On October 1, 2025, the Philippine Senate took a striking step by adopting a non-binding resolution urging the International Criminal Court (ICC) to place former President Rodrigo Duterte under house arrest in The Hague. The move, which passed with a vote of 15 in favor, three against, and two abstentions out of the 24-member chamber, has ignited debate across the Philippines and beyond, drawing sharp lines between humanitarian concern, political influence, and the pursuit of justice.
Senate Resolution No. 144, spearheaded by Senate Majority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri and Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano, consolidated earlier proposals from both the Senate’s majority and minority blocs. The central argument? Duterte, now 80 years old, is reportedly suffering from deteriorating health and cognitive impairment while detained in the Netherlands, awaiting trial on crimes against humanity charges related to alleged extrajudicial killings during his tenure as Davao City mayor and later as president under his notorious anti-drug campaign.
"Walang political color ito. It’s just for humanitarian reasons," Zubiri insisted, as reported by ABS-CBN, brushing aside suggestions that the resolution was a veiled political maneuver. Cayetano, meanwhile, emphasized the gravity of the situation, telling colleagues, "One thing that I don’t want to do is to see the former president suffer as if it is a punishment when he has not been convicted." He added, "I cannot imagine what the country will do if something happens with him in the detention center and we did nothing."
The resolution specifically requests that the ICC assign a medical professional to examine Duterte and determine whether his current detention could exacerbate his health problems. If so, it urges the court to allow house arrest while the former president faces trial. Under ICC rules, interim release is possible under strict conditions, including residence at a specific address, restrictions on communication with victims or witnesses, and mandatory appearance when summoned.
Senate President Vicente "Tito" Sotto III, who abstained from voting, explained his position: "To afford [former president Duterte] with the optimal condition of his detention that will be beneficial for his physical and mental health, while taking into consideration the plight of the families who are seeking justice for the alleged crimes against humanity. I am supportive of any efforts to bring home the ex-chief executive and to uplift his well-being during this crucial time. However, my choice or decision, in conscience, might even help in further dividing the nation. Therefore, I register an abstention."
The list of senators who voted in favor of the resolution reads like a who’s who of Philippine politics: Zubiri, Cayetano, Marcoleta, Imee Marcos, Robin Padilla, Ronald dela Rosa, Joel Villanueva, Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Go, Sherwin Gatchalian, JV Ejercito, Loren Legarda, Panfilo Lacson, Erwin Tulfo, and Cynthia Villar. Those who opposed were Senators Risa Hontiveros, Bam Aquino, and Francis Pangilinan, while Sotto and Senator Raffy Tulfo chose to abstain.
Opposition voices were not quiet. Senator Risa Hontiveros, a consistent critic of the Duterte administration’s drug war, voted against the measure. She argued, "There are no indications that the ICC is neglecting the health and well-being of the people in their custody." Hontiveros further underscored the suffering inflicted by the anti-drug campaign, stating, "They are the shattered lives of thousands of poor Filipinos. They are the cries of mothers and fathers whose children never came home. They are the unmarked graves and the culture of impunity that continues to haunt our nation. I cannot, in good conscience, support this resolution. I am voting no."
The resolution’s humanitarian framing was echoed by supporters, who cited international legal standards. As noted in the text, "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provided that all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person." The resolution also referenced the ICC’s own rules, which permit interim release subject to conditions that safeguard the integrity of ongoing trials.
Vice President Sara Duterte, the former president’s daughter, has also weighed in, accusing the ICC of failing to ensure her father’s welfare and citing repeated collapses and cognitive decline. Duterte’s legal team has already filed requests for adjournment and interim release on medical grounds, according to Gulf News. The Senate’s resolution, while non-binding, adds political weight to those requests and reflects growing concern within the Philippine establishment about the optics and consequences of Duterte’s continued detention.
Not everyone sees the Senate’s action as a purely humanitarian gesture. Kristina Conti, counsel for families of drug war victims, criticized the move as potential political interference. In her view, "The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber will only decide on the basis of fact and law," and she warned that the Senate’s intervention could backfire by reinforcing perceptions of Duterte’s lingering political influence—the very concern cited by victims’ families in opposing his release.
Senator Ping Lacson, who voted in favor, made clear that his decision was rooted in solidarity rather than personal ties. "For a fellow Filipino na nandoon sa napakalayong lugar at nakakulong, I vote yes," he said, as reported by Philippine Daily Inquirer. Others, like Senate President Pro Tempore Sotto, found themselves caught between compassion and national unity, ultimately choosing neutrality to avoid further political division.
In the end, the resolution has no binding legal effect on the ICC, which has yet to comment publicly on the Philippine Senate’s appeal. However, its passage is a revealing snapshot of a nation grappling with the legacy of Duterte’s presidency and the meaning of justice, accountability, and mercy. The Senate’s action underscores the complexities facing both Philippine society and the international justice system: how to balance the rights and dignity of the accused with the demands for justice from victims and their families.
As the ICC weighs Duterte’s fate, the debate in Manila is likely to continue. Supporters of the resolution argue that age and illness should temper the harshness of detention, especially before conviction. Critics maintain that accountability for alleged crimes against humanity cannot be softened by sentiment or political pressure. The world is watching, and the story of Rodrigo Duterte’s detention—and the Senate’s plea for compassion—remains far from over.
