The International Criminal Court (ICC) has firmly rejected a jurisdictional challenge brought by the defense team of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, clearing a significant hurdle in the ongoing case that accuses him of crimes against humanity tied to his bloody war on drugs. The ruling, delivered on October 23, 2025, by the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I, marks a pivotal moment in the years-long legal saga surrounding Duterte’s controversial anti-drug campaign—a campaign that, according to various estimates, left thousands dead and drew international condemnation.
Duterte, now 80 and detained in The Hague penitentiary, faces charges of murder and attempted murder for acts allegedly committed during his tenure as both mayor of Davao City and later as president of the Philippines. The ICC’s 32-page decision, signed by Judges Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou, and María del Socorro Flores Liera, dismissed the defense’s argument that the court had lost its authority to prosecute Duterte after the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019. According to Associated Press, the defense had contended that because the Philippines was no longer a member when the formal investigation began in 2021, the ICC’s jurisdiction did not extend to Duterte’s alleged crimes.
But the court was unpersuaded. As reported by MindaNews, the judges ruled that Article 127 of the Rome Statute must be interpreted to “balance the right of a state to withdraw from the Statute and the risk of a State using its right to withdraw to shield persons from the jurisdiction of the Court.” The decision emphasized that states cannot “abuse” their withdrawal rights to evade accountability for crimes already under consideration. The panel concluded that the ICC’s jurisdiction persists for acts committed while the Philippines was still a party to the Statute, specifically from November 1, 2011, to March 16, 2019.
Duterte’s legal team, led by Nicholas Kaufman, had argued that all procedural steps taken after the country’s withdrawal should be nullified. The defense maintained that “[n]o interpretation of Article 127(2) can trump the plain language of Article 12(2), which requires that, as a ‘pre-condition to the exercise of jurisdiction’, a State be contemporaneously a party to the Rome Statute.” Nevertheless, the court found that the preliminary examination—formally initiated by ICC prosecutors in February 2018—was sufficient to place the case “under consideration” before the Philippines’ withdrawal became effective. Thus, the jurisdictional regime “continues to apply to this case as if the Philippines were still a Party to the Statute,” the judges wrote.
This interpretation was bolstered by the Philippine government’s own actions after withdrawal. According to GMA Integrated News, even after the withdrawal became effective in March 2019, the Philippines continued to engage with the Court, including a request in November 2021 to defer the investigation and the arrest and surrender of Duterte to the ICC in March 2025. The court noted that such continued engagement “lends further support to the interpretation that the Court retained jurisdiction over the alleged crimes in this case.”
The ICC’s decision paves the way for a full-blown trial, a prospect welcomed by human rights advocates and some political figures in the Philippines. Representative Leila de Lima, a former human rights chair and vocal critic of Duterte, called the decision “most welcome as it is most just,” according to Inquirer.net. De Lima argued, “The sooner the trial, the better for all concerned, including Duterte himself who will be able to finally present his defense as he himself repeatedly said he will squarely face the accusations against him.” She predicted that any further appeal by Duterte to the ICC Appeals Chamber would be “a lost cause.”
During his years in office, Duterte became internationally known for his tough rhetoric and uncompromising stance on crime. Elected in 2016 on a promise to eradicate illegal drugs and corruption within “three to six months,” Duterte’s campaign quickly turned into a sweeping crackdown. Thousands of mostly poor Filipinos were killed, many without due process, often in police operations labeled as “Oplan Tokhang.” While police claimed the fatalities resulted from suspects “fighting back,” rights groups and ICC prosecutors maintain the true death toll is far higher than official figures suggest. The Philippine National Police have reported more than 6,000 deaths, but human rights organizations estimate the number could be as high as 30,000.
The ICC’s investigation covers alleged crimes from Duterte’s time as mayor of Davao City through his presidency, encompassing a period when the Philippines was still a party to the Rome Statute. The charges against Duterte, as disclosed by the ICC in September, include 49 incidents of murder and attempted murder—but the court noted “the actual scale of victimization during the charged period was significantly greater.”
Duterte’s health has emerged as a point of contention in the proceedings. Last month, ICC judges postponed a pretrial hearing over concerns about his ability to stand trial, after his lawyers argued he was “not fit to stand trial.” The court, however, decided Duterte must remain in detention, citing him as a flight risk, and assigned doctors to assess his health condition. The court had earlier rejected Duterte’s plea for interim release.
The Philippine Supreme Court has also weighed in, stating that the government is obligated to cooperate with the ICC under the same statute that governed its membership. This position, according to GMA Integrated News, reinforces the ICC’s jurisdiction and the country’s responsibilities, despite its withdrawal.
The legal back-and-forth over jurisdiction is not just a technical battle—it goes to the heart of the ICC’s ability to pursue justice when powerful figures seek to evade accountability by exploiting legal loopholes. The court’s latest decision underscores its commitment to ensuring that withdrawal from the Rome Statute cannot be used as a shield against prosecution for crimes already under investigation. As the judges wrote, “It also guarantees that the right of a State to withdraw from the Statute is respected, while ensuring that it is not able to abuse that right by shielding persons from justice in relation to alleged crimes that are already under consideration by the Court in a manner that undermines the object and purpose of the Statute.”
With the jurisdictional challenge now rejected, attention turns to the looming trial. Duterte continues to deny all charges of crimes against humanity, and his defense is expected to pursue further appeals. Yet, as Representative de Lima and many observers note, the legal avenues for evading trial are narrowing rapidly. The ICC’s decision is not just a procedural milestone—it’s a signal that, even for the most powerful, justice may yet catch up.