On September 2, 2025, the spotlight once again turned to the fate of former Philippine president Rodrigo R. Duterte, as Department of Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin C. Remulla announced plans to urge the Office of the Ombudsman to swiftly resolve a high-profile complaint tied to Duterte’s controversial arrest earlier this year. The move, reported by Manila Bulletin, comes amid intensifying debates among lawmakers, government officials, and the public over the former leader’s detention and the broader implications for Philippine politics and justice.
The complaint, filed in May 2025 by Senator Imee Marcos, accuses Remulla and several co-respondents of multiple offenses relating to Duterte’s March 11 arrest in Metro Manila. The charges include arbitrary detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code, usurpation of judicial functions, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and breach of Republic Act No. 7438, which safeguards the rights of detained persons. As of now, Duterte remains in custody at the Hague Penitentiary Institution in the Netherlands, facing allegations of crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for thousands of extrajudicial killings during his administration’s notorious campaign against illegal drugs.
Remulla, who recently appeared before the Judicial Bar and Council to pursue a nomination as Ombudsman, was candid about his stance. “I’ll be filing a motion to resolve as soon as possible,” he told journalists, emphasizing the need for a timely decision from the Ombudsman. He also stressed the importance of keeping the Office of the Ombudsman impartial and free from political manipulation. “The OMB has to be fair. Hindi naman dapat wini-weaponize. It should never be weaponized,” Remulla said, underscoring his belief that the justice system should not serve as a tool for political vendettas.
The arrest of Duterte has become a flashpoint in the country’s ongoing reckoning with its recent past. Remulla defended the actions of law enforcement and the justice department, stating, “Trabaho namin yun (It’s our job) to keep the country stable, to prevent violence, to prevent the happening of any untoward acts, and I think we were able to peacefully bring him abroad to face the charges against him without hurting anybody physically.” According to Manila Bulletin, Remulla maintains that the government’s priority was to uphold stability and ensure Duterte’s transfer to the ICC proceeded without incident.
Meanwhile, Duterte’s allies in the Senate have not remained silent. On September 1, Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, a close confidant of Duterte and former chief of the Philippine National Police, took to social media to share a deeply personal appeal. “Last night I had a dream: Mayor Rody was granted house arrest. We had a tearful reunion. We hugged each other & he whispered to me; ‘Ronald, I’m okey now.’… Lord, pls make my dream come true,” Dela Rosa posted on Facebook, as reported by GMA Integrated News. This emotional message reflects the growing concern among Duterte’s supporters about his health and well-being while detained abroad.
Dela Rosa, together with Senators Robin Padilla and Bong Go, has filed a resolution urging the Philippine government to advocate for Duterte’s interim release under house arrest in The Hague. Their plea is rooted in humanitarian grounds, noting that the 80-year-old Duterte’s health is “in danger of deteriorating further,” given his advanced age, existing medical conditions, and the emotional toll of isolation from family and friends. The senators’ resolution also points out that, although the Philippines has withdrawn from the Rome Statute (which established the ICC), “the Philippines is not precluded from advocating, in good conscience of the State, for more humane conditions for FPRRD, while he bravely faces the allegations against him.”
The legal and diplomatic complexities surrounding Duterte’s detention have only deepened the sense of national introspection. After his arrest in March, Duterte was transferred to the Hague Penitentiary Institution—also known as Scheveningen Prison—where he awaits trial for crimes against humanity. These charges stem from his administration’s bloody drug war, which, according to government records, resulted in the deaths of more than 6,000 suspected drug offenders during police operations. However, human rights organizations estimate the true death toll may be as high as 30,000, citing unreported incidents and extrajudicial killings that allegedly went uninvestigated.
The debate over Duterte’s treatment in custody has also become a family affair. Vice President Sara Duterte, his daughter, recently voiced alarm over his physical condition, stating that her father is now “skin and bones” after losing significant weight since his incarceration in The Hague. Her remarks, reported by GMA Integrated News, have added urgency to calls for more humane detention conditions, even as the legal process continues to unfold.
For many Filipinos, the situation encapsulates the country’s ongoing struggle to balance justice, accountability, and compassion. The ICC’s involvement has introduced a new layer of international scrutiny, while domestic actors wrestle with questions of sovereignty, rule of law, and political legacy. The withdrawal of the Philippines from the Rome Statute in 2019, during Duterte’s presidency, has complicated matters further. While the government asserts that it is no longer bound by the ICC’s jurisdiction, critics and international legal experts argue that the court retains authority over crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member.
Amid these legal wranglings, the role of the Office of the Ombudsman has become pivotal. As Remulla seeks both to clear his name and to ascend to the post of Ombudsman, he faces scrutiny not only from political opponents but also from a public wary of politicized justice. His assurances that the Ombudsman “should never be weaponized” resonate in a climate where accusations of selective prosecution and political retribution are never far from the surface.
On the other side, Duterte’s supporters argue that the former president is being unfairly targeted for actions taken in the name of national security and public order. They maintain that the war on drugs, while tragic in its human cost, was a necessary response to a crisis that threatened the fabric of Filipino society. Detractors, however, contend that the campaign led to widespread abuses, impunity, and a culture of fear, and that accountability is essential for the country to move forward.
As the legal cases grind on and the political stakes rise, the question of Duterte’s fate remains unresolved. Will the Ombudsman heed Remulla’s call for a swift resolution and, if so, what precedent will it set for future leaders accused of wrongdoing? Can the Philippines reconcile the demands for justice with appeals for compassion, especially for an aging and ailing former president? And as the world watches, what message will the country send about its commitment to human rights, the rule of law, and the healing of old wounds?
For now, the nation waits—its eyes fixed on the courts, its leaders, and the man at the center of a storm that has yet to pass.
