Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte made his initial appearance before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague today, facing charges of crimes against humanity linked to his controversial war on drugs. The hearing, which marks a significant moment in the pursuit of accountability for alleged extrajudicial killings during his tenure, comes amid heightened political tensions in the Philippines and growing scrutiny of the ICC’s role on the global stage.
Duterte, 79, arrived in the Netherlands earlier this week after his arrest in Manila and was transferred to the ICC Detention Center in Scheveningen, The Hague. His pre-trial hearing, conducted before Pre-Trial Chamber I at 14:00 local time (9:00 p.m. Manila time), was overseen by presiding judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc alongside judges Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou and María del Socorro Flores Liera. During the session, the court verified Duterte’s identity, informed him of the charges against him, and outlined his rights under the ICC’s Rome Statute.
The charges stem from Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, which he spearheaded as mayor of Davao City and later as president from 2016 to 2022. The ICC investigation focuses on alleged crimes committed between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019, a period when the Philippines was still a signatory to the Rome Statute. Human rights groups estimate that the campaign resulted in between 12,000 and 30,000 deaths, including many alleged extrajudicial killings, though the Philippine government officially reports a lower figure of around 6,000. Duterte is accused of murder as a crime against humanity, with prosecutors alleging his direct involvement in policies that encouraged widespread violence. 
A Legacy of Violence and Accountability
Duterte’s war on drugs became a defining feature of his presidency, drawing both domestic support for its hardline stance on crime and international condemnation for its human rights violations. As mayor of Davao City, Duterte was linked to the so-called Davao Death Squad, a vigilante group accused of targeting suspected criminals. His national campaign as president scaled up these tactics, with police and military forces reportedly given carte blanche to eliminate drug suspects, often without due process.
Upon arriving in The Hague, Duterte appeared to accept responsibility for the consequences of his policies. In a video posted on Facebook, he stated, “I have been telling the police, the military, that it was my job and I am responsible.” While this statement has been interpreted by some as an admission of accountability, legal experts caution that it does not constitute a formal confession and must be contextualised within the ICC’s judicial process.
Chief ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan described Duterte’s arrest as a pivotal moment for international justice. “Many say that international law is not as strong as we want, and I agree with that. But as I also repeatedly emphasise, international law is not as weak as some may think,” Khan said during a press briefing. He underscored the presumption of innocence, noting that Duterte’s guilt has yet to be proven in court.
The road to trial, however, is likely to be long and complex. Following today’s initial appearance, the next stage will be a confirmation of charges hearing, where prosecutors must present sufficient evidence to justify a full trial. This process could take months or even years, during which Duterte may request interim release. Legal analysts suggest that the case’s outcome will hinge on the ICC’s ability to substantiate claims of systematic violence and link them directly to Duterte’s actions and policies.
Domestic Fallout and Political Tensions
Duterte’s arrest has deepened the political rift in the Philippines, particularly between his family and the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Relations between the two camps have deteriorated in recent months, with Vice President Sara Duterte—Rodrigo’s daughter—facing an impeachment trial over allegations including an alleged assassination plot against Marcos. Sara, who travelled to the Netherlands to support her father, has condemned his arrest as “oppression and persecution,” framing it as a politically motivated attack.
The Duterte family’s attempt to block his transfer to the ICC through an emergency injunction at the Philippine Supreme Court was unsuccessful, highlighting the limits of domestic legal recourse in the face of international proceedings. Public opinion in the Philippines remains sharply divided, with some viewing Duterte as a strongman who tackled crime effectively, while others see him as a leader who sanctioned widespread human rights abuses.
Human rights advocates in the Philippines have welcomed the ICC’s actions. Lawyer Gilbert Andres, who represents victims of the drug war, expressed hope that the case would deliver justice. “My clients are very thankful to God because their prayers have been answered. The arrest of Rodrigo Duterte is a great signal for international criminal justice. It means that no one is above the law,” Andres said.
Yet, the case also raises questions about the ICC’s jurisdiction and influence. The Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019 under Duterte’s administration, a move that some argue limits the court’s authority over crimes committed during his presidency. Legal experts, however, note that the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was a member, providing a basis for the current proceedings.
Global Context and ICC Challenges
Duterte’s case unfolds against a backdrop of increasing scrutiny of the ICC itself. Last month, U.S. President Donald Trump imposed sanctions on the court in response to arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza. The move has reignited debates about the ICC’s impartiality and its vulnerability to political pressure from powerful nations.
For smaller states like the Philippines, the ICC often represents a critical mechanism for accountability when domestic systems fail to address systemic abuses. However, critics argue that the court’s focus on certain regions—particularly Africa and Asia—reflects a selective approach to justice. If Duterte’s trial proceeds, it could serve as a litmus test for the ICC’s ability to navigate geopolitical challenges while maintaining its credibility as a guardian of international law.
There is also speculation about the broader implications of the case for Southeast Asia, a region where authoritarian tendencies and human rights concerns frequently collide. If the ICC secures a conviction, it may embolden activists and victims’ groups to pursue similar cases against other leaders accused of abuses. Conversely, a failure to convict could undermine faith in international justice mechanisms, reinforcing perceptions of impunity among powerful figures.
The Human Cost of the Drug War
At the heart of the ICC case lies the human toll of Duterte’s policies. Families of victims, many of whom were poor and marginalised, have long sought justice for loved ones killed in anti-drug operations. Reports of extrajudicial killings often describe a pattern of violence in which suspects were shot without warning or evidence, their deaths labelled as “resistance” by authorities. Human rights organisations have documented cases of children and bystanders caught in the crossfire, further compounding the tragedy.
The disparity in death toll estimates—ranging from the government’s 6,000 to the ICC prosecutor’s high of 30,000—underscores the difficulty of establishing the full scope of the violence. Independent investigations have been hampered by a lack of transparency and alleged intimidation of witnesses. If the ICC trial moves forward, it may provide a platform to uncover more comprehensive data, though prosecutors will face significant challenges in gathering admissible evidence years after the events.
Looking Ahead
As Duterte awaits the next stages of the ICC process, the world watches a case that could redefine accountability for state-sponsored violence. For now, the former president remains in custody in The Hague, a far cry from the political strongholds of Davao and Manila where he once wielded near-absolute power. His statement upon arrival—that he is “okay” after the long journey—belies the gravity of the charges he faces and the potential consequences for his legacy.
In the Philippines, the case has reignited debates about justice, sovereignty, and the role of international institutions in addressing domestic abuses. For victims’ families, it offers a glimmer of hope that those responsible for years of bloodshed may finally be held to account. Yet, with political divisions deepening and the ICC under global scrutiny, the path to a resolution remains uncertain.
What is clear is that Duterte’s trial, if it proceeds, will not only shape perceptions of his presidency but also test the limits of international law in holding powerful leaders to account. As the proceedings unfold, the eyes of the Philippines—and the world—will remain fixed on The Hague.
