In a dramatic series of developments at the International Criminal Court (ICC), the panel tasked with evaluating former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s fitness to stand trial has seen not one, but two neuropsychologists ousted in quick succession. The shakeup, detailed in decisions released throughout November 2025, throws a spotlight on the court’s efforts to ensure impartiality and professionalism in one of its most closely watched cases—Duterte’s prosecution for alleged crimes against humanity committed during his controversial war on drugs.
According to reports from Cebu Daily News and Inquirer, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a decision on November 3, 2025, revoking the appointment of a male neuropsychologist who had been selected as a replacement for an original panel member. The reason? The doctor’s social media activity from 2024, which Duterte’s defense team argued was “sickeningly offensive” and incompatible with the independence, professionalism, and impartiality expected of an ICC expert. The chamber agreed, finding the posts “objectively incompatible” with the duties required before the court.
This wasn’t the first time the expert panel had been forced to reshuffle. The original neuropsychologist, a woman, was removed after it emerged she was under suspension from her medical practice by an unidentified professional regulatory body. The defense had flagged her ongoing suspension and the court concurred, stating that her “failure to inform the Registry thereof” made it “inappropriate and impossible” for her to remain on the team. The court added that retaining her would have led to further litigation, delaying the timely resolution of Duterte’s fitness to stand trial.
As GMA Integrated News reported, the ICC Registry was directed to revoke both ousted experts’ access to any confidential documents they may have received, emphasizing the need to safeguard sensitive information. The court reminded both doctors that any information they had accessed remained confidential and must not be disclosed.
With two panelists removed in succession, the ICC moved quickly to address the vacancies. The chamber suggested another specialist to fill the neuropsychologist role and instructed the Registry to admit the new doctor to the court’s list of accredited experts by October 24, 2025. The expert panel now includes a neurologist, a forensic psychiatrist, and a neuropsychologist, all tasked with examining Duterte’s mental faculties to determine his ability to participate in legal proceedings. The deadline for the panel to submit their joint or individual reports was extended to December 5, 2025, giving all parties—defense, prosecution, and the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV)—until December 12 to file their observations.
The ICC’s handling of the expert appointments has not been without criticism. The Pre-Trial Chamber I explicitly rebuked the Registry, the administrative arm of the court, urging it to “revise its working methods” after failing to identify relevant information about the experts that could have affected the integrity of the case. The court’s call for improved vetting procedures underscores the high stakes and public scrutiny surrounding the Duterte proceedings.
At the heart of the matter is Duterte himself, now 80 years old and detained at Scheveningen Prison in The Hague. He faces three counts of murder as crimes against humanity, linked to at least 49 killings according to the charges. The allegations stem from the thousands of deaths that occurred during Duterte’s anti-drug campaign when he served as both President and mayor of Davao City. Police records cite around 6,000 extrajudicial killings, but human rights organizations contend the real number could be as high as 30,000, including vigilante-style murders.
Duterte’s legal team has argued that he lacks the cognitive capacity required to mount a defense, requesting that pre-trial proceedings be suspended indefinitely. The court, however, has indicated it will only consider that request after reviewing the findings from the newly reconstituted medical panel. The outcome of these medical assessments could have significant implications—not only for Duterte’s trial, but also for the broader pursuit of accountability for alleged abuses during his administration.
The case has also drawn in other prominent figures. On November 8, 2025, Philippine Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla announced that the ICC had issued a warrant for Senator Bato dela Rosa, the former Philippine National Police chief and a key architect of Duterte’s drug war. As Rappler reported, the warrant raises the possibility that dela Rosa could be arrested, brought to The Hague, and detained alongside Duterte. Dela Rosa’s inclusion in the ICC case further underscores the international community’s focus on the Philippine government’s conduct during the anti-drug campaign.
The process of assembling a credible and impartial medical panel has been anything but straightforward. The initial list of experts was submitted by the ICC Registry in September 2025, with appointments made on September 24. Yet, within days, both the defense and prosecution raised concerns about the suitability of certain panel members. The defense’s objections centered on the original neuropsychologist’s suspension, while the prosecution also requested the revocation of an expert’s appointment. The OPCV, representing victims, deferred to the chamber’s discretion, emphasizing the need for further clarification from the Registry.
After investigating, the chamber found that the suspended neuropsychologist’s ongoing disciplinary issues and lack of disclosure rendered her appointment untenable. In the case of her replacement, the chamber’s decision was shaped by the defense’s discovery of problematic social media activity, which included reposts and replies on X (formerly Twitter) deemed incompatible with the standards of the court. The chamber’s swift action to remove both experts and seek new appointments reflects its determination to uphold the credibility of the medical examination process.
Looking ahead, the ICC’s extended deadlines for expert reports and party observations signal a deliberate effort to ensure all sides have adequate time to respond to the panel’s findings. The court’s insistence on impartiality and confidentiality in the medical evaluation process is likely to set a precedent for future high-profile cases, especially those involving complex questions of mental fitness and criminal responsibility.
For Duterte, the coming months will be crucial. The panel’s assessment of his mental faculties could determine whether he stands trial for one of the most contentious episodes in recent Philippine history. Meanwhile, the ICC’s actions send a clear message about the standards expected of those involved in international justice—both on the bench and in the expert witness box.
As the dust settles on the latest round of expert panel changes, all eyes remain on The Hague, where the next chapter in the Duterte case—and the search for accountability in the Philippines’ war on drugs—continues to unfold.
