It has been a turbulent and unprecedented year for the Philippines, as the nation finds itself at the center of a historic legal and political drama involving former president Rodrigo Duterte. Eight months after Duterte was surrendered to the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, his fate now hangs in the balance, with the Philippine Supreme Court and the international tribunal both poised to make decisions that could reverberate for decades.
On March 12, 2025, a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was filed before the Philippine Supreme Court on behalf of Veronica “Kitty” Duterte, the former president’s daughter. The petition sought to declare Duterte’s arrest, detention, and extraordinary rendition to the ICC as illegal and unconstitutional, and to order the government to facilitate his immediate return to the country. According to SunStar, Duterte was surrendered to ICC custody on the same day, following an arrest warrant issued by the court’s Pre-Trial Chamber on March 7, 2025. The ICC alleges that Duterte is “individually responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator” for crimes against humanity, specifically murder, committed between November 1, 2011, and March 16, 2019.
Since then, the legal battle has only intensified. The Supreme Court’s initial response was swift, directing respondents to show cause on March 13 and requiring petitioners to file their traverses on March 18. Yet, as reported by The Manila Times, no substantive resolutions have been issued since April 8, 2025, when the court merely “noted” a motion to set the case for oral arguments. This inaction—now stretching to over 250 days—has drawn sharp criticism from Duterte’s legal team and supporters, who argue that the prolonged delay contradicts the fundamental purpose of habeas corpus as a speedy remedy for unlawful restraint.
“The writ’s urgency is so fundamental that this Honorable Court mandates courts to 'liberally issue writs of habeas corpus even if the petition for its issuance on its face is devoid of merit,' to ensure it sets in motion the speedy judicial inquiry on the legality of any deprivation of liberty,” the urgent motion filed on November 18, 2025, states. The motion, submitted by Duterte’s counsel, Salvador Panelo Jr., and his father, former presidential legal adviser Salvador Panelo, implores the court to act decisively. “Such prolonged inaction does not only amount to a denial of the very liberty the writ seeks to protect, it also diminishes public faith in the Judiciary’s role to provide effective relief against Executive violations of fundamental rights,” the motion continues.
Meanwhile, Duterte’s health has become a growing concern. Medical reports submitted to the ICC on September 11, 2025, and cited by both The Manila Times and SunStar, reveal that his cognitive condition has deteriorated significantly. The reports detail impairments in memory, daily executive functioning, visuo-constructive abilities, and orientation to place and time. The prognosis is grim: “His condition is expected to remain static or worsen even with medical or psychiatric intervention,” leading to a request for indefinite adjournment of ICC proceedings due to his unfitness to stand trial.
The urgency surrounding Duterte’s case reached a fever pitch in late November, when viral social media posts falsely claimed that he had been found unconscious in his ICC detention cell. These rumors were quickly dispelled by Duterte’s legal team and family. “I would like to state, in no uncertain terms, that the information circulating on the internet suggesting that former President Duterte was found unconscious in his cell this morning is totally untrue. I have just spoken to him and he is stoically awaiting the judgment of the ICC Appeals Chamber on the matter of interim release,” said his lead counsel, Atty. Nicholas Kaufman, as reported by SunStar.
Vice President Sara Duterte, the former president’s daughter, also addressed the issue during a public event in Davao City, clarifying, “That’s not true, and nothing like that happened… He said that maybe it was just a prank by many of my supporters.” She emphasized that the family remains hopeful for a favorable outcome at the upcoming ICC hearing scheduled for November 28, but stressed their continued support regardless of the result. “We hope to hear good news for the public hearing on the appeal for his interim release on November 28. But if not, the family will continue to support him in his stay in The Hague. And of course continue to work with his defense team with regard to his legal case.”
The legal proceedings at the ICC have been equally complex. After Duterte’s initial appearance via video link from the ICC Detention Centre on March 14, 2025, the court scheduled a confirmation of charges hearing, initially set for September 23. On September 26, the Pre-Trial Chamber denied Duterte’s request for interim release, citing risks such as witness intimidation, obstruction of the investigation, and the possibility that Duterte might flee. In response, Duterte’s defense filed an appeal on October 14, arguing that the court failed to properly consider humanitarian factors, particularly his age (80) and declining health. The ICC Prosecutor’s Office, however, has urged the Appeals Chamber to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the defense failed to identify any legal or factual errors and that releasing Duterte would threaten the integrity of the proceedings.
ICC officials have indicated that any interim release would likely come with strict conditions, including travel restrictions, suppression of public communications, and limitations on contact with certain individuals. According to a redacted court document, Duterte has already expressed his willingness to comply with such conditions—committing to refrain from public engagement, avoid electronic devices, and limit his interactions outside his close family circle. Spokesperson Dr. Fadi El Abdallah stressed that any release would require “strict guarantees” to mitigate the risks identified by the court.
Adding another layer of complexity, the ICC recently rejected a jurisdictional challenge from Duterte’s defense, ruling that the court retains authority over his case despite the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019. The court reasoned that its preliminary examination had begun before the withdrawal took effect, thus preserving its jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the case’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, was disqualified in October 2025 due to perceived bias stemming from his previous representation of victims of Duterte’s alleged crimes. A deputy prosecutor now leads the case.
As the November 28 ruling on Duterte’s interim release approaches, the nation—and indeed, the world—watches closely. The former president remains detained at the Hague Penitentiary Institution, his future uncertain and his health reportedly fragile. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s habeas corpus petition and the ICC’s pending decision could determine not only Duterte’s fate but also set precedents for the treatment of high-profile figures facing international justice. For now, the legal and human drama continues, with questions of justice, sovereignty, and basic rights at stake.
Whatever the outcome, this case has already marked a turning point in Philippine history, testing the limits of both domestic and international law—and the resolve of those who seek accountability, compassion, or simply closure.