Former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, once a towering figure in the country’s political landscape, now finds himself at the center of a legal and political maelstrom thousands of miles from home. Detained under the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands since March 2025, Duterte faces three counts of murder, with ICC prosecutors alleging crimes against humanity during his controversial war on drugs. The developments have sent shockwaves through the Philippines, igniting fierce debate in the Senate, dividing public opinion, and raising questions about sovereignty, justice, and the future of political accountability in the country.
The ICC’s move to detain Duterte marks an unprecedented moment in Philippine history. Never before has a former president been held by an international court, let alone on such grave charges. According to PhilNews, the ICC’s prosecutors are pursuing these charges based on evidence and testimonies that paint a grim picture of extrajudicial killings and human rights violations during Duterte’s presidency. The case has not only put Duterte’s legacy under the global microscope but has also triggered a heated response from his allies and critics alike.
Amid these legal proceedings, the Philippine Senate became the latest battleground for the debate over Duterte’s fate. On October 13, 2025, senators cast their votes on a resolution urging the chamber to call for the house arrest of the former president. The result: a decisive 15-3-2 in favor. Senators Robin Padilla, Bong Go, and Bato dela Rosa—longtime Duterte allies—were among those who threw their support behind the resolution. The vote reflected both the enduring influence of Duterte’s political network and the deep divisions within the country’s leadership over how to handle the international court’s intervention.
Yet, the ICC was quick to respond. The court rejected Duterte’s interim release plea, referencing public remarks by Vice President Sara Duterte—Duterte’s own daughter—who had voiced criticisms over her father’s arrest and detention. According to PhilNews, the ICC cited these remarks as evidence of the Duterte family’s ongoing opposition to the proceedings, reinforcing the court’s decision to deny any temporary release or change in detention conditions. The message was clear: the ICC intends to maintain full custody of Duterte as the case unfolds.
In the wake of these developments, Senator Robin Padilla stepped forward to clarify the position of the Duterte camp and to pose pointed questions to the Filipino public. Padilla, a vocal supporter of Duterte, emphasized that their group—comprised of those who, in his words, “love and are grateful for the service of former President Duterte”—never argued that Duterte should be above the law. Instead, Padilla highlighted that Duterte himself had expressed his willingness to face justice in the Philippines, should he be found guilty of any wrongdoing.
Padilla’s remarks, as reported by PhilNews, were unequivocal: “None from them whom he described as the people who love and are grateful for the service of former Pres. Duterte said that he should not be held accountable if he committed a mistake. The Senator stressed that the former President himself said that he is ready to face the consequence here in the Philippines if he did something wrong.” This statement sought to deflect accusations of impunity and to frame Duterte’s supporters as advocates for due process—albeit on home soil, rather than in an international court.
The senator went further, invoking the country’s history of prosecuting former leaders. Padilla noted that the Philippines has its own courts and penitentiaries, and reminded the public that previous presidents have stood trial and, in some cases, served jail time within the country’s borders. “He asked why it is different in the case of former Pres. Rodrigo Duterte,” PhilNews reported. The implication was clear: why should Duterte be treated differently, and why should the Philippines cede its authority to a foreign tribunal?
Padilla’s questions to the nation were pointed and provocative. In a widely discussed social media post, he asked, “Are Filipinos willing to have FPRRD [former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte] under house arrest in another country instead of being imprisoned by the ICC? Or would they prefer to bring him home to Davao City and have him under house arrest there?” The senator’s queries tapped into deep-seated concerns about national pride, sovereignty, and the right of Filipinos to judge their own leaders.
Meanwhile, the political drama has continued to evolve. As of October 13, 2025, ICC prosecutors are reportedly considering seeking the arrest of Senator Bato dela Rosa—a close Duterte ally and former chief of the Philippine National Police—while the court awaits the results of a fitness test for Duterte, according to ABS-CBN. The possibility of further arrests has only heightened the sense of urgency and uncertainty gripping the country’s political elite.
The situation has also given rise to rumors and misinformation. Amid swirling reports, Senator Antonio Trillanes, a prominent Duterte critic, publicly denied visiting Duterte inside the ICC detention facility. The denial, covered by PhilNews, was an attempt to quash speculation and refocus attention on the legal process rather than political intrigue.
For many Filipinos, the question of Duterte’s fate is not just a matter of legal procedure but a test of the nation’s values and institutions. Supporters argue that Duterte’s actions, however controversial, were motivated by a desire to protect the country from crime and drugs—a stance Duterte himself has maintained since his arrest. Detractors, on the other hand, insist that accountability for alleged crimes against humanity must be pursued wherever the evidence leads, even if that means turning to international courts when domestic avenues are seen as compromised or ineffective.
The debate over Duterte’s possible house arrest—whether in the Netherlands, in Davao City, or elsewhere—has become a proxy for larger questions about Philippine sovereignty and the reach of international justice. Some see the ICC’s involvement as a necessary check on abuses of power, while others view it as an affront to national dignity and self-determination. This tension is unlikely to dissipate anytime soon, especially as the ICC’s case moves forward and the possibility of further arrests looms.
As the Philippines grapples with these challenges, the world watches closely. The outcome of Duterte’s case could set a precedent not just for the country but for other nations facing similar reckonings with their own leaders. For now, the story remains unfinished—a nation divided, a former president in detention, and a justice system, both national and international, put to the test.
With the stakes so high and emotions running hot, the coming months promise to be pivotal for the Philippines, its people, and the legacy of Rodrigo Duterte.
