It’s a saga that’s gripped the Philippines and drawn international attention: the arrest, detention, and ongoing legal battles surrounding former President Rodrigo Duterte. As rumors swirl on social media and political tensions mount at home, the fate of the controversial ex-leader hangs in the balance—while his family, supporters, and critics spar over the legitimacy of his transfer to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.
On September 16, 2025, Philippine Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla publicly denounced a complaint filed by acting Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte—son of the former president—calling it “pure political harassment.” According to INQUIRER.net, Baste Duterte accused Remulla and ten other top officials of a litany of serious offenses, including kidnapping, arbitrary detention, violations of the rights of arrested persons, qualified direct assault, expulsion, usurpation of judicial functions, and breaches of both the Anti-Torture Act and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The complaint stems from the dramatic turnover of Rodrigo Duterte to the ICC in March 2025, where he now faces allegations of crimes against humanity tied to his administration’s bloody anti-drug campaign.
Remulla, undeterred, addressed the charges in an interview on ANC’s Headstart. “I think the Ombudsman, the current acting Ombudsman, will hopefully see that this is just pure political harassment,” he said. “I don’t think it’s stopped since March. I think everything is fair game to them. But, it’s okay. We will face the charges. Whatever they file, we will answer. I think we are confident with what we did and how we accomplished it.”
The list of accused officials reads like a who’s who of the current administration: Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, National Defense Secretary Gilbert “Gibo” Teodoro, National Security Adviser Eduardo Año, Department of Justice Undersecretary Nicholas Felix Ty, and several high-ranking police and transnational crime officials. Notably, just three days earlier, the Office of the Ombudsman had dismissed a similar case filed by Senator Imee Marcos against Justice Secretary Remulla and six others, also related to Duterte’s arrest.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who has had a complicated relationship with both the Duterte family and the legacy of the war on drugs, justified the turnover of his predecessor to the ICC. In a press conference following Duterte’s transfer, Marcos Jr. stated that the operation was part of the Philippines’ commitment to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL). However, the move has not gone unchallenged. Duterte’s children filed a habeas corpus petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that their father’s arrest was a “grave violation of his constitutional rights, due process, and the sovereignty of the Philippine judicial system,” as reported by INQUIRER.net.
Remulla, for his part, insists the operation was above board. “The Hague recognizes it as a legitimate operation. They accepted it. They did not find any invalid reason for his arrest, and we maintain the same,” he told reporters on September 16.
Meanwhile, the legal and political debate rages on. At a House appropriations panel hearing on the Department of Justice’s proposed budget for 2026, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla was grilled about the decision to serve the ICC’s arrest warrant on Duterte. Some lawmakers, including Sagip party-list Representative Henry Marcoleta, questioned whether the DOJ’s actions conflicted with President Marcos Jr.’s previously stated position that the Philippines would not cooperate with ICC proceedings. Remulla responded, “Us working in the government, we make a lot of decisions everyday. And they are not cast in stone. These decisions can change in due time, at certain times. Marahil, nagbago po ang aming pagtingin sa usaping ito.”
He further clarified: “Hindi po tayo tumaliwas [sa Presidente]. Marahil ho, nagbago rin ang lahat sa kanyang paningin. As I have said, not everything is cast in stone. Nung dumating po ‘yung pagkakataon na talagang andun na ho ang Republic Act 9851, at lahat po ng factor tinitingnan po natin sa security po ng ating bansa...basta sa akin po, ang aking clearance na binigay ay sa legal basis ng kanyang pagpunta sa The Hague.” As GMA News highlights, Republic Act 9851 is the Philippine law on crimes against international humanitarian law, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The law allows Philippine authorities to waive domestic prosecution if another court or international tribunal is already handling the case.
Adding another layer of legal obligation, a July 2021 Supreme Court ruling requires the Philippines to cooperate with ICC proceedings if the alleged crimes occurred while the country was a signatory to the Rome Statute. Remulla deferred questions about whether the 80-year-old Duterte posed a security risk due to his age, saying that evaluation was best left to the National Security Council.
While the legal wrangling continues, social media has become a battleground of misinformation. On September 16, Rappler published a detailed fact-check debunking viral claims that Rodrigo Duterte had died in ICC custody. The false rumor, which originated from a Facebook video posted on September 13 and quickly amassed over 1.7 million views, claimed that Senator Christopher “Bong” Go had confirmed Duterte’s death. Rappler found no official statements from Go or any Duterte family members corroborating the claim. In fact, the former president is alive and remains detained at the ICC in The Hague, where he has been held since March 2025.
Duterte’s health, however, has become a focal point of both legal strategy and public speculation. On August 18, his lead defense lawyer, Nicholas Kaufman, filed a motion to indefinitely postpone all legal proceedings, arguing that Duterte was “unfit to stand trial” due to a “deteriorating cognitive condition.” Kaufman elaborated on September 9, stating, “Ever since his precipitous and traumatic rendition, the Defence has been struggling with the former President’s progressively deteriorating medical situation which has affected his ability to assimilate the evidence and to give his lawyers proper instructions.”
Yet, not everyone is convinced by the defense’s claims. Kristina Conti, a lawyer representing victims of Duterte’s drug war, pointed out that the defense’s medical expert was not independent. She emphasized previous public assurances from Duterte’s children, including Vice President Sara Duterte, who reported after an August visit that her father was in good spirits and, aside from high blood sugar, was “okay.” The ICC, citing these health concerns, postponed the confirmation of charges hearing originally set for September 23, 2025. No new date has been announced, and Duterte’s legal team has requested his temporary release in the Netherlands while proceedings are on hold.
As the legal, political, and media storms swirl, the Philippines finds itself at a crossroads—caught between international obligations, domestic political rivalries, and the powerful sway of online misinformation. For now, the former president remains in The Hague, his fate suspended between the courts, the headlines, and the ever-changing winds of Philippine politics.
