly, victims do not need to travel to The Hague; their voices will be heard through their legal representatives. “Preparations are underway among victims, their lawyers, and supporters to ensure their voices are heard,” Conti explained. “We reject any move for interim release or suspension of the process. The victims deserve their day in court.”
The upcoming hearing will see ICC prosecutors present evidence and call two witnesses. Duterte’s defense team, meanwhile, has indicated it will not present its own witnesses but has hinted at “obstacles” that could disrupt the proceedings—a move that victims’ groups warn could be an attempt to delay or derail the process. “It is in the public’s interest that the hearing push through,” Colmenares emphasized. “We thirst for truth and accountability. This is a rare opportunity for justice, not just for a few, but for the many.”
Duterte, who was arrested earlier in 2025 and transferred to the ICC detention center, has consistently denied responsibility for the extrajudicial killings that marked his administration’s anti-drug campaign. His legal team is expected to argue that the case is politically motivated and outside the ICC’s jurisdiction—a position echoed by the Philippine government since it withdrew from the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, in 2018. However, the Court has ruled that it retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed while the Philippines was a member state, from 2011 to 2019.
The case has sharply divided Philippine society. Duterte’s supporters argue that his hardline policies saved the country from the scourge of drugs and criminality, while critics see the drug war as one of the darkest chapters in recent history. For victims and their families, the stakes are deeply personal. Civil society groups such as the Duterte Panagutin Network are mobilizing public support, both in court and through online livestreams, to keep pressure on the proceedings and ensure the victims’ voices are not lost in the legal wrangling.
Amid these preparations, a significant development unfolded on August 15, 2025. Nicolas Kaufman, Duterte’s lead lawyer, withdrew his request to disqualify ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan over alleged conflict of interest. Kaufman had originally questioned Khan’s impartiality, pointing to his previous involvement as part of the legal team for drug war victims during the early stages of the ICC investigation. However, after Khan clarified his limited role—explaining that he only participated pro bono in reviewing and presenting submissions and ceased involvement shortly thereafter—Kaufman conceded there was no reason to doubt the prosecutor’s impartiality. “There is no ostensible reason to doubt the prosecutor’s impartiality or his assertions that he is not conflicted,” Kaufman stated in his response to the ICC’s appeals chamber. “The defense, for its part, will not impede the smooth running of proceedings by seeking the prosecutor’s disqualification.”
Khan, for his part, emphasized to the appeals chamber that his prior involvement “was not in a capacity by virtue of which his impartiality might reasonably be doubted and was not such that he could be expected to have formed an opinion of the case in question that could adversely affect his impartiality.” He also noted that his role as a prosecutor is fundamentally different from that of a legal team member, and that the investigation and evidence review were led by a separate team under the supervision of a deputy prosecutor. Khan further argued that the ICC’s Rule 34(1), which sets grounds for disqualification, could not be invoked in this instance, as no formal case existed at the time of his prior involvement. The clarification removed a major procedural hurdle, allowing the confirmation hearing to proceed without further delay.
While the Duterte case commands headlines, the ICC has also recently set a historic precedent in its broader pursuit of justice. In July 2025, the court included charges relating to the criminal treatment of LGBTIQ+ people in arrest warrants issued for members of the Afghan Taliban. According to ABC News, this is the first time the ICC has included crimes against the LGBTIQ+ community in an arrest warrant, marking an important milestone in international law. Professor Lisa Davis, Special Advisor on gender and discriminatory crimes to the ICC Prosecutor, described the move as “an important historical precedent.” The decision signals the ICC’s willingness to recognize and prosecute crimes against marginalized groups on the world stage, expanding the reach and relevance of international justice.
Back in The Hague, the confirmation of charges hearing against Duterte is expected to last several days. If the Pre-Trial Chamber upholds the charges, a full trial will follow—potentially stretching on for years. If not, the case could collapse, a scenario victims and their lawyers are determined to prevent. “The Sept. 23 hearing is not just about Duterte,” Conti remarked. “It is about whether the thousands of lives lost in the drug war will finally be given dignity through truth and accountability.”
As the hearing approaches, victims, their families, and their advocates remain resolute. They are determined to resist any attempt to delay or derail the process, knowing that the outcome will reverberate far beyond the courtroom. With the world watching, the ICC’s handling of the Duterte case—and its recent expansion of protections to LGBTIQ+ victims elsewhere—will test the limits and possibilities of international justice in 2025.