On October 1, 2025, the Philippine Senate made a move that has stirred up a hornet’s nest both at home and abroad. With a vote of 15 in favor, 3 against, and 2 abstentions, senators passed Resolution 144 urging the International Criminal Court (ICC) to place former president Rodrigo Duterte under house arrest for humanitarian reasons. The resolution also called for a physician to assess Duterte’s medical condition, with the possibility that if his health worsens in detention, he should be moved to house arrest.
This development comes months after Duterte, now 80, was arrested in Manila on March 11, 2025, by local authorities acting on an ICC warrant. He was transferred to The Hague, Netherlands, where he remains detained on charges of crimes against humanity stemming from his administration’s bloody anti-drug campaign. According to government figures, over 6,000 people were killed in the drug war, though human rights groups put the toll closer to 30,000.
The Senate’s resolution, however, is not legally binding. As Rappler reports, the ICC—not the Philippine government—holds jurisdiction over Duterte, especially since the Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2018 during Duterte’s presidency. The chamber’s vote, nonetheless, has ignited fierce debate across the political spectrum and among civil society groups.
Human rights organizations were quick to denounce the Senate’s action. Karapatan, a prominent alliance of rights advocates, minced no words: “This resolution is not about justice. It is about shielding power. It spits on the memory of the thousands of Filipinos slaughtered in Duterte’s so-called ‘war on drugs’ and war against dissent, the poor dragged from their homes, the fathers executed in front of their children, the mothers and sisters who still grieve, the families who continue to search for answers,” the group said, as quoted by Rappler.
The legal group Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services (IDEALS), which has supported drug war victims, also criticized the Senate for what it described as special treatment for Duterte. “The Senate has undertaken no concrete measures to assist the families of victims: failing to investigate, failing to provide pathways for access to remedies, failing to protect and ensure the safety of surviving family members. No action. No accountability. No compassion,” IDEALS stated.
Echoing these sentiments, the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) accused lawmakers of prioritizing Duterte’s comfort over justice for political prisoners. PAHRA secretary general Edgar Cabalitan noted, “For someone like Duterte, the Senate has lots of time, even though the evidence in his case are plenty. While for Sally Ujano, who’s obviously innocent, they don’t. Your priorities are too obvious.”
On the Senate floor, opposition voices were equally strong. Senator Risa Hontiveros argued that the push for house arrest showed a troubling double standard. “It seems that this is another proof that our laws are harsh against ordinary Filipinos, but lenient toward the powerful. If an ordinary person is accused of robbery, he/she can be detained immediately and won’t be afforded bail. But here, our own government itself is fighting to give a person accused of a serious crime house arrest,” Hontiveros said during the session.
Senator Kiko Pangilinan, chair of the justice and human rights committee, acknowledged the humanitarian grounds but insisted that justice for the victims must not be overlooked. “It’s right, the humanitarian consideration has basis. But the agony and pain also has weight, and thousands of people killed will be hurt. As chairman of the committee on justice and human rights, I want to pick a side. It is my duty to side with the agony of those seeking justice,” Pangilinan explained.
Representative Leila de Lima, herself a longtime critic of Duterte and former chair of the Commission on Human Rights, lamented the Senate’s priorities. “The Senate should be voting for the country’s return as an ICC member-state. But instead, we’re regressing,” she told Rappler.
Meanwhile, the debate over Duterte’s detention took another twist when Senator Robin Padilla filed a resolution on October 2, 2025, urging an investigation into the alleged designation of former senator Antonio Trillanes IV to conduct a welfare check on Duterte in The Hague. Padilla questioned whether Trillanes had been officially sanctioned by any government branch or agency, and under what authority. “Such alleged designation raises questions of legality, constitutionality, and propriety of designating private individuals to represent the State before international tribunals and the extent of accountability of such designations to the Filipino people,” Padilla’s resolution read, as reported by GMA Integrated News.
Trillanes, for his part, brushed off the controversy, suggesting that Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, could simply ask her father if he had been visited. “I’m game for that. But it’s easier if they just ask Digong himself if I actually visited him or not. Anyway, Sara can talk to him over the phone any time,” Trillanes quipped.
Vice President Sara Duterte, for her part, voiced concern the previous week about the welfare check reportedly conducted by the Philippine Embassy in The Hague. She insisted that her father did not need the government’s intervention, stating that their family would take care of him. The Department of Foreign Affairs responded that the welfare check was in line with the embassy’s duties under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and relevant Philippine laws, which mandate the protection of all Filipinos abroad.
All this is unfolding against a backdrop of uncertainty about what comes next. On October 2, 2025, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla admitted that the government has not made any contingency plan in case the ICC issues arrest warrants against Duterte’s allies, such as Senators Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa and Christopher “Bong” Go. “We have yet to talk about it. I do not think they want to leave the country. We will cross the bridge when we get there,” Remulla told reporters, according to the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Former senator Trillanes, who recently attended an ICC seminar in The Hague, revealed that warrants against dela Rosa and Go could be issued as early as 2026.
Adding to the complexity, Duterte’s own request for interim release from the ICC was strongly opposed by prosecutors in June 2025. Historically, the ICC has only granted interim release to suspects charged with obstruction of justice, not crimes against humanity.
As the legal and political battles rage on, the Philippines finds itself at a crossroads—torn between calls for accountability and demands for compassion, between international scrutiny and domestic political maneuvering. The fate of Duterte and his allies remains uncertain, but the questions raised by this saga about justice, power, and the rule of law are sure to linger for years to come.
