On October 1, 2025, the Philippine Senate set off a new round of national and international debate by adopting a resolution urging the International Criminal Court (ICC) to place former President Rodrigo Duterte under house arrest, citing his advanced age and deteriorating health. The move, which saw 15 senators voting in favor, three opposing, and two abstaining, has been met with sharp criticism from legal experts and the families of victims of Duterte’s controversial war on drugs, as well as skepticism about its likely impact on the ongoing ICC proceedings in The Hague.
The resolution, introduced by Senators Alan Peter Cayetano and Juan Miguel Zubiri, requests that the ICC consider house arrest for Duterte and appoint a medical doctor to assess his fitness for regular detention. The document specifically notes, “Should the medical findings prove that his continued detention will further worsen his medical condition, the ICC is urged to allow the former president to be detained under house arrest.” It further clarifies that any such arrangement would be subject to restrictions ensuring no risk to the integrity of the ongoing trial.
The senators who supported the resolution included prominent Duterte allies such as Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa, Robin Padilla, Rodante Marcoleta, Jinggoy Estrada, Christopher “Bong” Go, Joel Villanueva, Sherwin Gatchalian, Loren Legarda, Erwin Tulfo, JV Ejercito, Panfilo Lacson, and Mark Villar. Opposing the move were Risa Hontiveros, Bam Aquino, and Francis Pangilinan, while Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III and Senator Raffy Tulfo abstained. Four senators—Lito Lapid, Pia Cayetano, Camille Villar, and Francis “Chiz” Escudero—were absent from the session.
Senate President Sotto explained his abstention by stating that, while he supports efforts to bring comfort to Duterte and improve his well-being during this time, he chose not to vote to avoid further division in the country. The resolution’s passage comes at a particularly sensitive moment, with Duterte’s health and legal status under intense scrutiny both in the Philippines and abroad.
Duterte, now 80 years old, was arrested in March 2025 and transferred to the Netherlands, where he is currently in ICC custody. He faces charges of murder and attempted murder in connection with at least 78 victims of his administration’s war on drugs—a campaign that, according to critics and human rights groups, led to thousands of extrajudicial killings. The ICC has charged him with crimes against humanity, and his initial appearance before Pre-Trial Chamber I took place on March 14, 2025.
Concerns about Duterte’s health have been mounting. His legal counsel, Nicholas Kaufman, reported that Duterte lost consciousness after a fall in his room—a worrying incident that was not immediately communicated to his family or legal team. Duterte was subsequently hospitalized and assessed for cranial and brain injuries. These reports, along with his advanced age, have fueled calls from his supporters for more compassionate detention conditions. Vice President Sara Duterte, his daughter, has also voiced alarm over her father’s continued detention in The Hague, describing his condition as "troubling."
However, not everyone is convinced that the Senate’s resolution is either appropriate or effective. Kristina Conti, assistant to counsel at the ICC and a lawyer representing families of drug war victims, has been particularly vocal in her criticism. In a series of statements on social media and in interviews, Conti described the Senate’s action as “mere political noise and intrusion.” She argued, “The Senate as an institution is not in any way involved in the ICC process, and it is unclear how the resolution will be communicated to the international court. Unless the Senate has direct knowledge of Rodrigo Duterte’s physical and mental health and their report is transmitted to the ICC through the proper channels, then the resolution will be mere political noise.”
Conti went further, calling the resolution “self-serving,” especially given that one of its sponsors, Senator Ronald dela Rosa, is named as a potential co-perpetrator in the ICC’s investigation. Dela Rosa, who previously served as the Philippine National Police chief under Duterte, led the controversial anti-drug campaign now under international scrutiny. “I must also note that the court is aware that at least one of the senators sponsoring the resolution is probably among the co-perpetrators of crimes against humanity being investigated by the ICC Office of the Prosecutor. Hence, it is patently self-serving,” Conti remarked.
From a procedural standpoint, the resolution’s impact is limited. As noted by multiple legal experts and reported by Philstar.com and SunStar Philippines, the Senate’s request is non-binding and lacks the authority to compel any action from the ICC. The Philippines is no longer a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, after withdrawing in 2019. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I will only consider matters of fact and law as it evaluates Duterte’s requests for adjournment—on the grounds that he is not fit for trial due to cognitive impairments—and for interim release due to his age and alleged illness. As Conti succinctly put it, “The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I will only consider matters of fact and law as it evaluates both of Duterte's requests for adjournment (because he is not fit for trial with 'cognitive impairments') and for interim release (because he is old and allegedly, sick).”
Senate Majority Leader Zubiri, one of the resolution’s authors, denied that the request was politically motivated, describing it as a “humanitarian compassionate request.” Nevertheless, those opposed to the resolution, like Senator Pangilinan, argued that the anguish and suffering of the thousands killed during Duterte’s anti-drug campaign outweigh the humanitarian considerations being cited. “The anguish and suffering of the thousands killed in the drug war outweigh the ‘humanitarian considerations’ cited by the Senate for the benefit of Duterte,” Pangilinan stated during the session.
The broader context of the debate reflects deep divisions within Philippine society about accountability, justice, and the legacy of Duterte’s presidency. Supporters of the former president see the Senate’s resolution as a reasonable and compassionate response to his declining health, while critics argue it is an attempt to shield powerful figures from facing the consequences of their actions. The fact that Duterte’s family members remain in influential positions, particularly in Davao, has also raised concerns among victims’ advocates about his ongoing political clout and the potential impact on the pursuit of justice.
As of now, Duterte remains in ICC custody in The Hague, where he has access to medical examinations in accordance with the Rome Statute. The debate over his fate continues to unfold, not only in the Senate chambers and legal forums but also in the hearts and minds of Filipinos grappling with the complex legacy of the war on drugs. While the Senate’s resolution may have generated headlines and heated discussions, its practical effect on ICC proceedings remains doubtful. The world is watching closely as the next chapter in this high-stakes legal and moral drama plays out.
With the stakes so high and emotions running deep, the outcome of Duterte’s case at the ICC will likely reverberate far beyond the courtroom, shaping the conversation about justice and accountability in the Philippines for years to come.
