The International Criminal Court (ICC) is once again in the spotlight as its Appeals Chamber moves forward in the high-profile case against former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte. The legal wrangling over whether the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute Duterte—despite the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019—has taken a new procedural turn, while social media misinformation swirls around the case, muddying public understanding and fueling political debate.
On December 17, 2025, the ICC Appeals Chamber issued an order requiring all parties involved in the Duterte case to submit additional legal arguments. According to the Manila Bulletin, the Prosecution and the Office of Public Counsel for Victims must file their observations by January 16, 2026, with Duterte’s Defense given until January 23 to respond. The Chamber’s order, which limits each submission to ten pages, signals a desire for focused and expeditious proceedings.
The crux of the matter is whether the ICC retains jurisdiction to investigate and potentially prosecute alleged crimes against humanity committed during Duterte’s notorious anti-drug campaign, which ran from 2016 to 2019. These years coincided with the Philippines’ membership in the ICC, but the country’s formal withdrawal in March 2019 has become the legal linchpin of Duterte’s defense. The Defense is appealing earlier rulings that permitted the ICC to proceed, arguing that the Court lost its authority over the Philippines after the withdrawal took effect.
Central to the Chamber’s request are three key articles of the Rome Statute: Articles 12(2) and 13(c), which outline the Court’s jurisdiction, and Article 127, which governs withdrawal from the ICC. The judges have asked the parties to clarify how these provisions interact, both generally and in the specific circumstances of Duterte’s case. The order also denied the Defense’s request to file an additional reply, keeping the process tightly controlled.
While these legal debates play out in The Hague, the case has become a flashpoint for misinformation in the Philippines. On December 16, 2025, Philstar.com published a fact check debunking a viral fake quote card spreading on Facebook. The card falsely claimed that an ICC deputy prosecutor named “Ambawtukahm Mandiaye Niang” had replaced Prosecutor Karim Khan and was committed to helping Duterte prove his innocence. The quote card, shared by pages like Viral Ngayon and Duterte Supporter Daily News, misattributed a statement to the fictitious Ambawtukahm and invoked "Rule 34" of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence as supposed evidence of support.
The reality is quite different. The actual deputy prosecutor who replaced Karim Khan after he took a leave of absence in May 2025 is Mame Mandiaye Niang. As Philstar.com clarified, Niang has not made any public statements supporting Duterte, nor has he promised to help in his trial. The image used in the quote card does not depict Niang, and the appended name “Ambatukham” is, in fact, a meme drawn from internet culture and has no connection to the ICC or its officials. The cited "Rule 34" simply outlines the grounds for disqualification of ICC officials and does not pertain to appointments or case advocacy.
Adding to the confusion, the fake quote card also alleged that Karim Khan was removed from his post due to bribery allegations involving a fictional government. In truth, Khan is on leave because of a United Nations investigation into sexual misconduct allegations, but he has not been disqualified or replaced permanently. The ICC’s official records show that Niang and Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan are temporarily overseeing the Office of the Prosecutor. Furthermore, Niang’s most recent filing in the Duterte case, submitted on December 8, 2025, addressed only the question of the Court’s jurisdiction—he has made no public comments about the case or its political implications.
Meanwhile, the ICC’s investigation continues to focus on alleged crimes against humanity linked to thousands of killings during Duterte’s anti-drug campaign. The campaign, which began in 2016 and lasted until the Philippines’ ICC withdrawal in 2019, has drawn international condemnation and remains a deeply divisive issue domestically. Human rights advocates argue that the ICC’s involvement is crucial for accountability, while Duterte’s supporters claim the investigation is an infringement on Philippine sovereignty and a politically motivated attack.
The legal debate over jurisdiction is not merely academic. A decision by the Appeals Chamber could determine whether the ICC’s case against Duterte moves forward, potentially leading to a full trial. The stakes are high: if the Chamber rules in favor of the Defense, the case could be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; if it sides with the Prosecution, Duterte could face trial for alleged crimes committed while the Philippines was still a State Party to the Rome Statute.
In November 2025, the ICC Appeals Chamber unanimously rejected Duterte’s request for interim release. According to both Manila Bulletin and Philstar.com, the Chamber upheld the Pre-Trial Chamber’s findings that Duterte posed a flight risk, could interfere with witnesses, and presented a danger of renewed violence. The decision underscored the seriousness with which the Court views the risks associated with releasing Duterte pending the outcome of the jurisdictional appeal.
There’s another layer to the ongoing proceedings: Duterte’s fitness to stand trial. A team of medical experts recently completed their evaluation of his condition, but the Court has yet to decide whether he is fit for trial. This determination is critical, as it could impact the timeline and conduct of future hearings.
The flurry of misinformation and fake news on social media has complicated public understanding of these developments. False narratives about ICC personnel changes, fabricated statements, and misrepresented legal rules have gained traction, particularly among Duterte’s supporters online. As Philstar.com notes, such misinformation not only distorts the facts but also undermines public trust in the judicial process and international accountability mechanisms.
For now, all eyes remain on the ICC Appeals Chamber as it reviews the forthcoming legal submissions. The outcome of this jurisdictional challenge will shape the next chapter of the Duterte case—and may set a precedent for how the ICC handles cases involving states that have withdrawn from its jurisdiction. As the legal, political, and digital battles rage on, the search for truth and accountability continues, both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion.
The coming months promise further twists as the ICC weighs its next move, with the world watching closely to see whether international justice will prevail amid a storm of controversy and disinformation.