Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, once the country’s most powerful man, now finds himself at the center of a historic legal and political drama on the world stage. Detained in The Hague since March 11, 2025, after Philippine authorities and Interpol coordinated his arrest, Duterte faces grave allegations of crimes against humanity stemming from his administration’s bloody war on drugs. As the International Criminal Court (ICC) prepares for a pivotal hearing to confirm charges on September 23, 2025, the case has become a lightning rod for controversy, intrigue, and sharp divisions both at home and abroad.
The latest twist in this unfolding saga? Duterte’s legal team has launched a bid to disqualify ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, alleging a “grievous conflict of interest” due to Khan’s prior involvement representing alleged victims of the drug war before he assumed his current role. According to Inquirer and GMA News, British-Israeli lawyer Nicholas Kaufman, Duterte’s lead counsel, argued that Khan’s impartiality is compromised, stating, “Mr. Khan abused the criminal process to push forward an investigation in which he had an undeclared personal interest, or at the very least an undeclared personal obligation from which he had not sought to release himself.”
This move by Duterte’s camp comes at a critical juncture. The former president has been detained at Scheveningen Prison in The Hague for over five months, awaiting the confirmation of charges that could mark the first time a Philippine leader stands trial at the ICC. The allegations are rooted in his administration’s anti-drug campaign, which, according to government records, resulted in over 6,000 deaths in police operations. Human rights organizations contend the true toll may be as high as 30,000, citing unreported cases and extrajudicial killings that stretched back to Duterte’s tenure as mayor of Davao City.
In a notification dated August 18, 2025, Prosecutor Khan firmly rejected the disqualification request. “The Prosecutor files this Notification in order to advise PTC I (Pre-Trial Chamber 1) that the Prosecutor has carefully considered whether the circumstances summarised above give rise to any grounds for disqualification and that he does not consider that any grounds for disqualification currently exist,” Khan stated, as reported by GMA News. He added, “The Prosecutor notifies the PTC that the Prosecutor considers that there is no conflict of interest requiring him to seek to excuse himself from the situation in the Republic of the Philippines in accordance with rule 33.”
Khan’s notification detailed his earlier involvement in the Philippines’ situation, clarifying that in June 2018, he was part of a legal team representing over 100 alleged victims of extrajudicial killings. Their team submitted a request to then-ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to open an investigation. “The Prosecutor was not directly involved in investigations or interviewing any victim or witness, but participated pro bono in reviewing and presenting the submission to the then Prosecutor Bensouda. Mr. Khan withdrew from the matter and ceased any involvement shortly thereafter,” Khan wrote, emphasizing the limited and brief nature of his participation.
Article 42(7) of the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, states that the Prosecutor must not participate in any matter where their impartiality might reasonably be doubted. Duterte’s defense team seized on this, arguing that Khan’s previous advocacy for victims creates an “irreconcilable conflict of interest.” In their August 7 filing, they urged the Appeals Chamber to act swiftly: “Given the imminence of the confirmation of charges hearing, presently scheduled for September 23, 2025, the defense respectfully requests that the Appeals Chamber swiftly adjudicate this request to ensure that Mr. Khan is precluded from further participation in, and contamination of, the present case.”
Khan, however, countered that there is no precedent for disqualifying an ICC Prosecutor based on prior involvement in earlier stages of proceedings on behalf of victims. “The Prosecutor is not aware of any prior case in which the impartiality of the Prosecutor has been challenged on the basis of a prior involvement in an earlier stage of proceedings on behalf of one or more victims or a group representing the interests of victims,” he noted. He further argued, “It is clear that the Prosecutor’s prior involvement in the situation in the Republic of the Philippines was not in a capacity by virtue of which his impartiality might reasonably be doubted and was not such that he could be expected to have formed an opinion of the case in question that, objectively, could adversely affect his impartiality.”
The Philippines’ political landscape has been roiled by Duterte’s arrest and transfer to ICC custody. President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and his administration have faced withering criticism from Duterte’s supporters, who accuse the government of collaborating with the ICC to sideline the former leader. Malacañang, the presidential palace, has defended its actions, insisting that the government was simply fulfilling its obligations under international law. Meanwhile, Vice President Sara Duterte, the former president’s daughter, has claimed that the ICC and President Marcos “used each other” to orchestrate her father’s arrest. She alleges that the ICC sought to pursue the case while the Marcos administration wanted Duterte out of the country—a dramatic charge that underscores the deep political rifts exposed by the case.
Amid these legal battles, Duterte’s legal team has also filed for his interim release to an undisclosed country, but requested that the court hold off on deciding the plea while they await supporting documents. The former president himself, according to his camp, is “very happy” with the Philippine Supreme Court’s recent ruling on an impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, though the connection to his own legal fate remains unclear.
The stakes for all involved are enormous. For the ICC, the case is a test of its ability to hold powerful figures accountable for alleged human rights abuses, especially in the face of fierce political resistance. For the Philippines, it’s a reckoning with the legacy of Duterte’s drug war—a campaign that, for some, was a necessary crackdown on crime, and for others, a tragic era of violence and impunity. And for Duterte himself, the proceedings in The Hague represent a dramatic reversal of fortune and a battle for his legacy.
As the September 23 confirmation of charges hearing approaches, all eyes will be on The Hague. Will the ICC accept Khan’s arguments and allow him to lead the prosecution? Or will Duterte’s defense succeed in their effort to disqualify him, potentially reshaping the course of the case? With so much at stake and the world watching, the next chapter in the Duterte-ICC saga promises to be as contentious and consequential as any in recent Philippine history.
The outcome could shape not only the fate of one man, but also the future of international justice and accountability for leaders accused of the gravest crimes. For now, the world waits.
