In a development that has gripped the Philippines and drawn international attention, the Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are now at the center of a legal and political maelstrom involving former President Rodrigo Duterte. The saga, which began with Duterte’s dramatic arrest in March 2025, continues to unfold with new legal maneuvers, impassioned public reactions, and heated debates over national sovereignty and human rights.
On November 11, 2025, the Philippine Supreme Court issued a resolution requiring all parties involved in several habeas corpus petitions—filed on Duterte’s behalf by his children—to submit comprehensive memoranda within 30 days. The court demanded clarity on the intricate interplay between Philippine domestic law, constitutional rights, and the country’s international obligations, especially in the context of Duterte’s arrest and transfer to the ICC. The SC made this resolution public on November 28, 2025, underscoring the gravity and urgency of the issue, according to Manila Bulletin.
Duterte, who served as president from 2016 to 2022 and previously as mayor of Davao City, was arrested on March 11, 2025. The arrest was carried out under an ICC warrant processed through Interpol for alleged crimes against humanity tied to his infamous war on drugs. On the very day of his arrest, Duterte was flown to The Hague, Netherlands, where he remains in detention at an ICC facility. His arrest and transfer to international custody have been hotly contested by his family and supporters, who argue that the process violated his constitutional rights and Philippine extradition laws, especially given the country’s withdrawal from the ICC in 2019.
The habeas corpus petitions, spearheaded by Duterte’s children—Veronica "Kitty" Duterte, Davao City Mayor Sebastian "Baste" Duterte, and Davao City Rep. Paolo "Pulong" Duterte—allege that their father was “abducted” and that his transfer to the ICC lacked legal basis. They contend that the Philippines’ 2019 exit from the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, nullifies any obligation to cooperate with the court, particularly regarding acts committed while the country was still a member.
The Supreme Court has asked all parties to address several thorny questions: Is the controversy now moot given ongoing ICC proceedings? Should the SC exercise judicial restraint? Does Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute impose continuing obligations on the Philippines post-withdrawal? Does the principle of complementarity—whereby the ICC only acts if national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute—apply under Philippine law? And crucially, was Duterte’s arrest legal under both international and domestic statutes? The enforceability of the Interpol Red Notice, which triggered Duterte’s arrest, is also under scrutiny.
Meanwhile, the ICC has pressed forward with its own proceedings. On November 28, 2025, the ICC Appeals Chamber ruled that Duterte, now 80 years old, must remain in detention despite a defense appeal for his provisional release on humanitarian grounds. The defense had argued that Duterte’s declining health and advanced age warranted his release, but the Appeals Chamber found no errors in the lower court’s earlier decision to keep him detained. Presiding judge Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza stated, “The Appeals Chamber found that the defense failed to identify errors” in the prior ruling, as reported by Reuters and other outlets.
Duterte was not present in court for the decision. His grandson, Omar Duterte, voiced the family’s frustration, telling reporters, “Half the time, while we are talking, he doesn’t even know why he’s in there, in detention.” Despite these pleas, the ICC found that the proposed defense conditions did not sufficiently mitigate flight risk and cited technical considerations under Article 58 of the Rome Statute. The court also dismissed defense arguments based on Duterte’s health and age.
In Manila, the decision was met with mixed reactions. Families of victims of extrajudicial killings (EJKs)—many of whom lost loved ones during Duterte’s anti-drug campaign—expressed relief and even joy at the ruling. As reported by Reuters, some supporters of the victims held signs reading, “Duterte’s detention is our safety, no to interim release,” and called for the trial to proceed without delay. Sheerah Escudero, whose brother was killed in 2017, said, “The trial must go on. It must continue until it is proven that Duterte is guilty.”
The ICC’s case against Duterte is sweeping in scope. The charges span from November 1, 2011, when Duterte was still mayor of Davao City, through March 16, 2019, the day before the Philippines withdrew from the ICC. Police records cite 6,200 deaths during anti-drug operations, but activists and the ICC prosecutor estimate the true toll could be as high as 30,000. Duterte has consistently denied ordering unlawful killings, maintaining that police were instructed to act only in self-defense. He has repeatedly declared his readiness to “rot in jail” if it meant ridding the country of drugs.
Looking ahead, the ICC will now evaluate Duterte’s fitness to stand trial. A three-person expert panel is due to submit a report on his medical and mental capacity by December 5, 2025, with responses from involved parties expected by December 12. The pre-trial chamber will then decide whether Duterte can meaningfully participate in the proceedings. As Gilbert Andres, executive director of the Center for International Law and counsel for EJK victims’ families, explained to The Manila Times, “This decision is a step forward in ensuring accountability and reinforces the importance of victim involvement in the proceedings.”
Victims’ advocates continue to press the ICC for additional arrest warrants against alleged co-perpetrators, including former Philippine National Police chief Senator Ronald dela Rosa, who has been absent from Senate sessions since November 11. Applications for further warrants remain confidential, with ICC decisions expected in 2026. The court’s victim-centered approach, prioritizing justice and truth for those affected by the drug war, remains a cornerstone of the ongoing process.
Not everyone, however, is satisfied with the ICC’s actions. Duterte’s political party, PDP, has criticized the court, accusing it of bias and political motives. In a statement, PDP deputy spokesman Ferdinand Topacio said, “It has decided that Duterte will be its whipping boy, aided and abetted by the present weak and compliant Philippine government itself in need of something to divert attention away from massive corruption scandals and systemic failure of governance.” The party continues to express hope for a favorable outcome for their embattled leader.
As the legal battles rage on, the case of Rodrigo Duterte stands as a defining moment for the Philippines—testing the boundaries of international justice, national sovereignty, and the quest for accountability in the face of grave human rights allegations. The coming weeks, as the Supreme Court and ICC weigh critical decisions, promise to shape not only Duterte’s fate but also the broader narrative of justice in the Philippines.
