Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte’s legal saga before the International Criminal Court (ICC) has taken yet another dramatic turn, with proceedings currently paused as judges weigh his fitness to stand trial. The story, which has gripped the Philippines and the international legal community, is a complex tapestry of legal maneuvering, human rights advocacy, and high-stakes political drama—one that continues to unfold with every new filing and decision from The Hague.
Duterte was arrested on March 11, 2025, at Manila’s international airport, following the execution of an ICC warrant over his deadly war on drugs. According to government data, that campaign resulted in more than 6,000 deaths, though rights watchdogs estimate the true toll exceeded 30,000, with most victims coming from low-income communities. The ICC has charged Duterte with crimes against humanity, a single but grave accusation stemming from his years as mayor of Davao City and later as president of the Philippines.
But the path to justice, if that’s what this is, has not been straightforward. On September 16, 2025, Duterte’s defense team renewed its plea to the ICC for his interim release, pending a tribunal decision on whether the 80-year-old former leader is fit to stand trial. The defense, led by British-Israeli lawyer Nicholas Kaufman, argued that Duterte’s right to liberty should not be suppressed by what they called “administrative delay.” In a five-page filing, the defense stated, “Administrative delay, occasioned by [REDACTED], cannot justify the abrogation of liberty. Provisional release should be ordered as soon as continuing detention ceases to be reasonable.”
The defense’s request follows the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I’s decision to postpone the confirmation of charges hearing, which had been set for September 23, 2025. The Chamber agreed to a limited adjournment, strictly to determine whether Duterte is fit to follow and participate in the pre-trial proceedings. While the defense sought an indefinite pause on all legal matters, citing Duterte’s health, the Chamber made clear that any delay would be “limited to the time strictly necessary” for such a determination.
The prosecution, led by ICC Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan KC and Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang, has pushed back against the defense’s claims. Khan, who took office in June 2021 and has a résumé spanning the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the UN Investigative Team on ISIS crimes, is no stranger to high-profile cases. His deputy, Niang, brings similar gravitas, having served in numerous judicial and legal roles in Senegal and international tribunals.
In the prosecution’s view, Duterte’s reported health issues—particularly memory loss—do not, at least not yet, establish that he is unfit for trial. Deputy Prosecutor Niang has called for a second medical opinion from an expert of the prosecution’s choosing, arguing that such a reassessment is necessary to determine Duterte’s actual capacity to participate. The prosecution also emphasized that while a temporary delay may be warranted, the confirmation of charges hearing should proceed before the end of the year. “The release of Mr. Duterte would provide him with greater access to his associates and family who are actively attempting to interfere with the proceedings against him, including through [REDACTED],” the prosecution added, underscoring their concern about possible interference from Duterte’s circle—including Vice President Sara Duterte.
For its part, the defense maintains that interim release would not hinder any aspect of the proceedings, including the ongoing fitness assessment. Kaufman assured the court that an unnamed country has agreed to host Duterte under any conditions the ICC might impose. “Mr Duterte’s release while litigation on fitness is underway would ensure a proper balance between a suspect’s rights under the [Rome] Statute while respecting the efficiency and integrity of the proceedings,” the defense stated.
Legal teams on both sides are formidable. Kaufman, Duterte’s lead counsel, boasts a law degree from the University of Cambridge and a career that includes prosecutorial and defense roles in international tribunals. He previously represented Darfuri victims in the ICC’s case against former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Dov Jacobs, appointed associate defense counsel on April 7, 2025, holds academic credentials from King’s College London, Panthéon-Sorbonne University, and the European University Institute, and has advised on international criminal law and human rights across several continents.
On the victims’ side, representation is still coming into focus. As of September 8, 2025, no common legal representative for the 303 drug war victims seeking to participate in the pre-trial proceedings had been appointed, but one is expected before any rescheduled hearing. ICC Assistant to Counsel Kristina Conti, based in Manila, has been active in supporting victims and explained that the selection process is ongoing. “The names nominated by the victims in their application forms will be screened and processed by the registry to determine who the victims are selecting as their representative,” Conti told GMA News Online. She also noted that many victims hope a Filipino lawyer will be part of the legal team, to better understand their perspectives and experiences.
Conti herself is a prominent figure in Philippine legal circles, with a background in journalism and law from the University of the Philippines. She has worked on high-profile cases involving political prisoners and victims of extrajudicial killings, and currently serves as secretary-general of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers - National Capital Region. Her advocacy extends to several organizations focused on civil liberties and human rights, and she has expressed willingness to serve as a common legal representative for the victims in the ICC case.
The ICC’s procedures for victim representation are designed to ensure fairness and efficiency. If victims fail to appoint a representative, the ICC Registrar may do so, and dissatisfied victims can request a judicial review of the appointment. Counsels and assistants to counsels, such as Conti, are “free agents,” not formal ICC staff but accredited to appear before the court. “Any lawyer in the world who qualifies can be registered, and there are some 1,500 in total,” Conti explained.
The stakes in this case are enormous—not just for Duterte, but for the Philippines and the broader international community. The ICC’s Rome Statute has 125 state parties, with only Argentina and Belgium having signed cooperation agreements on interim release. The Philippines, notably, withdrew from the ICC in 2019, but the court maintains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was still a member.
As the legal wrangling continues and the world watches, the fate of Rodrigo Duterte—and the broader reckoning with the Philippines’ war on drugs—hangs in the balance. The ICC’s next moves will be closely scrutinized by human rights advocates, legal experts, and political observers alike, as the search for justice proceeds, step by painstaking step.
