The International Criminal Court has refused to release former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, ruling that it retains jurisdiction to prosecute him despite his country’s withdrawal from the tribunal. The decision, delivered by judges at the court, ensures that the 81-year-old remains in custody in The Hague as proceedings move closer to a possible trial over his controversial anti-drug campaign.
Duterte was arrested in March 2025 at Manila airport and transferred to the ICC’s detention facility in the Netherlands. He faces charges of crimes against humanity linked to a sweeping war on drugs that defined much of his presidency. Official police records attribute roughly 7,000 deaths to the campaign, though human rights groups argue the real toll is significantly higher, citing widespread allegations of extrajudicial killings.
The case has become one of the most closely watched legal battles in international justice in recent years, not only because of the allegations themselves but also due to the jurisdictional question at its core. Duterte’s legal team has repeatedly argued that the ICC lost authority over the Philippines after the country formally withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2018, ending its membership in the court.
However, the ICC appeals chamber rejected that argument, stating that the alleged crimes occurred while the Philippines was still a member state. Judges also emphasized that a preliminary examination had already begun before the withdrawal became effective, meaning the court’s jurisdiction remains intact. The ruling effectively clears the way for a potential full trial if charges are confirmed.
The decision has triggered strong reactions from Duterte’s supporters, who view the case as politically motivated and an intrusion into national sovereignty. Harry Roque, a former spokesperson for Duterte, argued that the court is using the former president’s case to justify its continued existence. He also claimed that the ICC has struggled to prosecute other high-profile figures it has accused, pointing to cases involving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin as examples of inconsistency.
Roque and other allies have defended the anti-drug campaign as a legitimate exercise of state power aimed at addressing a national crisis. They argue that law enforcement actions taken under Duterte’s leadership should not be classified as crimes against humanity, framing the ICC’s intervention as an overreach into domestic affairs.
Criticism of the ruling has also come from political analysts in the Philippines. Malou Tiquia, a political commentator, questioned the legitimacy of foreign judges evaluating a democratically elected leader, pointing to Duterte’s strong approval ratings during and after his presidency. She argued that international justice mechanisms often appear to focus disproportionately on leaders from developing nations while overlooking actions by wealthier Western states.
Legal scholars, however, interpret the ruling differently, viewing it as a reaffirmation of international legal principles. James Reserva, a constitutional law expert, said the case sends a warning to future leaders that withdrawal from international agreements does not necessarily erase accountability for actions taken while those agreements were in force. He also suggested that geopolitical factors may influence which cases gain momentum at the international level.
The ICC’s position underscores a key principle of international criminal law: that certain crimes, such as crimes against humanity, can fall under global jurisdiction regardless of later political changes by individual states. This interpretation strengthens the court’s ability to pursue cases even when member countries attempt to exit its framework after investigations have begun.
The ruling has also reignited broader criticism of the ICC itself. Supporters of Duterte and some international observers argue that the court faces challenges in enforcing decisions against powerful global actors, pointing to its limited success in pursuing cases involving major geopolitical figures. Critics say this raises questions about consistency and fairness in international justice.
Despite these controversies, the legal process is moving forward. The ICC pre-trial chamber is expected to decide by the end of April whether to confirm the charges against Duterte. If confirmed, the case would proceed to trial, making him the first former Asian head of state to stand before the court in The Hague.
