The International Criminal Court (ICC) is edging closer to a pivotal decision regarding the fate of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who is currently detained in The Hague, Netherlands, on charges of crimes against humanity. As the year draws to a close, the world’s attention is fixed on whether the 80-year-old Duterte will be deemed medically fit to stand trial for his alleged role in the deadly war on drugs that marked his tenure as both mayor of Davao City and president of the Philippines.
According to GMA Integrated News, ICC assistant counsel Atty. Kristina Conti announced on December 21, 2025, that the court is expected to determine by January 2026 whether Duterte is able to face the case against him. In a candid interview on Super Radyo dzBB, Conti stated, “Most likely in January, it will be determined whether Duterte is fit to stand trial and able to face the case against him.”
This forthcoming decision follows the submission of a critical medical report by a panel of experts, which was due to the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I by December 5, 2025. The panel’s examination of Duterte was prompted by a request from his defense team for an indefinite adjournment of proceedings, citing concerns about the former president’s health and mental capacity.
Duterte’s defense lawyer, Nicholas Kaufman, painted a grim picture of the former leader’s current state. Kaufman told the court that Duterte suffers from severe memory problems, claiming he “is unable to recall events, places, times, or even members of his close family.” He further argued that Duterte “lacked the capacity to apply the cognitive skills essential for the proper conduct of his defense.”
Despite these claims, the panel of medical experts reached a different conclusion. As reported by GMA News, the experts found that Duterte “can fully engage and participate in ICC pre-trial proceedings.” This finding is significant, as it directly challenges the defense’s assertion that Duterte is too impaired to stand trial.
Conti emphasized that the ICC’s process is rigorous and that the prosecution would not seek an arrest warrant unless the case is solid and ready to proceed. “The prosecution has strong and solid evidence to push the case against Duterte. They won’t apply for a warrant of arrest if the case is not trial-ready,” she explained. This underscores the seriousness of the charges and the level of preparation required before any trial can move forward.
The charges against Duterte stem from his controversial and internationally condemned war on drugs, initiated during his time as mayor of Davao City and intensified upon his ascent to the presidency. Thousands of deaths have been linked to the campaign, with human rights groups and international observers alleging widespread extrajudicial killings and abuses. The ICC’s investigation focuses on whether these acts constitute crimes against humanity under international law.
Duterte’s detention in The Hague marks a dramatic turn in the Philippines’ political landscape. Once a figure of formidable power and influence, he now faces the possibility of a high-profile international trial. His legal team’s strategy has centered on challenging his fitness to stand trial, a move that, if successful, could delay or even halt proceedings. However, the panel’s findings suggest that the court may soon decide otherwise.
The ICC’s handling of the case has been methodical. After the defense’s request for an indefinite adjournment, the court promptly set a deadline for the medical assessment, ensuring that the process would not be unduly delayed. The December 5 deadline for the submission of the medical report was a key milestone, and with the panel’s conclusion now in hand, all eyes are on the court’s next move.
On November 28, 2025, the ICC Appeals Chamber dealt another blow to Duterte’s defense by denying his appeal on the rejection of his request for interim release. This decision means that Duterte remains in custody as the court deliberates on his fitness to stand trial. The denial of interim release highlights the gravity with which the ICC views the charges and the potential flight risk or obstruction concerns associated with releasing a high-profile detainee.
The question of fitness to stand trial is not merely a legal technicality; it goes to the heart of the rights of the accused and the integrity of the judicial process. International courts are bound by strict standards to ensure that defendants are capable of understanding the proceedings and participating in their own defense. This is particularly crucial in cases involving elderly or infirm defendants, where health concerns can intersect with legal strategy.
For the Philippines, the ICC proceedings against Duterte have been a source of intense debate and division. Supporters of the former president argue that the charges are politically motivated and that the war on drugs was a necessary response to rampant crime and drug abuse. Critics, on the other hand, insist that accountability for alleged human rights abuses is essential, not only for the victims and their families but also for the rule of law.
Internationally, the case is being closely watched as a test of the ICC’s ability to hold powerful leaders to account. The court has faced criticism in the past for perceived delays and challenges in securing convictions, particularly against former heads of state. The Duterte case, with its high-profile defendant and contentious subject matter, has the potential to set important precedents for future prosecutions.
As January approaches, the stakes could hardly be higher. If the ICC determines that Duterte is fit to stand trial, proceedings could move forward swiftly, bringing years of investigation and preparation to a dramatic head. If the court finds otherwise, the case could be delayed indefinitely, raising questions about justice for the alleged victims and the effectiveness of international accountability mechanisms.
For now, Duterte’s fate hangs in the balance, with the eyes of the world—and particularly those of the Filipino people—fixed on The Hague. The ICC’s impending decision will not only determine the next chapter in Duterte’s legal saga but may also shape the future of international justice for years to come.
