On December 16, 2025, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a pivotal order in the ongoing crimes against humanity case against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. The court called for new submissions from both the prosecution and the Office of Public Counsel for the Victims (OPCV), requesting further arguments on the thorny issue of the ICC’s jurisdiction over Duterte—a legal battle that has gripped the Philippines and drawn global attention.
This latest move comes as the court grapples with the interaction of key provisions of the Rome Statute, the international treaty that established the ICC in 2002. Specifically, the Appeals Chamber is seeking clarity on how Articles 12(2), 13(c), and 127 of the Statute shape the court’s ability to prosecute Duterte for alleged crimes committed during his much-criticized war on drugs. Article 12 outlines the preconditions for the ICC’s jurisdiction, Article 13 details when the court may act, and Article 127 addresses the obligations of states even after they withdraw from the ICC.
The prosecution and OPCV have until January 16, 2026, to file their additional observations, while Duterte’s defense team must respond by January 23, 2026. According to the Inquirer, this directive is a direct response to the defense’s appeal filed on November 14, 2025, challenging the court’s authority to proceed with the case. The prosecution and OPCV had already submitted their initial responses on December 8, but the Appeals Chamber, led by Presiding Judge Luz del Carmen Carranza, deemed it necessary to further develop these arguments for “the proper disposal of the appeal.”
At the heart of the matter is whether the ICC retains the right to investigate and potentially prosecute Duterte for alleged crimes against humanity, even after the Philippines formally withdrew from the court. The Pre-Trial Chamber I had previously affirmed, on October 23, 2025, that the ICC does indeed have jurisdiction to prosecute Duterte. This decision was celebrated by families of drug war victims, who saw it as a possible gateway to a full trial and, perhaps, long-awaited justice.
Duterte faces three counts of murder as crimes against humanity, linked to at least 49 killings of suspected drug users and pushers during his tenure as both mayor of Davao City and president of the Philippines. These killings form part of a policy that, according to critics and human rights groups, resulted in an estimated 30,000 deaths—casting a long shadow over Duterte’s legacy and sparking international condemnation.
The defense’s appeal leans heavily on Article 127 of the Rome Statute, arguing that the Pre-Trial Chamber I “erred in law” in its jurisdiction ruling. Duterte’s lawyers contend that the court should not have opened a probe after the Philippines revoked its ICC membership, and that the preliminary examination of the drug war killings should not be considered a matter under the court’s purview. They also argue that the provision in question should override more general rules, invoking the legal concept of “lex specialis.”
Adding another layer of complexity, the defense has requested to suspend all pretrial proceedings indefinitely, citing Duterte’s alleged cognitive problems that, they claim, restrict his ability to fully participate in the case. This request remains pending, but lawyers representing the families of drug war victims have dismissed these moves as tactics designed to delay justice. They remain confident that the pretrial will proceed in 2026, regardless of the defense’s stalling maneuvers.
As the legal wrangling continues in The Hague, the battle for public opinion is being waged on a very different front: social media. An in-depth analysis by PressOne.PH of the ICC’s official Facebook page reveals an extraordinary—and troubling—pattern. Since January 1, 2025, posts concerning Duterte have dominated engagement on the page, vastly outperforming all other content. Eight of the top ten most engaged posts this year were about the former president, with Duterte-related posts generating twenty times more comments than standard court updates, which average just over a thousand comments each.
The numbers are staggering. The March 14, 2025, post announcing Duterte’s initial court appearance and hearing schedule garnered 117,505 comments and 119,046 likes, while the November 28 livestream of the ICC Appeals Chamber rejecting Duterte’s interim release bid drew 100,473 comments and 62,906 likes. A separate update that same day confirming the denial of his release racked up another 43,277 comments and an eye-popping 136,037 likes.
But this tidal wave of engagement did not arise organically. Instead, PressOne.PH uncovered evidence of a coordinated campaign, with repetitive comments posted at synchronized intervals—suggesting the manipulation of Facebook’s algorithms to manufacture the appearance of widespread grassroots support. Engagement arrived in waves, plateauing within two to three days, and even spilled over onto unrelated ICC posts, inflating their comment counts well beyond the norm.
The narratives pushed by these orchestrated campaigns are familiar. Comment sections are flooded with slogans like “Bring him home,” calls labeling the ICC a “kangaroo court,” and claims that Duterte is a victim of political persecution orchestrated by the Marcos Jr. administration. Many comments are styled as formal “open letters” to the ICC, but share identical structures and phrasing, further indicating a lack of genuine, organic discourse.
This “coordinated noise,” as the report describes it, doesn’t just drown out legitimate updates—it actively reframes Duterte as a political victim, obscuring the scale and brutality of the drug war. By gaming social media algorithms, these actors create an illusion of overwhelming support, muddying the waters of public debate and making it harder for victims’ voices to be heard.
The stakes could hardly be higher. As legal arguments over the ICC’s jurisdiction play out in The Hague, the battle for the narrative continues online, shaping how millions perceive the case and the legacy of Duterte’s drug war. The ICC’s next steps—both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion—will be watched closely, not only in the Philippines but around the world.
For many, the coming year will be crucial. With the ICC’s Appeals Chamber set to receive new submissions in January and the pretrial potentially moving forward, both the legal and social dimensions of the case promise to remain front and center in 2026. Whether justice will be served—or whether the noise will drown out the truth—remains to be seen.
