International Criminal Court (ICC) judges have rejected a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction in the closely watched case against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, marking a pivotal moment in the international quest for accountability over the country’s brutal war on drugs. The decision, delivered on October 24, 2025, by a pretrial panel in The Hague, paves the way for proceedings to continue against the 80-year-old former leader, who stands accused of crimes against humanity linked to thousands of killings during his time in office.
According to reporting from the Associated Press, Duterte’s defense team had argued that the ICC lacked authority to pursue the case. Their reasoning? The Philippines had officially withdrawn from the court before prosecutors opened a formal investigation into the alleged crimes. But the judges were unpersuaded, dismissing the motion in a detailed 32-page ruling. The court made it clear that countries cannot "abuse" their right to withdraw from the Rome Statute "by shielding persons from justice in relation to alleged crimes that are already under consideration."
The roots of the case stretch back to Duterte’s years as mayor of Davao City and later as president. The ICC’s charges span from November 1, 2011, when Duterte was still mayor, to March 16, 2019, the date when the Philippines’ withdrawal from the court became effective. Prosecutors first announced a preliminary investigation in February 2018 into the deadly crackdown that had drawn international condemnation. Just a month later, Duterte, then president, declared the country’s intention to leave the ICC—a move that human rights activists widely interpreted as an attempt to evade accountability for the wave of extrajudicial killings that characterized his anti-drug campaign.
Despite the Philippines’ withdrawal, the ICC pressed forward. The formal investigation was opened in 2021, after appeals judges ruled that the proceedings could continue because the alleged crimes had occurred while the Philippines was still a member of the court. The ICC’s position has been firm: membership status at the time of the alleged offenses is what matters, not whether a country subsequently leaves the court. As the judges put it in their ruling, countries cannot simply walk away from their obligations under the Rome Statute to shield individuals from prosecution for serious international crimes.
Duterte’s legal team, led by Nick Kaufman, has vowed to keep fighting. "The defense anticipated this decision and will appeal it," Kaufman told the Associated Press. The defense maintains that the ICC is overstepping its authority, arguing that Philippine authorities have already investigated the same allegations and that, as a court of last resort, the ICC should defer.
This isn’t the first time the Duterte camp has tried to halt the ICC’s investigation. In late 2021, his administration argued that the global court lacked jurisdiction because the Philippines was already conducting its own probes. That argument didn’t hold up, either. Appeals judges at the ICC rejected it in 2023, ruling that the investigation could move ahead. The court found that domestic investigations had not been sufficient to address the scale and gravity of the alleged crimes, thus justifying the ICC’s involvement.
The scope of the case is staggering. The ICC is investigating mass killings linked to Duterte’s anti-drug operations, both during his time as mayor and as president. Official Philippine National Police figures put the death toll at more than 6,000, but human rights organizations estimate the true number could be as high as 30,000. The campaign, which began in 2016, was marked by widespread reports of extrajudicial executions, many of which targeted the urban poor. Families of victims and advocacy groups have long demanded justice, alleging that police and vigilantes operated with impunity under Duterte’s orders.
In March 2025, Duterte was arrested and transferred to The Hague, where he has remained in detention. The court determined that he posed a flight risk and should not be released while proceedings are ongoing. Last month, judges postponed a pretrial hearing due to concerns about Duterte’s health. His lawyers requested an indefinite delay, asserting that their client is "not fit to stand trial." The court, however, has not granted an open-ended postponement, signaling its intent to keep the process moving forward despite the former president’s age and reported health issues.
Duterte has consistently denied the charges, maintaining that his administration’s anti-drug campaign was a legitimate law enforcement effort. He and his supporters have argued that the crackdown was necessary to combat rampant drug-related crime and that the ICC’s intervention is an infringement on Philippine sovereignty. "We are a sovereign nation. We have our own laws and our own justice system," Duterte said in previous statements, echoing a sentiment shared by some segments of the Philippine public and political establishment.
On the other side, human rights advocates have welcomed the ICC’s persistence. They argue that domestic avenues for justice have been exhausted, with few officials held accountable for the wave of killings. For many, the ICC represents the last hope for justice for the victims and their families. "This ruling is a victory for accountability and a clear message that no one is above the law," said a spokesperson for a leading human rights organization, as reported by Upworthy.
The case has also sparked debate within the Philippines about the country’s relationship with international institutions. Some lawmakers and legal experts argue that continued engagement with the ICC is essential for upholding human rights standards, while others see it as an affront to national sovereignty. The issue has become a political flashpoint, with Duterte’s allies accusing the court of politicization and bias, and his critics insisting that international scrutiny is necessary given the scale of the alleged abuses.
As the legal battle continues, the eyes of the world remain fixed on The Hague. Duterte’s upcoming appeal is expected to test the limits of international law and the reach of the ICC. For now, the court’s message is clear: attempts to withdraw or obstruct justice will not prevent accountability for serious international crimes. Whether that message leads to a conviction—and what impact it will have on the Philippines’ future approach to human rights—remains to be seen.
The ICC’s decision to reject the jurisdiction challenge marks a watershed moment for international justice. It underscores the principle that membership in the Rome Statute carries lasting obligations, and that accountability for grave crimes cannot be sidestepped by political maneuvering. For the victims of the drug war and their families, it’s a sign that, however slow, the wheels of justice are still turning.
