In a landmark ruling that could reshape the accountability of former world leaders, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has rejected former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s challenge to its jurisdiction, clearing the way for a full trial on charges of crimes against humanity. The decision, delivered on October 23, 2025, by the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I, dismissed arguments from Duterte’s defense that the court lacked authority because the Philippines had withdrawn from the Rome Statute before the investigation formally began.
The judges’ 32-page decision, authored by Judges Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou, and María del Socorro Flores Liera, addressed one of the most contentious legal issues in the ongoing case. According to AP and the Inquirer, Duterte’s lawyers argued that because the Philippines left the ICC in March 2019—after a preliminary examination was announced but before a formal investigation was opened—the court could not prosecute him. However, the panel ruled that countries cannot “abuse” their right to withdraw from the Rome Statute by shielding individuals from justice for crimes already under consideration.
The ruling cited Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute, which makes clear that any investigation or proceeding already underway before a country’s withdrawal remains unaffected. “The matter that was already under consideration by the court was the allegations of crimes committed in the Philippines,” the court explained, emphasizing that the preliminary examination—initiated by then-ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in February 2018—was sufficient to keep the case within the court’s jurisdiction, regardless of the Philippines’ subsequent exit.
Prosecutors began examining the alleged crimes in February 2018, and Duterte’s government announced the country’s withdrawal from the ICC just one month later. The withdrawal became effective on March 16, 2019. Nevertheless, the ICC formally opened its investigation in 2021, covering alleged crimes committed between November 1, 2011—when Duterte was mayor of Davao City—and March 16, 2019, the day the withdrawal took effect.
Duterte, now 80, stands accused of involvement in thousands of extrajudicial killings during his infamous “war on drugs,” both as Davao mayor and as president. Death toll estimates during his presidency vary widely, with police reporting over 6,000 deaths and human rights groups claiming as many as 30,000. The ICC’s investigation seeks to determine the full scope of responsibility and to identify other possible perpetrators.
Nick Kaufman, Duterte’s lead lawyer, signaled that the defense would not back down. “Given that the matter was extensively litigated and adjudicated in the prosecution’s favor prior to the former President’s arrest, the defense anticipated this decision and will appeal it,” Kaufman told the Inquirer on Friday. The legal team had previously requested indefinite postponement of pretrial proceedings, arguing that Duterte was “not fit to stand trial” due to health concerns. Last month, judges postponed a pretrial hearing to consider these claims, but the court ultimately decided Duterte must remain in detention, citing him as a flight risk.
The ICC’s decision has far-reaching implications—not just for Duterte, but also for his alleged co-conspirators. According to Atty. Kristina Conti, an assistant to counsel at the ICC, the ruling means there is now an “80 percent chance that this case will proceed to trial.” She explained on ANC’s Dateline Philippines that the only remaining major issue is Duterte’s fitness to stand trial. If he is found unfit, he would be confined under ICC custody in a hospice, hospital, or care home, with his condition reassessed every 120 days. The case itself would not be dismissed, but simply archived, and Duterte would remain under ICC authority.
Conti also noted that the decision clears the way for arrest warrants against Duterte’s co-accused, including high-profile figures such as Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, long considered a key architect of the drug war. “The only remaining question is if [Duterte] is fit to stand trial but as to the investigation, well, this is an all clear signal for the investigation to continue with the determination of who are the other perpetrators of Duterte,” she told ANC. Conti predicted that “two, three years down the line, it will be several cases,” as the ICC continues to identify and prosecute other alleged perpetrators.
The ruling has been welcomed by advocates for victims and by political figures who have long pushed for accountability. Former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV and Bayan Muna chair Neri Colmenares, both of whom were instrumental in bringing the drug war cases to the ICC before the Philippines’ withdrawal, expressed hope that the decision would finally accelerate the start of Duterte’s trial. “From hereon, any move to delay the start of the trial would also be detrimental to the interest of Duterte since he would remain detained,” Trillanes said in a text message to the Inquirer. Colmenares added that the decision “practically destroyed the claim of the Dutertes that he was kidnapped,” and called on Duterte to “stop employing delaying tactics and instead allow the confirmation of charges and trial to push through. The families of the victims have long yearned for the justice which they were deprived of by [Duterte],” he said in a statement.
Other legal and political voices echoed these sentiments. Kristina Conti emphasized that, should Duterte be declared unfit to stand trial, the ICC would not simply let him go. “It will not let go of Duterte, let go of custody and will probably make arrangements for his institutionalization if that’s necessary,” she explained. Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima, a former justice secretary and senator who was jailed during Duterte’s administration on what she described as trumped-up drug charges, called the court’s decision “most welcome as it is most just.” De Lima, who as chair of the Commission on Human Rights initiated the first investigation into Duterte’s alleged death squads in Davao, remarked, “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.”
As the ICC moves forward, the next steps will center on Duterte’s health and capacity to participate in his own defense. The court’s procedures allow for regular reassessment, ensuring that proceedings are fair while not permitting indefinite delays. Meanwhile, the investigation continues to broaden, with the possibility of more arrests and prosecutions looming over Duterte’s former associates and officials.
The ICC’s firm stance on jurisdiction underscores a broader message: attempts by states to evade international accountability through legal maneuvers or withdrawal from treaties may not shield leaders from prosecution if crimes were already under review. For the families of those killed in the Philippine drug war, and for observers of international justice, the coming months in The Hague promise to be pivotal.
