On August 19, 2025, the ongoing legal drama surrounding former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte took a significant turn when International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Karim Khan publicly declared that there are no grounds to remove him from the high-profile case. The announcement, reported by ABS-CBN, came amid mounting speculation and political maneuvering both in the Philippines and abroad, as the ICC continues to investigate allegations stemming from Duterte's controversial war on drugs.
For many Filipinos, the ICC’s probe is more than just another international legal proceeding; it strikes at the very heart of national debates about justice, sovereignty, and accountability. The case has polarized the nation, with some hailing the court’s intervention as a long-overdue reckoning and others decrying it as foreign interference in domestic affairs. Khan’s recent statement has only added fuel to the fire, ensuring the issue remains front and center in both Philippine and international headlines.
“There are no grounds to remove me from the International Criminal Court case involving former Philippine President Duterte,” Khan said, according to ABS-CBN. This straightforward declaration was intended to put to rest rumors and legal arguments raised by Duterte’s camp and some of his political allies, who have challenged the impartiality and authority of the ICC’s chief prosecutor. Yet, as history has shown, such statements rarely settle matters in the court of public opinion.
The ICC’s investigation, launched in response to widespread reports of extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses during Duterte’s presidency, has been a lightning rod for controversy since its inception. The former president’s anti-drug campaign, which began in 2016, was marked by thousands of deaths, many under suspicious circumstances. International human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have long called for accountability, arguing that the campaign amounted to a systematic attack on the rule of law.
In the Philippines, reactions to the ICC’s involvement have been deeply divided. Supporters of Duterte argue that the war on drugs was a necessary—if brutal—response to a national crisis. They point out that crime rates fell during his term and that many ordinary citizens felt safer in their communities. Critics, on the other hand, insist that the campaign trampled on basic human rights and that the state must answer for the lives lost.
The question of whether Khan should be disqualified from the case has become a focal point for Duterte’s legal team. They have argued that the chief prosecutor has demonstrated bias and should recuse himself to preserve the integrity of the proceedings. However, as reported by ABS-CBN, Khan’s response was unequivocal: he sees no basis for his removal and intends to continue overseeing the investigation.
This latest development is significant not only for the Duterte case but also for the credibility of the ICC itself. The court, established in 2002 under the Rome Statute, was designed as a last resort for prosecuting individuals accused of the world’s gravest crimes when national courts are unable or unwilling to act. Yet, the ICC has often faced criticism from both member and non-member states, who accuse it of overreach or political bias.
Khan’s insistence on remaining at the helm of the Duterte probe can be seen as a reaffirmation of the ICC’s independence. “There are no grounds to remove me,” he stated, as quoted by ABS-CBN, signaling his determination to ensure that the investigation proceeds according to international legal standards, regardless of political pressure.
For many observers, the stakes could hardly be higher. The outcome of the ICC’s investigation could set a precedent for how international law addresses alleged abuses by powerful political figures. If the court ultimately finds sufficient evidence to proceed with charges against Duterte or members of his administration, it could send a powerful message to leaders worldwide: no one is above the law, not even presidents.
But the path ahead is anything but straightforward. The Philippine government, under Duterte’s successor, has taken a cautious approach to the ICC. While the country withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019, the court maintains that it retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member. This legal gray area has been the subject of intense debate, with both sides marshaling constitutional and international law experts to bolster their arguments.
Meanwhile, the Filipino public remains deeply divided. For some, the ICC’s involvement represents an affront to national sovereignty. As one Duterte supporter told ABS-CBN, “We can handle our own problems. We don’t need outsiders telling us what to do.” Others, however, see the court as a necessary check on abuses of power, especially in a political system where accountability can be elusive.
International reaction has been closely watched as well. Human rights advocates abroad have praised Khan’s steadfastness. According to a spokesperson for Human Rights Watch, “The ICC’s willingness to pursue justice in the face of political obstacles is crucial if the world is to hold leaders accountable for serious crimes.” At the same time, some governments have expressed concern that the court’s actions could set a precedent for interference in domestic affairs—a worry that resonates in capitals far beyond Manila.
For now, Khan’s statement appears to have settled, at least temporarily, the question of his role in the case. But with legal maneuvers ongoing and political rhetoric heating up, the story is far from over. The ICC’s investigation will likely continue to shape Philippine politics and spark debate about the future of international justice for months, if not years, to come.
As the case unfolds, all eyes will remain on the ICC and its chief prosecutor. Khan’s declaration that there are no grounds for his removal underscores the seriousness with which the court views its mandate—and the challenges it faces in a world where the pursuit of justice is often anything but simple.
In a nation wrestling with its past and its future, the ICC’s investigation into Duterte’s war on drugs remains a potent symbol of the struggle for accountability, justice, and the rule of law. Whether or not the court ultimately brings charges, the questions it raises are sure to echo far beyond the walls of any courtroom.