In a move that has reignited debate over both national sovereignty and international justice, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has granted the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) permission to resume its role as government counsel in high-profile petitions involving the arrest and potential transfer of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The decision, made public on December 4, 2025, marks a significant development in a legal saga that has captured the attention of the nation and sparked intense discussion about the boundaries of Philippine law and international obligations.
The OSG’s reentry comes after a period of absence from the case. Back in March 2025, under then Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra, the OSG recused itself from representing government officials named as respondents in a petition filed by Duterte and Senator Ronald Dela Rosa. At the time, Guevarra argued that the Philippines, having withdrawn from the Rome Statute in 2019, was no longer under the ICC’s jurisdiction and thus had no legal obligation to cooperate with its proceedings. The Supreme Court accepted the OSG’s recusal, allowing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to step in as government counsel. According to the Manila Bulletin, Guevarra stated, “The Philippines has no legal obligation to cooperate with the ICC nor recognize any process emanating from the ICC following the effectivity of the country's withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019.”
The case at the heart of this legal wrangling—docketed as GR No. 278747—was filed by Duterte and Dela Rosa. It challenges the legality of any arrest and subsequent turnover of Duterte to the ICC. Respondents include a roster of high-ranking current and former officials: former Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, former Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin C. Remulla, Local Government Secretary Juan Victor Remulla, former Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Gen. Rommel Marbin, former PNP-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) Director Gen. Nicolas Torre III, former Solicitor General Guevarra, Foreign Affairs Secretary Enrique Manalo, and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Romeo Brawner Jr., as reported by GMA Integrated News.
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the OSG’s reentry was triggered by a series of legal maneuvers and ongoing developments. On November 20, 2025, the DOJ received a Supreme Court resolution requiring respondents to comment on an urgent motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) filed by Duterte’s camp. The DOJ, in turn, referred the matter to the OSG for appropriate action on November 25. Then, on December 1, Solicitor General Darlene Marie B. Berberabe formally filed a manifestation with entry of appearance, seeking to resume the OSG’s role as government counsel—a request the Supreme Court granted during its En Banc session on December 3, as detailed by ABS-CBN and the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Notably, the Supreme Court previously denied a TRO sought by Duterte and Dela Rosa on March 12, 2025, instead directing the respondents to file their comments. The petition, along with related cases filed by Duterte’s children, has remained pending as the justices await further memoranda and updates on ICC-related developments from all parties.
Amid these procedural twists, the Office of the President weighed in, describing the OSG’s return as “proper, lawful, and mandated,” emphasizing that the agency is simply fulfilling its statutory duty. The significance of this move was underscored by the Inquirer, which quoted the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office: “The SC granted the manifestation with entry of appearance filed by the OSG, allowing the OSG to resume its role as counsel for the respondents in the case.”
The broader context for these proceedings is the ICC’s ongoing investigation into alleged crimes against humanity committed during Duterte’s presidency, particularly in connection with the controversial war on drugs. Official government records indicate that at least 6,200 drug suspects were killed in police operations between June 2016 and November 2021. However, human rights groups claim the actual number could be as high as 30,000, citing unreported killings and extrajudicial executions. These stark figures have fueled both domestic and international calls for accountability, making the Supreme Court’s handling of the petitions a matter of both legal and moral consequence.
The legal battle took a dramatic turn in March 2025, when Duterte was arrested at Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 on allegations of crimes against humanity and subsequently transferred to The Hague. The ICC Appeals Chamber recently denied Duterte’s appeal for interim release, further complicating his legal predicament. According to GMA Integrated News, “The ICC Appeals Chamber recently denied Duterte’s appeal on the rejection of his request for interim release.”
Throughout these proceedings, the question of who should represent the government has itself become a point of contention. After the OSG’s initial recusal, the DOJ took over representation. But the OSG’s return has sparked debate among legal experts and political observers alike. Veronica “Kitty” Duterte’s lawyer, Atty. Paolo Panelo, expressed skepticism about the impact of the OSG’s reentry, stating, “Because you cannot defend the indefensible. Treason cannot be disguised as international cooperation, and submission to the Constitution cannot be optional. Former Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra got it right the first time.” This sentiment reflects a broader divide within the legal community over the legitimacy of the ICC’s actions and the Philippine government’s responsibility to comply—or not comply—with international legal processes.
For its part, the OSG has maintained that its actions are grounded in law and its mandate to represent the government’s interests. The agency’s reentry comes at a time when the Supreme Court is still considering Duterte’s reiterative plea for a TRO against his arrest, as well as related petitions filed by his children. The High Court has directed all parties to submit their memoranda and keep it informed of any new developments in the ICC proceedings.
As the legal process unfolds, the case continues to expose deep divisions within Philippine society over issues of justice, accountability, and sovereignty. Supporters of Duterte argue that the ICC’s intervention undermines national sovereignty and disregards the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute. Critics, meanwhile, see the Supreme Court’s deliberations as a crucial test of the Philippines’ commitment to human rights and international norms.
With the OSG now back in the legal fray and the Supreme Court’s final ruling still pending, the fate of former President Duterte—and the country’s stance on international justice—remains uncertain. The coming weeks promise further legal drama, as all eyes turn to the High Court for a decision that could shape the Philippines’ relationship with the ICC for years to come.
The story is far from over, and the implications stretch well beyond the courtroom. As the nation watches and waits, the outcome will not only determine the legal status of one former president but also test the boundaries between domestic law and international accountability.
