Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte faces trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the first time as he attends the hearing via video from the ICC's detention center, while his lawyers were present in the courtroom at the Hague, Netherlands on March 14, 2025. The former president was arrested earlier this week on an ICC warrant for his alleged crimes against humanity during his presidency.
The Hague, Netherlands – In a decisive ruling that underscores the International Criminal Court's commitment to accountability for alleged crimes against humanity, the Appeals Chamber on Friday rejected former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's bid for interim release, ensuring his continued detention as proceedings advance. The unanimous decision, delivered in open court at 10:30 a.m. local time, dismissed all three grounds of the defense's appeal, citing unmitigable risks of flight and interference due to Duterte's enduring political influence.
“The ICC Appeals Chamber confirms the decision rejecting the request for interim release. The suspect, who had waived his right to be present at today’s hearing, remains in ICC custody,” the court announced via a post on the social media platform X. Presiding Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza read the judgment in Courtroom I, with the proceedings livestreamed on the ICC's website, YouTube, and Facebook for global transparency. Duterte, now 80 years old, did not attend in person or virtually, having submitted a signed waiver the previous day, instructing his legal team to represent him.
This development marks the latest chapter in a protracted legal saga that has captivated international observers and reignited debates over extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. The Appeals Chamber, in a 45-page judgment, affirmed Pre-Trial Chamber I's earlier denial on September 26, 2025, emphasizing that proposed conditions—such as electronic monitoring and guarantees from unnamed third countries—could not sufficiently address the flight risk posed by Duterte's “significant political influence” and “network of support” in the Philippines. The court also noted that while humanitarian considerations, including Duterte's age and reported health concerns, were weighed, they “were not sufficiently substantiated in the case at hand” to override the need for his presence at trial.
Duterte's defense, led by international lawyer Nicholas Kaufman, had argued three main grounds in their October 14 appeal: that the pre-trial chamber erred in assessing flight risk, improperly dismissed state guarantees for his return, and overlooked humanitarian factors such as his advanced age and cognitive capacity. The chamber rejected each, stating the evidence of Duterte's “rejection of the proceedings” and familial efforts to potentially aid evasion warranted ongoing detention to ensure his appearance, prevent tampering with evidence, and halt any continuation of alleged crimes. ICC spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah confirmed post-ruling that no further appeals are possible on this matter, though the defense may file a renewed request later.
The case stems from Duterte's arrest on March 11, 2025, in Manila, following the unsealing of an ICC warrant issued secretly on March 7. Philippine authorities, under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s administration—which reversed the previous stance on ICC withdrawal—facilitated his swift transfer to The Hague aboard a chartered flight that same day. His initial appearance occurred on March 14 via video link, where he entered a not guilty plea.
At the heart of the charges are allegations of crimes against humanity, specifically murder and attempted murder, linked to Duterte's brutal “war on drugs” from November 1, 2011, to March 16, 2019—a period encompassing his mayoralty in Davao City and his presidency from 2016 to 2022. Prosecutors contend Duterte bears responsibility for a widespread and systematic attack on civilians, resulting in thousands of deaths—official figures cite over 6,200 killed in police operations, while human rights groups estimate up to 30,000, including vigilante-style executions.
In September 2025, as interim release talks surfaced, Duterte's daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, revealed that an undisclosed third country had offered to host her father under strict conditions if granted temporary freedom—a proposal the court ultimately deemed inadequate. Sara has faced her own ICC scrutiny, with a separate complaint filed against her for alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings. The Duterte family's political dynasty, which dominated Davao for decades, adds layers to the case, as the court highlighted Duterte's potential to leverage local and national contacts to evade justice.
Health concerns have loomed large in Duterte's defense strategy. Earlier this month, his team sought an indefinite adjournment of proceedings, claiming cognitive impairments rendered him unfit for trial. Pre-Trial Chamber I responded by ordering a comprehensive medical evaluation, including neurological and psychological assessments, to be conducted by ICC-appointed experts within the detention center. Results are expected in early December, potentially influencing the trial timeline, which remains undated but could commence confirmation of charges hearings by mid-2026.
Reactions poured in swiftly on social media, reflecting the polarized sentiments in the Philippines and beyond. Supporters decried the decision as “political persecution,” while critics, including former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, hailed it as a victory for justice. Human rights advocates gathered in Manila for watch parties, viewing the livestream with relatives of drug war victims who described the ruling as “a step toward healing for the bereaved.”
Internationally, the ruling bolsters the ICC's credibility amid criticisms of selectivity. As the first former head of state from Asia to face such charges, Duterte's case could set precedents for accountability in populist strongman regimes. In the Philippines, where drug war–related killings continue despite policy shifts, the decision pressures the Marcos government to cooperate fully.
The Duterte camp responded measuredly, with the family issuing a statement accepting the verdict “with peaceful hearts” and pledging continued support. Vice President Sara reiterated her father's innocence, framing the detention as a “family trial by ordeal.” Meanwhile, in The Hague, Duterte's routine in the ICC's secure facility—limited to legal consultations, exercise, and medical care—continues uninterrupted.
As the case progresses, attention remains on the upcoming medical exam and potential trial dates. For victims' families and global watchdogs, Friday's rejection is a firm reminder: justice, though delayed, presses forward.
