The International Criminal Court (ICC) has firmly rejected attempts by former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s legal team to use political statements from current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as grounds to overturn a crucial jurisdiction ruling in the ongoing case concerning alleged crimes against humanity. The decision, announced on October 23, 2025, by the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I, marks a significant moment in the international legal proceedings that have gripped the Philippines and drawn global attention to the country’s controversial war on drugs.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the ICC retains authority to prosecute Duterte for actions taken during his presidency, despite the Philippines’ formal withdrawal from the Rome Statute—the treaty that established the ICC—in 2019. Duterte’s defense team has consistently argued that the court lost all jurisdiction over the country after its withdrawal became effective, a position they hoped would be bolstered by President Marcos Jr.’s repeated public statements refusing to cooperate with the tribunal. Yet, as Malacañang Palace made clear in a public briefing on October 26, 2025, such political pronouncements carry no legal weight in the eyes of the ICC.
"The ICC will issue its decision, order, or resolution based on the Rome Statute, and it will not be guided by political statements," stated Palace press officer Claire Castro during the 47th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, according to ABS-CBN. She added, "So, if such statements are used, it will depend on how the ICC evaluates them. But as far as we are concerned, the ICC does not follow or allow itself to be influenced by any political statements." The message from Malacañang was clear: legal proceedings at the international level are insulated from national political rhetoric, no matter how forceful or high-profile.
The ICC’s October 23 decision specifically addressed the arguments put forth by Duterte’s lawyers, who had claimed that the court’s investigation—launched in September 2021—occurred two years after the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute, and thus should not apply. However, the Pre-Trial Chamber I judges pointed to Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute, which stipulates that a country’s withdrawal does not affect ongoing investigations or proceedings that began prior to the withdrawal’s effective date. This provision, the judges noted, was actually cited by Duterte’s own defense as the basis for their challenge, but in the end, it undercut their claim.
Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute is explicit: a state party’s withdrawal “shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.” Furthermore, any issues “under consideration by the Court” before the country’s exit remain unaffected. This legal framework ensures that states cannot escape accountability for alleged crimes committed while they were members simply by withdrawing from the treaty.
The case against Duterte centers on his administration’s infamous war on drugs, a campaign that began in 2016 and resulted in thousands of deaths, many among the country’s poorest communities. Human rights groups and international observers have long decried the campaign as a violation of basic rights, and the ICC’s investigation focuses on three counts of murder as crimes against humanity. The pre-trial chamber’s decision to reject the jurisdictional challenge now paves the way for a possible full trial, should the charges be confirmed during pretrial hearings.
Duterte’s defense team, led by counsel Nicholas Kaufmann, has not backed down. They have filed an appeal, arguing that President Marcos Jr.’s public stance—specifically, his repeated statements since taking office that the Philippines would not rejoin or cooperate with the ICC—reinforces their position that the court lacks jurisdiction. Yet, as ABS-CBN and Inquirer.net report, the ICC’s process is rooted in international law, not shifting political winds. The court’s independence is meant to safeguard the integrity of its investigations and protect them from external influence, whether from national leaders or changing governments.
Despite the Philippine government’s stated refusal to cooperate, the legal machinery has moved forward. On March 11, 2025, former President Duterte was arrested by operatives from the Philippine National Police and the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) acting on a warrant issued by the ICC. This dramatic development underscored the seriousness of the charges and the international community’s commitment to enforcing the court’s mandates, even in the face of political resistance.
The case has sparked intense debate within the Philippines and across the region. Supporters of Duterte argue that the war on drugs was a necessary, if controversial, step to combat rampant crime and drug trafficking, and they view the ICC’s involvement as an infringement on national sovereignty. Critics, meanwhile, see the court’s actions as a long-overdue reckoning for what they describe as widespread extrajudicial killings and abuses of power. President Marcos Jr.’s position—refusing to rejoin the ICC or cooperate with its investigations—reflects a broader tension between national self-determination and international accountability.
Legal experts note that the ICC’s reliance on the Rome Statute, rather than political statements, is essential for the court’s legitimacy. If international justice were subject to the changing declarations of national leaders, the entire system would risk collapse. As Claire Castro put it, “the ICC does not follow or allow itself to be influenced by any political statements.” This principle is especially important in cases involving crimes against humanity, where the stakes are high and the potential for political interference is ever-present.
The next steps in the case remain uncertain. Duterte’s appeal is pending, but the ICC’s October 23 ruling has set a strong precedent: withdrawal from the Rome Statute does not provide immunity for actions taken while a country was a member. The pre-trial hearings will determine whether the charges of murder proceed to a full trial, a process that could take months or even years to resolve.
For many Filipinos, the outcome of the case will have profound implications—not just for Duterte and his administration, but for the country’s relationship with international law and its standing in the global community. The ICC’s insistence on legal principles over political posturing sends a powerful message about the enduring importance of accountability, even in a world where national politics often seem to dominate the headlines.
As the legal process unfolds, one thing is clear: the intersection of international law and national politics is as complex—and as consequential—as ever. The ICC’s decision to stand firm on its jurisdiction, regardless of political statements, will shape both the future of the Duterte case and the broader struggle for justice in the Philippines.
