The legal and political landscape in the Philippines has grown increasingly fraught as the International Criminal Court (ICC) intensifies its scrutiny of former President Rodrigo Duterte and his allies. Recent developments have seen Duterte’s legal team embroiled in a contentious battle over the impartiality of medical experts assigned to assess his fitness for trial, while rumors swirl about a possible ICC arrest warrant for Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, Duterte’s former national police chief and a key architect of the country's bloody war on drugs.
On November 7, 2025, Duterte’s lawyers filed an 18-page request with the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I, seeking to disqualify a male doctor appointed to a panel tasked with evaluating Duterte’s medical and neuropsychological condition. According to GMA Integrated News, the defense argued that the doctor—whose identity remains undisclosed—lacked relevant experience and had engaged in “sickening and offensive” social media activity that, in their view, demonstrated a “manifest lack of professionalism.” The filing contended, “One can also surmise from the content and target of his posts that this ‘expert’, for more reasons than stated in this filing, would be incapable of providing truly independent and impartial expertise, free from political or other bias, as would be expected of any expert appointed to assist this Court.”
This isn’t the first time Duterte’s team has challenged the ICC’s panel composition. Back in September, they successfully sought the removal of a female neuropsychologist from the same panel, prompting the chamber to replace her with the now-contested male doctor. The defense has requested that the Pre-Trial Chamber immediately revoke the new doctor’s mandate before he gains access to Duterte’s private medical information and has also called for adjournment of the proceedings.
Remarkably, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor has aligned itself, at least in part, with the defense’s concerns. In a five-page public redacted filing dated November 10 and signed by Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang, prosecutors said that if the doctor’s social media activity is verified, “it would render him entirely unsuitable as an expert in this [or any other] case.” The prosecution urged the ICC Registry to conduct a more rigorous vetting process for future expert appointments, recommending that the Registry “tighten its vetting process for medical and psychological experts to avoid a similar recurrence.” They also proposed the appointment of a replacement neuropsychologist, reportedly acceptable to both parties, pending the Registry’s credential verification.
The Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV), which represents the interests of victims in the case, has largely deferred to the chamber’s discretion regarding the expert’s disqualification. Principal Counsel Paolina Massidda clarified that the OPCV’s earlier endorsement was “entirely based on the information provided by the Registry” and emphasized that vetting experts is “within the exclusive purview of the Registry, as the neutral organ of the Court.” The OPCV rejected the defense’s suggestion that it should have conducted a “simple Google search” before endorsing the candidate. While not opposing the potential revocation of the appointment, the OPCV stressed the importance of retaining a neuropsychology expert on the panel, stating, “It reiterates its position that an expert with qualifications in neuropsychology should be included,” and urged the chamber to “identify another suitably qualified expert with the same specialization” if necessary.
Meanwhile, Massidda submitted a separate five-page filing on November 10, endorsing the credentials of the victims’ preferred medical experts for the panel. The Office of Public Counsel for Victims also deferred to the chamber’s judgment, underscoring the complexity and sensitivity of the selection process.
All of this unfolds against a backdrop of serious criminal charges. The ICC Prosecutor has accused Duterte of 49 incidents of murder and attempted murder during his tenure as mayor of Davao City and as President of the Philippines, though the true scale of victimization is believed to be “significantly greater.” As of November 2025, Duterte is being held at the Hague Penitentiary Institution, following his arrest in Manila in March after Interpol issued a red notice in connection with the ICC’s ongoing investigation into crimes against humanity.
Adding to the turmoil, reports have surfaced that the ICC may have issued an arrest warrant for Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa. As reported by South China Morning Post, Dela Rosa, who oversaw the Philippine National Police during the early years of Duterte’s presidency, is widely viewed as the chief enforcer of the administration’s anti-drug campaign, which has left thousands dead and drawn international condemnation. If confirmed, an arrest warrant for a sitting senator would represent a significant escalation in the ICC’s investigation and pose a major legal and political challenge for President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s administration.
The potential for such a warrant has already sparked fierce debate within the Philippines. On November 12, Atty. Salvador Paolo A. Panelo Jr., counsel for Veronica Duterte in the habeas corpus petitions for the former president, publicly challenged the Department of Justice’s claim that it could use a “quicker surrender option” to implement ICC arrest warrants. Panelo insisted, “There is no such animal as an ‘option’ to ‘surrender’ Filipinos to the ICC… without prior authority from a Philippine court.” He cited Article III, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution, which requires that arrest warrants be issued only upon a judge’s determination of probable cause. Panelo further argued that Section 17 of Republic Act No. 9851, which governs crimes against international humanitarian law, must be read in conjunction with the Constitution, necessitating a Philippine court warrant before any surrender or ceding of jurisdiction can occur.
Panelo also pointed to established jurisprudence and the Rome Statute itself, noting that foreign judgments, including ICC warrants, are not automatically recognized in the Philippines unless confirmed by a local court. He referenced former Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla’s 2024 articulation of this legal stance and highlighted Article 59(2) of the Rome Statute, which requires that anyone arrested be brought “promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State” to verify the legality of the arrest. Panelo maintained that any option to surrender or cede jurisdiction under RA 9851 expired when the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute became effective on March 17, 2019, thereby stripping the ICC of jurisdiction over the country.
In light of these developments, the Duterte camp plans to file an urgent motion with the Supreme Court, seeking immediate resolution of the consolidated habeas corpus petitions for the former president. Panelo expressed hope that the resolution would “provide the necessary judicial guidance to put a stop to this administration’s shameless constitutional violations for the sake of political gain,” and called for Duterte’s “long overdue repatriation.”
As the ICC’s investigations continue to reverberate through the Philippine legal and political systems, the coming weeks may well determine the fate of some of the country’s most powerful—and polarizing—figures.
