The legal and humanitarian fate of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has become a focal point of national and international debate, as calls for his release from International Criminal Court (ICC) detention intensify amid mounting concerns over his health and the cultural values of his homeland. In a week marked by passionate appeals and procedural wrangling, the question of whether Duterte should remain in ICC custody in The Hague or be allowed to return home on humanitarian grounds has drawn in lawmakers, local officials, legal experts, and civic groups—each with their own urgent priorities and perspectives.
According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) submitted a 14-page filing to the ICC on October 8, 2025, urging the court to deny Duterte’s request for an “indefinite adjournment” of legal proceedings against him. The defense had argued that Duterte, now 80 years old, is unfit to stand trial due to cognitive deficiencies, including an inability to recall events, places, and even close family members or members of his legal team. His legal counsel, Nicholas Kaufman, emphasized these health concerns in communications with the court. However, Principal Counsel Paolina Massidda, representing victims, countered that the defense’s evidence did not meet the threshold required for such a sweeping stay of proceedings.
"The documents submitted by the defense do not suffice to warrant it. However, the concerns raised by the defense and the submission of medical records of Mr. Duterte give rise to the need for further investigation into the suspect’s state of health, ability to exercise his rights, and the prospects of the consequences of his condition (if confirmed) in the near and more distant future," Massidda wrote. She recommended that independent experts be appointed by the chamber to urgently assess Duterte’s health, arguing that such a step would avoid unnecessary delays and serve the interests of justice for both victims and the accused.
While Massidda did not oppose the alternative proposal to hold a status conference—where parties could discuss expert instructions and scheduling—she was adamant that an indefinite adjournment would be premature and unjustified. "Hearing the parties and participants’ submissions with respect to specific instructions to an expert (or experts) appointed by the chamber and discussing scheduling matters at a status conference may significantly expedite the procedure, which is squarely in the interests of victims and of paramount concern to the interests of justice overall," she stated in the filing.
Duterte’s detention at the ICC dates back to March 12, 2025, when he was taken into custody in The Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity. These charges stem from his administration’s notorious anti-drug campaign, Oplan Tokhang, which, according to official government figures, resulted in at least 6,000 deaths. Human rights groups, however, contend that the true toll may be as high as 20,000, citing widespread extrajudicial killings and the lack of due process for many victims.
Back in Duterte’s hometown of Davao City, the response has been both emotional and resolute. As reported by the Manila Bulletin, the Davao City Council passed a third resolution on September 30, 2025, calling for the former president’s release on humanitarian grounds. Councilor Danilo Dayanghirang, who chairs the council’s Finance, Ways and Means, and Appropriations Committee, has been a vocal advocate for Duterte’s return. Speaking at a public forum on October 7, Dayanghirang underscored the council’s position: "Our proposition is simple: Just bring former President Duterte home. Whether house or hospital arrest, we leave it to the ICC. What matters most is that the former Chief Executive can return home."
The call for release gained urgency after reports emerged that Duterte had collapsed inside the ICC detention center in The Hague, with his family allegedly not being immediately informed. Dayanghirang, in a privilege speech, decried what he saw as a disregard for Filipino cultural values, particularly the deep respect and care traditionally afforded to elders. "He collapsed, and even his own family was not informed. It is alarming to see him abandoned as if he were nothing, despite not being convicted of any crime," he lamented.
The councilor further argued that Duterte, given his age and frail health, poses no flight risk. "He can barely travel anywhere," Dayanghirang said, adding that the former president has repeatedly expressed a desire to return to Davao City. The council’s resolution, which was transmitted to both the ICC and Duterte’s legal counsel, emphasized the importance of caring for elders—a value Dayanghirang claimed distinguishes Filipino society from others. "In our culture, we care for our grandparents and older parents. We are not like other countries, we make sure someone looks after them," he said.
Similar resolutions had been approved by the council on March 25 and July 15, urging both the ICC and the Philippine Senate to act. The Senate itself approved a resolution on October 1, 2025, calling for Duterte’s release, though it notably did not specify that he be allowed to return to the Philippines. On June 12, Duterte’s defense team had also appealed for his interim release to an undisclosed third country willing to host him, but this too failed to sway the court.
Yet, as reported by Politiko and the Abante-Bilyonaryo Group on October 9, 2025, the ICC has made it clear that Duterte will not be granted interim release, citing the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC as a critical factor. Since the Philippines is no longer a member state, the court has ruled that Duterte cannot be sent back to the Philippines while legal proceedings are ongoing. This decision effectively blocks the hopes of Davao’s city council, the Senate, and Duterte’s supporters for a homecoming—at least for the foreseeable future.
For many in Davao City, the continued detention of their former mayor and president is seen as not just a legal matter, but a deeply personal and cultural affront. Dayanghirang has argued that Duterte’s absence deprives 1.8 million Davao residents of their right to have their chosen leader among them. "We elected him as the city’s mayor. People should always respect the election," he asserted, further emphasizing the sovereignty of the Philippine justice system.
On the other side, victims’ advocates and human rights organizations maintain that justice for the thousands killed in the anti-drug campaign must not be delayed or derailed. They argue that Duterte’s alleged crimes are of such gravity that international legal scrutiny is essential, especially given longstanding concerns about impunity and the capacity of the Philippine justice system to hold powerful figures to account.
The impasse now rests with the ICC, which must weigh the competing imperatives of justice, due process, humanitarian concerns, and international legal precedent. As the legal proceedings continue, the world watches closely, aware that the outcome will have profound implications not only for Duterte and his supporters, but for the global pursuit of accountability in cases of alleged state-sponsored violence.
For now, former President Duterte remains in The Hague, his legal fate uncertain and his health under scrutiny, as the Philippines grapples with the complex legacy of his years in power and the enduring question of how to balance justice, compassion, and sovereignty on the world stage.