Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is now in the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, facing allegations of crimes against humanity linked to his administration’s brutal war on drugs. The transfer marks a significant escalation in the ICC’s pursuit of accountability for a campaign that, according to official figures, left at least 6,000 people dead, with human rights groups estimating a toll as high as 20,000.
Arrest and Transfer to The Hague
Duterte’s arrest and subsequent transfer to the ICC’s detention center in The Hague follow the issuance of an arrest warrant citing “reasonable grounds” for his alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings. The ICC has accused the former president of playing a central role in orchestrating violence during his tenure, particularly through the so-called Davao Death Squad (DDS), a group allegedly composed of police officers and civilian hitmen tasked with executing suspected criminals. The squad’s activities reportedly date back to Duterte’s time as mayor of Davao City, long before his presidency from 2016 to 2022.
The war on drugs, launched shortly after Duterte took office as president, was framed as a hardline response to crime and drug trafficking in the Philippines. However, it quickly drew international condemnation for its apparent disregard for due process and human rights. Reports of summary executions, often targeting impoverished communities, fueled outrage among activists and international bodies. While the Philippine government has maintained that the deaths were largely the result of legitimate police operations, critics argue that many victims were killed without evidence of criminal involvement. 
Evidence Submitted to Defense
On March 21, 2025, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan’s office submitted an initial batch of 181 pieces of evidence to Duterte’s defense team, as detailed in a three-page document accessible on the ICC website. Described as part of the “Pre-Confirmation INCRIM package 001,” the evidence remains confidential and unavailable to the public. According to the ICC, these items form the basis of the arrest warrant issued against Duterte, though specific details about their content have not been disclosed.
The submission of evidence marks the beginning of the pre-trial phase, during which the court will determine whether there is sufficient basis to proceed to a full trial. Legal experts note that this stage could take months, as both the prosecution and defense review materials and prepare arguments. For now, Duterte remains in custody at The Hague, where he is expected to face intense scrutiny over his administration’s policies.
Scale of Allegations and Public Reaction
The allegations against Duterte center on the staggering human toll of his anti-drug campaign. Official government records acknowledge at least 6,000 deaths during police operations, but human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have long claimed the true figure could be as high as 20,000, factoring in unreported killings and vigilante-style executions. Many of the victims were from marginalized communities, with families often left without recourse to justice.
In the Philippines, reactions to Duterte’s arrest are sharply divided. Supporters, who view him as a strongman who brought order to a crime-ridden nation, have decried the ICC’s actions as foreign interference. “He did what was necessary to protect our country” said a Davao City resident during a recent protest in support of the former president, as reported by local media. Meanwhile, critics and victims’ families see the ICC’s involvement as a long-overdue step toward accountability. “For years, we’ve waited for justice for our loved ones” said a spokesperson for a human rights group in Manila.
Historical Context and ICC Jurisdiction
The ICC’s pursuit of Duterte is rooted in events that predate and extend through his presidency. The court has claimed jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed during his time as mayor of Davao City and later as president, up until 2019, when the Philippines officially withdrew from the ICC’s Rome Statute under Duterte’s directive. Despite the withdrawal, the ICC maintains that it retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was still a member state.
The Davao Death Squad, allegedly established under Duterte’s leadership as mayor, has been a focal point of investigations. Reports suggest the group operated with impunity, targeting suspected criminals and drug users in a pattern of violence that later scaled nationwide during the war on drugs. While Duterte has repeatedly denied direct involvement in extrajudicial killings, public statements during his presidency—often interpreted as encouraging violence—have been cited by critics as evidence of intent.
The broader context of the war on drugs also raises questions about systemic issues within the Philippine justice system. Under Duterte’s administration, police were granted wide latitude to conduct operations with minimal oversight, leading to accusations of widespread abuses. International observers have noted that the campaign disproportionately affected low-income communities, exacerbating existing inequalities and fueling cycles of violence.
Legal and Political Implications
Duterte’s case represents a rare instance of a former head of state facing trial at the ICC, underscoring the court’s role in addressing alleged crimes against humanity when national systems fail to act. However, the case also highlights the challenges of enforcing international justice, particularly in countries where domestic political will for accountability is lacking. The Philippine government, under current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., has signaled limited cooperation with the ICC, maintaining that the country’s legal system is capable of addressing past abuses.
Legal analysts caution that the road to a conviction, if pursued, will be long and fraught with obstacles. The ICC must prove not only the occurrence of crimes against humanity but also Duterte’s direct responsibility—a high bar under international law. Moreover, the court’s reliance on evidence gathered remotely, given limited access to Philippine territory, could complicate the prosecution’s case.
Politically, Duterte’s arrest has reignited debates about sovereignty and the role of international institutions in domestic affairs. While some Filipinos view the ICC’s actions as a necessary check on impunity, others see it as an infringement on national autonomy. The case could also have ripple effects on Duterte’s political allies, including his daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, whose own political future may be influenced by the outcome of these proceedings.
International Perspective and Human Rights Concerns
Globally, Duterte’s case has drawn attention to the broader issue of extrajudicial killings as a tool of state policy. Human rights advocates argue that accountability in the Philippines could set a precedent for other nations grappling with similar abuses. “This case is not just about one man; it’s about ending a culture of impunity worldwide” said a representative of an international human rights organization.
The ICC’s involvement also raises questions about the effectiveness of international justice mechanisms. Critics of the court often point to its limited enforcement power and selective focus on certain regions, while supporters argue that cases like Duterte’s demonstrate its commitment to addressing grave violations, regardless of political obstacles.
For now, the world watches as the legal process unfolds in The Hague. The outcome of Duterte’s case could shape perceptions of international law and influence how future leaders approach policies that risk crossing ethical and legal boundaries.
Looking Ahead
As the ICC moves forward with its case against Rodrigo Duterte, the eyes of the Philippines and the international community remain fixed on The Hague. Will this trial deliver justice for the thousands of victims of the war on drugs, or will it become mired in legal and political challenges? For many Filipinos, the answer carries profound implications—not just for their country’s past, but for the future of accountability in a nation still grappling with the legacy of Duterte’s rule.
