In a development that has sent ripples through Philippine politics and international legal circles, the International Criminal Court (ICC) reaffirmed its decision to keep former president Rodrigo Duterte in detention at The Hague, Netherlands, as he awaits trial for alleged crimes against humanity linked to his controversial war on drugs. The move comes amid a swirl of public statements, legal maneuvers, and political intrigue involving some of the country’s most prominent figures, including Duterte’s own daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, and key members of the Philippine government.
On September 12, 2025, ICC prosecutors released a statement that left little doubt about their stance: Duterte should remain behind bars while the court prepares to open hearings into accusations stemming from his bloody anti-drug campaign. According to court documents cited by the ICC and reported by the Filipino-Chinese newspaper World News, recent events have only strengthened the prosecution’s resolve. “The short time since the Prosecution submitted its Response, other serious incidents have occurred that support Mr. Duterte’s continued detention,” the ICC noted, pointing directly to public remarks made by the vice president.
Vice President Sara Duterte, never one to shy away from controversy, emerged as a lightning rod in the debate. During a visit to The Hague and in subsequent media interviews, she declared that her father had been “kidnapped” by authorities during his arrest and transfer to the ICC, labeling the entire process as “illegal.” These statements, the ICC argued, were not only misleading but potentially damaging to the integrity of the proceedings. In fact, the court went so far as to say that such claims “risked undermining the integrity of the proceedings.”
The vice president’s rhetoric didn’t stop there. In a Facebook livestream, she joked about breaking her father out of detention, calling on supporters to “collaborate on a jailbreak.” The line, delivered with a smile, nevertheless raised eyebrows among ICC officials, who cited it as an example of the kind of public posturing that could incite unrest or disrupt the judicial process. Later, on the steps of the ICC itself, Sara Duterte took her allegations further, accusing the court of “colluding” with the Philippine government and paying “fake witnesses” to bolster the case against her father.
All of this unfolded against the backdrop of a legal battle playing out back home. On September 15, 2025, the country’s oldest and largest Filipino-Chinese newspaper reported that the Office of the Ombudsman had dismissed complaints against Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla related to Duterte’s arrest and transfer to The Hague. The complaints, which were brought forward by Senator Imee Marcos, chairperson of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, alleged that Remulla and other high-ranking officials may have committed criminal and administrative offenses during the process.
Senator Marcos, undeterred by the Ombudsman’s decision, quickly filed a motion for reconsideration on September 12, 2025, insisting that the matter was far from settled. “Under the Rules of the Office of the Ombudsman (A.O. 7 series of 1990), a motion for reconsideration may be filed within 5 days from notice of the decision. I filed my Motion for Reconsideration within the day the decision was rendered. It was clearly filed on time,” Marcos stated, as quoted in World News. She further asserted, “Any Ombudsman clearance to the contrary is simply untruthful, and the people who will issue such a clearance are complicit in this deception.”
The legal wrangling stems from Duterte’s arrest in the Philippines on March 11, 2025, by local authorities acting on a warrant issued by the ICC. The former president was subsequently transferred to The Hague, where he now faces charges for crimes against humanity—specifically, for the extrajudicial killings that marked his administration’s war on drugs. The inquiry that led to the complaints against Remulla reportedly “uncovered acts by high-ranking government officials which very likely constitute criminal and administrative offenses,” according to the chairman’s report submitted by Marcos in May.
Justice Secretary Remulla, for his part, has maintained his innocence and expressed hope for a swift resolution. He is also a candidate for the position of Ombudsman, adding another layer of complexity to the case. Remulla has said that he would file a motion asking the Ombudsman to resolve the issue “as soon as possible.”
The stakes, both legal and political, could hardly be higher. The ICC’s insistence on Duterte’s continued detention reflects not just the seriousness of the charges, but also the court’s concern about external interference and public pressure. According to the ICC, Sara Duterte’s public remarks—ranging from allegations of kidnapping to jokes about jailbreaks—have “raised red flags” and could potentially undermine the legitimacy of the entire process.
Observers say the case has become a flashpoint for broader debates about accountability, sovereignty, and the rule of law in the Philippines. Supporters of the former president argue that the ICC’s actions amount to foreign meddling in domestic affairs, while critics insist that international oversight is necessary to ensure justice for the thousands of victims of the drug war. The vice president’s suggestion that the court is “paying fake witnesses” has only added fuel to the fire, with some in the government warning that such rhetoric could inflame tensions and damage the country’s international reputation.
Meanwhile, the legal process grinds on. With the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the complaints against Remulla now under challenge, and with Duterte’s trial at The Hague looming, the Philippines finds itself at a crossroads. Will the country’s institutions withstand the pressure, or will political loyalties and public spectacle tip the scales?
For now, all eyes remain fixed on The Hague, where Rodrigo Duterte sits in detention, and on Manila, where the battle over his arrest and the conduct of government officials continues to play out in courtrooms and the court of public opinion. As the drama unfolds, the fate of a former president—and perhaps the future of Philippine justice—hangs in the balance.