Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte will remain in detention at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, following a decisive ruling by the court’s Pre-Trial Chamber I. The three-judge panel unanimously rejected Duterte’s request for interim release, emphasizing that his continued detention is necessary to ensure his presence at trial and to prevent any interference with the ongoing proceedings or potential continuation of alleged crimes. The ruling, made public on October 10, 2025, comes as a significant setback for the ex-leader, who faces grave charges of crimes against humanity stemming from his controversial war on drugs.
Duterte, who was arrested in Manila on March 11, 2025, and transported to The Hague the same day, has been held at the ICC detention facility ever since. According to Reuters and the Philippine Daily Inquirer, his legal team had argued for his temporary release on humanitarian grounds, citing his advanced age, frail health, and what they described as a deteriorating condition in detention. However, the court found their arguments unconvincing and insufficient to outweigh the very real risks posed by Duterte’s release.
The ICC’s 23-page ruling, issued on September 26 and released to the public weeks later, detailed the reasons behind the decision. The judges cited Duterte’s history of threatening witnesses and the enduring political influence wielded not only by the former president himself but also by his family members. This influence, they argued, could facilitate Duterte’s escape from justice or even allow him to continue to obstruct or endanger the investigation. The court noted that his daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, had publicly discussed the possibility of breaking her father out of the ICC detention center and had attempted to delegitimize the court’s proceedings by alleging collusion and the use of “fake witnesses.”
“The foregoing illustrates Mr. Duterte’s rejection of the proceedings against him before the court, and the will of his close family to help him elude detention and prosecution,” the chamber stated in its ruling, as reported by the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The court further highlighted that Duterte’s political contacts, network of support, and the fact that his children continue to hold positions of power in the Philippines amplify the risk that he could abscond if released. In fact, despite being detained in The Hague, Duterte secured a victory in the most recent Davao City mayoral election, and his son Sebastian “Baste” Duterte was elected vice mayor, underscoring the family’s enduring reach.
The court also addressed the defense’s claims regarding Duterte’s health, including alleged cognitive impairment. The judges concluded that the evidence provided by his legal team was speculative and failed to demonstrate that his physical or mental health issues negated the risks previously identified. The chamber noted that Duterte has access to appropriate medical care at the detention facility, including a qualified medical officer with psychiatric experience and round-the-clock nursing staff. “Nothing in the request indicates that this would not be sufficient to ensure that Mr. Duterte receives the appropriate medical attention and care in detention,” the chamber wrote.
Humanitarian arguments, too, were dismissed. The defense had referenced prior ICC decisions involving provisional releases for humanitarian reasons, but the court found these examples inapplicable. In those rare cases, releases were granted for no more than 24 hours and always under strict court supervision, typically for exceptional circumstances such as attending a family member’s funeral. Duterte’s situation, the judges concluded, did not meet this high threshold. Age alone, they said, was not enough to justify interim release, particularly in the absence of compelling evidence that detention was causing undue harm.
The ICC’s decision was welcomed by supporters of the victims of Duterte’s bloody anti-drug campaign, as well as by human rights advocates who have long argued that the former president and his associates retain the capacity to intimidate witnesses and undermine international justice. Kristina Conti, a lawyer with the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) representing some of the victims’ families, told the Philippine Daily Inquirer, “We are relieved that this shows a fair amount of trust and respect for victims, often overlooked in international law.” She added that while the decision was reassuring, it also served as a stark reminder of the Dutertes’ ongoing influence in Philippine politics.
Other advocates echoed these sentiments. Cristina Palabay of the rights group Karapatan told the Philippine Daily Inquirer that Duterte’s family and associates still possess the resources and connections necessary to “undermine the ICC and go after witnesses and victims.” Bayan Muna Chair Neri Colmenares argued that the ruling should embolden victims’ families to participate in the ICC proceedings, saying, “This decision shows that to some extent international justice mechanisms work, even when domestic institutions fail. It gives hope to the families who have been fighting for years, often at great personal risk, to hold the perpetrators accountable.”
Duterte, for his part, has consistently rejected the legitimacy of the ICC’s investigation and prosecution. Since his arrest, both he and his family have characterized the proceedings as “a pure and simple kidnapping” and have called for his immediate return to the Philippines. The court took note of these statements, as well as Vice President Sara Duterte’s public assertion that her father “wished to return” to Davao City if granted conditional liberty—an apparent contradiction of the defense’s claim that Duterte would remain in the country of his release.
In a message to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Duterte’s lead lawyer Nicholas Kaufman confirmed that the defense had appealed the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision to the ICC Appeals Chamber. “Were this a conventional domestic court—with more than one active first instance case in its docket—I believe that there would have been no hesitation to release an 80-year-old sick and debilitated man, kept from the public for more than half a year, and for whom unprecedented State guarantees had been provided,” Kaufman argued. He criticized what he described as the undue influence of civil society lawyers and expressed hope that the Appeals Chamber would overturn the ruling.
For now, however, the ICC’s decision stands. The court’s ruling underscores the seriousness of the charges against Duterte, who is accused of masterminding and rewarding the extrajudicial killings of suspected drug offenders during his term as president and, previously, as mayor of Davao City. The Pre-Trial Chamber made clear that releasing Duterte would not only risk his flight but could also endanger witnesses and the integrity of the ongoing proceedings.
As the ICC’s process continues, the world will be watching to see whether international justice can deliver accountability where domestic mechanisms have struggled. For many in the Philippines and beyond, the court’s latest decision is a rare sign that powerful figures can, indeed, be held to account—no matter how influential they remain.