Today : Oct 16, 2025
World News
11 October 2025

ICC Rejects Duterte Release Amid Political Uproar

Court cites flight risk and family influence as it denies former Philippine president’s bid for liberty, intensifying debate over accountability for drug war killings.

On September 26, 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber I delivered a stinging blow to former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s legal team, denying his request for temporary release from detention in The Hague. The decision, publicly released on October 10, 2025, has set off a political firestorm in the Philippines, igniting passionate responses from Duterte’s family, legal counsel, and victims’ advocates alike, and thrusting the country’s divisive war on drugs and its enduring political dynasties back into the global spotlight.

Duterte, now 80 years old, has been held at the Hague Penitentiary Institution since his dramatic arrest in Manila on March 11, 2025, after returning from Hong Kong. The arrest followed a warrant issued by the ICC on March 7, 2025, charging him with crimes against humanity—including murder and frustrated murder—over 49 incidents linked to the bloody anti-drug campaign he led as both mayor of Davao City and president of the Philippines. According to government records, more than 6,000 people were killed in police operations during Duterte’s war on drugs, but human rights organizations estimate the true toll may reach as high as 30,000 due to unreported incidents, as reported by GMA Integrated News.

The 23-page ICC ruling, issued by Presiding Judge Iulia Antonnella Motoc, Judge Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou, and Judge María del Socorro Flores Liera, found that the conditions justifying Duterte’s detention under Article 58 of the Rome Statute remain firmly in place. The Chamber cited three principal reasons for denying release: ensuring Duterte’s appearance at trial, protecting the integrity of ongoing proceedings, and preventing the possible continuation of crimes under investigation. The court dismissed claims by Duterte’s defense that his deteriorating health and supposed cognitive decline warranted humanitarian release, stating that the evidence presented failed to overcome the legal threshold. "The defense’s medical evidence was inconsistent and lacked independent verification," the judges wrote, finding no basis to conclude that Duterte’s physical or cognitive condition rendered detention unnecessary, according to The Manila Times.

Prosecutors argued that Duterte’s open rejection of the ICC’s jurisdiction, his repeated characterization of his arrest as “kidnapping,” and the continued public defiance of his family—including Vice President Sara Duterte—demonstrated a real risk that he might attempt to evade justice or obstruct proceedings. Their case was bolstered by Duterte’s own words and actions, as well as those of his family. On July 19, 2025, Vice President Sara Duterte, herself a lawyer, made public speeches mentioning the idea of breaking her father out of ICC detention and attempted to delegitimize the court’s proceedings by alleging collusion between the ICC and the Philippine government, and the use of “fake witnesses.” The Chamber noted that these statements were not only defiant but also undermined the defense’s assertion that Duterte would comply with any conditions of release. In August, Sara Duterte further stated that her father "wished to return" to Davao City if granted temporary liberty, contradicting claims that he would remain under the jurisdiction of a cooperating state. The ICC judges concluded, "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."

These remarks did not escape the attention of critics back home. Raymond “Mong” Palatino, secretary general of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), sarcastically thanked the Vice President for her candor, which the court cited in its decision. "She is a lawyer. She knows that her statements could be used by the court… but her arrogance and sense of entitlement prevailed that she felt she could say whatever she wanted to say just to be able to flex and project their (family’s) political influence," Palatino said at a press conference, as reported by Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Meanwhile, Davao City 1st District Representative Paolo “Pulong” Duterte, the former president’s son, lashed out at the ICC’s ruling, branding it as “political theater” and a “gross and disgraceful miscarriage of justice.” In a Facebook post, Pulong Duterte insisted, "My father, an 80 year old man, who is no longer in power has been in fact a subject of political persecution in his own country since he stepped down…he is definitely not a flight risk, he does not need it, he is much loved in his own country that he would have wanted nothing more but to stay there for as long as his creator permit him." He further vowed, "To all kidnappers of my father I will make sure that you will pay for this crime that you have committed. To the CIA who connived in this criminal act, my father's kidnapping will not silence him. As a matter of fact, you might just have helped in making him a martyr."

Lead counsel Nicholas Kaufman echoed the family’s outrage, stating that the defense had already filed an appeal against the interim release decision approximately a week before October 10, 2025. Kaufman described the court’s refusal to consider "unprecedented State guarantees for a debilitated and cognitively-impaired 80 year-old" as "erroneous." He argued that Duterte’s limited mobility and cognitive impairment made it impossible for him to abscond or interfere with witnesses, and that residence in a cooperating state would ensure his availability for trial while removing him from the Philippines, where he was accused of intimidating witnesses.

However, the prosecution and the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) maintained that Duterte’s detention was not only justified but necessary. They pointed to his reelection as mayor of Davao City in May 2025, warning that this returned him to the very position that allegedly enabled the crimes under investigation. The OPCV argued that releasing Duterte would endanger witnesses and victims, and that his influence could still be exercised through allies and family members even from abroad. Atty. Kristina Conti, ICC Assistant to Counsel, praised the decision, saying it affirms that the former president’s continued detention "is still necessary." She added, "The judges have clearly listened to all parties, and most especially the victims, in its decision-making. We are relieved that this shows a fair amount of trust and respect for victims, often overlooked in international law, and a balanced consideration of arguments of the suspect/accused."

The ICC’s ruling comes as the court prepares for the crucial confirmation of charges hearing, a step that will determine whether Duterte will face a full trial for his alleged role in the extrajudicial killings that defined his administration’s war on drugs. While Duterte has denied all allegations, insisting the charges are politically motivated, the families of those killed continue to press for justice. Many victims’ advocates see the ICC proceedings as a rare source of hope in the face of what they describe as persistent impunity in the Philippines. As Atty. Conti put it at a recent forum, "The ICC case against Rodrigo Duterte appears to be, if not one of the rays of hope, it seems to be the only ray of hope against impunity in the Philippines."

With the appeal now in motion and passions running high on all sides, the world is watching closely to see whether the wheels of international justice will grind toward accountability—or if, as Duterte’s supporters argue, the process is simply another act in a long-running political drama. The ICC’s decision, for now, keeps Duterte behind bars and the debate over his legacy—and the future of the Philippines—very much alive.