In a saga that continues to grip the Philippines and draw international attention, former President Rodrigo Duterte remains in detention by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, as legal and political battles over his fate intensify. The latest chapter unfolded late last month when the ICC Appeals Chamber rejected Duterte’s request for provisional release, a decision that has sparked a wave of reactions from his family, legal team, and staunch allies in the Philippine Senate.
The former president, now 80 years old, is at the center of a controversial crimes-against-humanity case linked to his administration’s bloody war on drugs. While Duterte’s legal counsel, British-Israeli lawyer Nicholas Kaufman, mounted a vigorous defense and pursued interim release on medical and humanitarian grounds, the court’s ruling on November 28, 2025, left Duterte’s hopes for temporary freedom dashed—at least for now. According to Philnews.ph, Duterte had waived his right to appear personally at the hearing, instead relying on Kaufman to represent him. The court subsequently ordered Duterte to undergo a medical checkup after concerns were raised about his fitness to stand trial. Kaufman later confirmed receipt of Duterte’s medical reports, though he emphasized that the details remain confidential.
The ICC’s decision has not gone uncontested in Manila. Among the most vocal critics is Senator Robin Padilla, a prominent member of the so-called Duterte bloc in the Senate and a close ally of the Duterte family. On December 17, 2025, Padilla issued a strongly worded statement expressing deep disappointment over the continued detention of the former president. In remarks reported by News5 and Philnews.ph, Padilla did not mince words: “You are crucifying an 80-year-old man, you denied him the house arrest that the Filipinos are demanding.”
Padilla’s criticism went beyond legal arguments, invoking moral and even spiritual consequences for the court’s actions. “It is scary if God Himself will avenge for the former President,” he warned, suggesting that the ICC’s decision could carry repercussions beyond the courtroom. The senator’s comments reflect a broader sentiment among Duterte’s supporters, many of whom have called for the former leader to be granted house arrest on humanitarian grounds, given his advanced age and health concerns.
Meanwhile, Duterte’s family has responded to the ICC’s rejection of the interim release appeal with what they describe as acceptance and resilience. As Philnews.ph reports, “the Duterte family accepted the ICC ruling on the interim release appeal of the former President ‘with open hearts.’” However, the emotional toll is evident. Kaufman revealed that Duterte’s greatest wish was to spend Christmas 2025 with his family, but there is uncertainty as to whether his relatives will be permitted to visit him on Christmas Day.
The legal battle is far from over. Kaufman has indicated that Duterte’s team may again seek interim release, possibly after the release of the former president’s medical reports. The ICC’s order for further medical examination came after Kaufman argued that Duterte was allegedly unfit to stand trial, a claim that continues to be scrutinized by the court. For now, the medical findings remain confidential, leaving both supporters and critics in suspense.
Padilla, for his part, has not limited his efforts to public statements. According to Philnews.ph and The Philippine Daily Inquirer, he has repeatedly filed resolutions and delivered speeches in the Senate opposing ICC jurisdiction over the Philippines. He maintains that Duterte should be allowed to return home or, at the very least, be placed under house arrest. This position is echoed by other Duterte allies, who argue that the former president’s age and service to the nation warrant a more compassionate approach.
In a dramatic twist, Padilla has also claimed that ICC judges and prosecutors involved in Duterte’s case have faced disruptions to their financial and digital services. According to the senator, some officials have allegedly been cut off by banks, credit card firms, and major technology companies as a consequence of their continued handling of Duterte’s detention. However, as reported by The Philippine Star, the ICC has not issued any public statement confirming such claims, and no independent verification has been released regarding these alleged actions by financial institutions or technology firms. The absence of corroboration leaves these assertions in the realm of political rhetoric for now.
The ICC Appeals Chamber, meanwhile, is pressing forward with its review of arguments from both the prosecution and defense regarding the court’s authority to proceed with the case. Earlier this month, the chamber ordered additional legal submissions from all parties, signaling that jurisdictional and procedural issues remain unresolved. As the process drags on, the question of whether the ICC can assert jurisdiction over a former head of state from a country that has withdrawn from the court’s treaty continues to be a matter of intense debate among legal scholars and political observers alike.
Duterte’s detention and the international proceedings against him have become a flashpoint in Philippine politics, highlighting deep divisions within the country. Supporters argue that the ICC’s actions represent an unwarranted interference in Philippine sovereignty and an affront to national dignity. Critics, on the other hand, contend that accountability for alleged human rights abuses is essential, regardless of the individual’s status or age.
Senator Padilla’s unwavering loyalty to Duterte is well known; he has even begun campaigning for Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, as a potential presidential candidate in the 2028 elections. This political backdrop adds yet another layer of complexity to the unfolding drama, as various factions vie for influence and attempt to shape the narrative surrounding Duterte’s fate.
For now, the former president remains in ICC custody in The Hague, his legal team weighing their next steps, and his family hoping for a chance to reunite—if only briefly—during the holidays. The court’s final decision on jurisdiction and Duterte’s future remains uncertain, but what is clear is that the case has become a symbol of the broader struggle over justice, sovereignty, and the limits of international law in an increasingly divided world.
As the year draws to a close, the fate of Rodrigo Duterte continues to hang in the balance, a potent reminder of how the pursuit of justice can reverberate far beyond the courtroom, touching lives, families, and the very fabric of a nation.