The ongoing legal saga surrounding former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has taken another turn, as the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague continues to weigh the merits of his request for interim release. The case, which has drawn international attention and sparked impassioned debate within the Philippines and beyond, centers on Duterte’s alleged involvement in thousands of extrajudicial killings during his terms as Davao City mayor and later as president, most notably under his controversial anti-drug campaign known as “Oplan Tokhang.”
According to a heavily redacted ICC filing dated September 26, 2025, the Pre-Trial Chamber 1 (PTC 1) confirmed receipt of a formal reply from the Kingdom of the Netherlands regarding Duterte’s interim release bid. The Dutch authorities’ communication, received on July 2, was in response to a June 20 order from the ICC Registry inviting the host state to submit any observations relevant to the Chamber’s consideration of Duterte’s request. The precise details of the Netherlands’ response remain undisclosed, as the ICC did not elaborate further in the public document. What is clear, however, is that this exchange marks another procedural milestone in a case that has become emblematic of the global debate over accountability, sovereignty, and the reach of international justice.
Duterte, who is currently in ICC custody in The Hague, was arrested earlier this year over his alleged role in the widespread killings that occurred during his leadership. The violence, which government records attribute to at least 6,000 deaths, has been described by human rights organizations as far more severe, with some estimates suggesting the true toll could reach as high as 20,000. These deaths, critics argue, were the direct result of Duterte’s aggressive anti-drug policies, which encouraged police and vigilantes alike to “neutralize” suspected criminals—often with little regard for due process.
The ICC’s case against Duterte has evolved considerably since his arrest. In March 2025, an arrest warrant was issued citing 43 specific incidents of murder. By July, the Office of the Prosecutor had expanded its charges, holding Duterte “individually criminally responsible” as an indirect co-perpetrator in the killings. The updated indictment now alleges that Duterte made “essential contributions” to 49 incidents of drug war-related killings, both during his tenure as Davao City mayor and as president. The charges are grave: three counts of murder, with the prosecution arguing that Duterte’s leadership and rhetoric directly facilitated the campaign of violence.
In June, Duterte’s legal team sought his interim release, requesting that he be allowed to reside in an undisclosed country while awaiting trial. Their argument centered on the contention that concerns about Duterte being a flight risk or continuing to commit crimes were “hypothetical.” They maintained that his ongoing detention was unnecessary and that he would comply with all legal requirements if released. However, the ICC Prosecutor quickly opposed this request, citing both delays in the proceedings and ongoing risks associated with Duterte’s potential release.
On September 29, 2025, the ICC Prosecutor reiterated this opposition, emphasizing the need to ensure Duterte’s attendance at trial and to prevent any possibility of obstruction or endangerment to the investigation and court proceedings. According to ABS-CBN, the Prosecutor specifically argued that “delays in the proceedings and ongoing risks” justified continued detention, underscoring the seriousness with which the ICC views the possibility of interference or flight.
The ICC’s approach to interim release is shaped by a careful balancing act between the rights of the accused and the imperative to safeguard the integrity of its judicial process. In Duterte’s case, the stakes are particularly high. His supporters argue that the prosecution is politically motivated and that the ICC is overstepping its jurisdiction, infringing on Philippine sovereignty. They point to the country’s decision to withdraw from the ICC in 2019, arguing that the Court no longer has authority over events that occurred on Philippine soil. Duterte’s legal team has echoed these sentiments, insisting that the charges are part of a broader campaign to undermine his legacy and that the evidence against him is either circumstantial or fabricated.
Conversely, human rights advocates and many international observers see the ICC’s actions as a necessary response to what they describe as a culture of impunity in the Philippines. For years, groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented what they allege are systematic abuses under Duterte’s drug war, including extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, and widespread intimidation of witnesses and families of victims. The ICC’s willingness to pursue charges against a former head of state, they argue, sends a powerful message that no one is above the law, regardless of their position or popularity.
The Philippine public remains deeply divided over the case. Some view Duterte as a strongman who brought order to the country and took decisive action against crime, while others see him as a violator of human rights whose policies left a trail of grief and injustice. The controversy has only intensified since Duterte’s arrest and transfer to The Hague, with rallies, opinion pieces, and heated debates dominating both traditional and social media. Many Filipinos are watching closely to see how the international community—particularly the ICC and its host, the Netherlands—will handle the sensitive question of Duterte’s interim release.
Behind the legal wrangling lies a broader question about the future of international justice. The ICC, established in 2002 to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, has often faced criticism for its perceived selectivity and limited enforcement power. Cases involving high-profile leaders, especially those from countries outside the Western sphere, have frequently sparked accusations of bias and neo-colonialism. Duterte’s prosecution, with its blend of legal complexity and political controversy, is likely to become a touchstone for debates about the ICC’s legitimacy and effectiveness in holding powerful figures to account.
For now, the fate of Rodrigo Duterte rests in the hands of the ICC judges, who must weigh the arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defense, as well as the observations submitted by the Netherlands. The heavily redacted nature of the filings and the secrecy surrounding the host state’s response only add to the intrigue. What is certain is that the decision—whether to grant interim release or maintain detention—will have far-reaching consequences not just for Duterte, but for the Philippines and the international justice system as a whole.
As the world awaits the next move from The Hague, the Duterte case stands as a stark reminder of the enduring tension between national sovereignty and the demands of global accountability. Whatever the outcome, it’s clear that this story is far from over, and its reverberations will be felt for years to come.