The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague is once again at the center of global attention as the case against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte takes a decisive turn. On December 18, 2025, the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV)—representing victims of Duterte's controversial anti-drug campaign—urged the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I to resume pretrial proceedings, citing new medical findings that assert Duterte’s fitness to stand trial.
This latest development follows months of legal wrangling over Duterte’s health and ability to participate in the proceedings. The OPCV’s formal request, detailed in a seven-page filing, comes after a court-appointed panel of medical experts concluded there are no obstacles preventing Duterte from exercising his procedural rights. As reported by GMA Integrated News, the OPCV’s principal counsel, Paolina Massidda, emphasized the urgency of moving forward, stating, “Consequently, the confirmation of charges hearing should be held as soon as possible in light of the victims’ right to the expeditious conduct of the proceedings.”
The ICC’s scrutiny of Duterte, who turned 80 this year, focuses on alleged crimes against humanity—specifically murder and attempted murder—linked to his brutal war on drugs during his tenure as both Davao City mayor and President of the Philippines. The campaign, which began in 2016, drew widespread international condemnation for its thousands of extrajudicial killings and allegations of systematic human rights abuses.
According to Inquirer, the medical evaluation was conducted by a three-member panel consisting of a forensic psychiatrist, a neuropsychologist, and a geriatric and behavioral neurologist. These specialists were appointed on September 24, 2025, after Duterte’s legal team requested an “indefinite adjournment” of all pretrial proceedings, claiming Duterte suffered from “cognitive impairment in multiple domains.” This move prompted the chamber to defer the four-day confirmation of charges hearings originally scheduled for September 23.
The OPCV’s observations, filed on December 18, were based on both joint and individual reports submitted by the panel on December 5. While the public version of the OPCV’s observations was heavily redacted—especially regarding the specifics of Duterte’s cognitive abilities—the counsel made it clear that the “relevant legal criteria” for Duterte’s fitness to stand trial were “fulfilled” according to the experts’ conclusions. The OPCV asserted, “Upon careful review of the joint and individual reports, the legal representative considers that the experts appointed by the (PTC I) essentially agree that [REDACTED]. In particular, the experts unanimously found that [REDACTED] at the pre-trial stage under article 67(1) of the Statute.”
Article 67(1) of the Rome Statute guarantees the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair hearing and to be tried without undue delay. The OPCV’s filing underscored that “there exist no obstacles that would prevent Mr. Duterte from meaningfully exercising his procedural rights.” In the words of the OPCV, “Indeed, under the relevant jurisprudence of the Court, absence of such obstacles is determinative of the matter.”
The medical panel’s assessment was ordered by the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I back in October 2025. The court sought to determine whether Duterte suffered from any medical condition that might affect his ability to follow and take part in the proceedings, and whether any special measures or adjustments would be necessary. Duterte’s lawyers, led by Nicholas Kaufman, received the panel’s confidential reports on December 5, but have not disclosed their contents publicly.
Duterte has been detained at The Hague since March 11, 2025, following his arrest as ordered by the ICC. His legal team has repeatedly argued for leniency, including requests for interim release and, more recently, indefinite adjournment of the proceedings. However, these efforts have so far been unsuccessful. In September 2025, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejected Duterte's request for interim release. The ICC Appeals Chamber subsequently upheld this decision in a ruling made public on November 28, during which Duterte waived his right to be present at the hearing.
The OPCV’s push for an immediate resumption of proceedings is rooted in the principle that victims of alleged crimes have a right to a prompt and fair judicial process. The office’s principal counsel, Paolina Massidda, made this clear in her filing: “Consequently, on the basis of the Panel’s conclusions, the Chamber is in a position to positively determine that Mr. Duterte is able to fully engage and participate in the pre-trial proceedings, including the confirmation of charges hearing.”
This case has gripped not just the Philippines but the international community, as it tests the ICC’s ability to hold powerful figures accountable for alleged human rights abuses. Duterte’s war on drugs, which he once described as a “relentless and chilling” campaign, has left a deep scar on Philippine society. Human rights organizations estimate that thousands of people—many from poor urban communities—were killed in police operations and vigilante-style executions during his administration. Supporters of Duterte, meanwhile, argue that his tough approach was necessary to combat rampant drug-related crime and restore public order. They claim that the campaign was misunderstood and misrepresented by foreign observers, and that the former president is being unfairly targeted for political reasons.
On the other hand, critics and victims’ advocates see the ICC’s proceedings as a crucial step toward justice and accountability. They maintain that the scale and systematic nature of the killings warrant international intervention, especially given the perceived inadequacies of domestic investigations in the Philippines. The OPCV’s insistence on a speedy process reflects the frustration of many victims’ families, who have waited years for legal redress.
The ICC’s next steps will be closely watched. If the Pre-Trial Chamber I accepts the OPCV’s arguments and the medical panel’s findings, the confirmation of charges hearing could be scheduled soon—a move that would mark a significant escalation in the case. Such a hearing would determine whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to a full trial, where Duterte would have the opportunity to defend himself against the charges.
For now, the legal and moral questions swirling around Duterte’s fate remain unresolved. The court’s decision will not only shape the future of one man but could also set a precedent for how international justice addresses claims of incapacity and the rights of both the accused and the victims in high-profile cases.
As the world awaits the ICC’s ruling, the voices of those affected by the drug war—and the debate over justice, accountability, and due process—continue to resonate far beyond the walls of the courtroom.
