In a development that has captured global attention, former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte remains in the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, facing grave charges of crimes against humanity. The unfolding legal saga, which began with Duterte’s arrest in March 2025, has raised thorny questions about international justice, the legacy of the Philippines’ war on drugs, and the reach of the ICC’s authority.
On July 4, 2025, the ICC issued a heavily redacted 15-page charge sheet, made public later that September, formally accusing Duterte of orchestrating a campaign of murder during his tenure as both mayor of Davao City and as president. According to BBC, the charges specifically cite 76 killings that prosecutors believe can be proven in court, though they allege the true death toll from Duterte’s anti-drug operations is much higher—potentially reaching as many as 30,000, with the majority of victims drawn from the urban poor.
The case against Duterte is both sweeping and detailed. Prosecutors allege that he “instructed and authorized violent acts including murder” as part of a brutal crackdown on suspected drug dealers and users. The charge sheet breaks down three periods of violence: 19 murders in Davao City between 2013 and 2016, 14 killings of so-called “high-value targets” in 2016 and 2017, and 43 murders or attempted murders of lower-level suspects in Manila from 2016 to 2018. The ICC documents further claim that hitmen were paid between $875 and $17,000 for each high-value killing.
Human Rights Watch and other advocacy groups have long accused Duterte’s government of encouraging extrajudicial killings. According to Reuters, many of these deaths were allegedly carried out by police or vigilante groups, including the notorious “Davao Death Squad,” which operated in Duterte’s hometown while he was mayor. Although Duterte has repeatedly denied directly ordering extrajudicial killings, he has admitted to maintaining a so-called “death squad” to target criminal gangs during his mayoralty.
International reaction to the ICC’s prosecution has been mixed. The United Nations and several world leaders have condemned the violence of Duterte’s drug war, while the ICC itself has faced criticism—particularly from non-member states such as the United States, China, and Russia—for perceived bias and difficulty enforcing its warrants. The ICC relies heavily on state cooperation, a challenge compounded by the Philippines’ 2019 withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court.
Duterte’s legal team, led by British-Israeli attorney Nicholas Kaufman, has mounted a robust defense. They argue that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over their client, citing the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute. Kaufman has also challenged the legality of Duterte’s arrest, claiming due process was bypassed. However, the ICC counters that it retains jurisdiction over crimes committed before a country’s withdrawal. In a 2021 ruling, the Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed that the country must continue to cooperate with ongoing ICC proceedings, despite its formal exit from the treaty.
Since his arrest on March 11, 2025, Duterte has been detained in The Hague. His initial court appearance was conducted via video link, but the legal process has since stalled. On September 23, 2025, Duterte was due to face the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber for a confirmation of charges hearing. That session was indefinitely postponed after his legal team submitted claims that he was unfit to stand trial, citing cognitive decline and other health concerns. As South China Morning Post reported, the court is now assessing Duterte’s fitness to participate in the proceedings, while his lawyers have requested the adjournment of the case.
The uncertainty surrounding Duterte’s health and the legal wrangling over jurisdiction have left the case in limbo. Meanwhile, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I has been weighing a separate request from Duterte’s defense: an application for interim release. In a five-page document dated June 18, 2025, and made public on September 23, the chamber asked the Netherlands and another unnamed state to submit formal observations regarding their willingness and ability to host Duterte if he were granted interim release. The chamber specifically requested information on whether these states could enforce restrictions on Duterte’s liberty and facilitate his travel to and from the Netherlands for court proceedings.
Presiding Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc, who signed the order, made it clear that seeking these observations “does not prejudge” the outcome of the interim release application. As the court stated, “the present order is issued for the purposes of considering all relevant submissions and observations prior to deciding on the Interim Release Request and, as a consequence, neither this order nor any observations received shall be construed as prejudging any matter to be determined in the context of that decision.”
At the time of publication, there has been no public update on whether the Netherlands or the unnamed state have agreed to host Duterte, or what conditions they might impose. The ICC’s pre-trial chamber has emphasized that both countries must provide detailed information on their willingness and ability to receive Duterte, enforce any restrictions the court might order, and ensure that he is able to attend hearings as required.
For victims’ advocates, the charges against Duterte represent a milestone in the pursuit of accountability for the thousands killed in the Philippines’ war on drugs. As one advocate told South China Morning Post, the charges are “significant” because they outline, for the first time, what prosecutors believe can be proven in court. Yet legal experts caution that the case’s progress depends on whether ICC judges confirm the charges and on the outcome of the ongoing assessments of Duterte’s health and legal motions.
The ICC case has also reignited debate within the Philippines about the country’s relationship with international law. While some politicians and supporters of Duterte have decried the proceedings as an infringement on national sovereignty, others argue that the scale of alleged abuses demands an impartial, international reckoning. The Supreme Court’s 2021 decision, which held that the Philippines remains obligated to cooperate with the ICC for crimes committed before its withdrawal, underscores the complex legal landscape confronting both the court and the Duterte defense team.
As the world watches, the ICC’s prosecution of Rodrigo Duterte stands as a test of international justice, state cooperation, and the enduring quest for accountability in the face of mass violence. The path to trial remains uncertain, with procedural delays and legal challenges looming large. But for the families of victims and advocates for human rights, the case is already a landmark—one that may shape the future of global efforts to hold powerful leaders to account.
