The Philippine political and legal landscape has been shaken once again as the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) announced its return to represent the government in the Supreme Court petitions challenging the arrest and turnover of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This move, confirmed through an official manifestation filed on December 1, 2025, marks a dramatic reversal from the OSG’s earlier recusal, a decision that had left many observers questioning the government’s legal strategy in the face of mounting international scrutiny.
According to GMA Integrated News, the eight-page manifestation signaled the OSG’s intent to re-enter as counsel for all respondents in the Supreme Court petitions concerning Duterte’s controversial arrest and transfer to The Hague, Netherlands. The OSG, now under the leadership of Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe, stepped back into the fray less than a year after its previous withdrawal—a withdrawal that was approved by the Supreme Court in April 2025 following Duterte’s dramatic arrest at Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 in March.
The OSG’s earlier recusal, as detailed by POLITIKO, was rooted in a firm institutional stance: the office had consistently argued that the ICC held no jurisdiction over the Philippines, a position that seemed at odds with representing government officials in a case centered on ICC proceedings. The Department of Justice (DOJ) had since taken over representation for a roster of high-profile officials, including former Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, former Justice Secretary and now Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla, Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla, former Philippine National Police chiefs Rommel Marbil and Nicolas Torre III, former Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo, and Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff Gen. Romeo Brawner Jr.
But what prompted the OSG’s return? In a statement released on December 2, Solicitor General Berberabe explained, “It is our foremost duty to appear and represent the interest of the government, especially in cases of utmost importance.” She added, “Our decision to enter anew our appearance in this case is based on our appreciation of the totality of the facts, including those that have unfolded since March 2025 and our understanding of the law as it should apply to those facts.” (Inquirer)
This abrupt shift has not gone unchallenged. Atty. Israelito Torreon, representing Duterte and Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, decried the OSG’s reentry as “an abrupt and unexplained shift” from its previous recusal. “The OSG re-entered the case without providing any justification for abandoning its original institutional stance. This return to the case has the effect of negating the OSG’s own sworn representations to the SC and disregards the institutional limits that the OSG itself invoked,” Torreon stated pointedly. “Institutional positions cannot be abandoned and revived on an ad hoc basis, depending on the political weather. The OSG cannot recuse today, then resurrect itself tomorrow.”
The legal wrangling is set against the backdrop of Duterte’s arrest and ongoing detention in The Hague. As reported by GMA Integrated News, the former president was apprehended at the airport in March 2025 on charges of crimes against humanity stemming from his administration’s bloody anti-drug campaign. The ICC Appeals Chamber recently denied Duterte’s appeal for interim release, solidifying his status as a detainee in international custody.
Numbers surrounding the anti-drug campaign remain a flashpoint. While government records indicate that at least 6,200 drug suspects were killed in police operations between June 2016 and November 2021, several human rights organizations contend that the true toll may reach as high as 30,000, citing unreported and extrajudicial killings. This staggering discrepancy continues to fuel both domestic and international calls for accountability.
The legal saga has also drawn in Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, Duterte’s former Philippine National Police chief and a co-perpetrator named in the ICC case. In November 2025, rumors swirled that the ICC had issued a warrant against Dela Rosa. Reacting swiftly, his lawyer sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Supreme Court to prevent the enforcement of any such warrant. Dela Rosa, perhaps anticipating legal jeopardy, has conspicuously stopped attending Senate sessions since last month.
Yet, the OSG has dismissed Dela Rosa’s plea as speculative. In its manifestation, the office described the request for injunctive relief as “another attempt at their failed bid to preempt” the executive branch. “Stripped to its essentials, the manifestation is but a preemptive measure to prevent respondents from acting on the alleged ICC arrest warrant issued against Senator Dela Rosa,” the OSG argued, stressing that there has been no official government declaration confirming the existence of a warrant or diffusion order against Dela Rosa. “At this stage, therefore, Senator Dela Rosa has no clear legal right that needs court protection because his fear of impending arrest and the supposed violation of his right as a consequence thereof, while imaginable, do not find anchor in any established fact.”
The OSG’s position is clear: absent an actual arrest warrant, Dela Rosa’s plea “has no leg to stand on” and the Supreme Court “cannot properly intervene, much less grant the relief being sought.” The office further emphasized, “His claim that he will be arrested and surrendered is, at this juncture, pure conjecture in much the same way that the manner and procedure in the enforcement of such arrest and surrender is speculative.”
This latest twist in the Duterte-ICC saga underscores the complex interplay of Philippine law, international obligations, and political maneuvering. The OSG’s renewed involvement has reignited debate over the government’s evolving posture toward the ICC and the broader question of accountability for the thousands of deaths under Duterte’s anti-drug campaign. Critics argue that the OSG’s shifting stance reflects political expediency, while supporters claim it is simply fulfilling its statutory mandate to defend the interests of the state, especially in matters of grave national importance.
Meanwhile, the media landscape continues to amplify these developments. Outlets such as ABS-CBN, POLITIKO, and the Abante-Bilyonaryo Group have provided extensive coverage, ensuring that the public remains informed amid the legal and political turbulence. As the Supreme Court weighs the petitions and the ICC process grinds forward, all eyes remain fixed on the fate of Duterte, Dela Rosa, and the officials who once stood at the helm of the Philippine government’s most controversial campaign.
Whether the OSG’s reentry will tip the scales in favor of the government or simply add another layer of complexity to an already convoluted legal battle remains to be seen. For now, the case stands as a stark reminder of the enduring tensions between national sovereignty, institutional integrity, and the demands of international justice.
