Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has entered the international spotlight once again, this time under the stern gaze of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. On 14 March 2025, Duterte made his first virtual appearance before the court, facing charges of crimes against humanity linked to his administration’s brutal crackdown on narcotics, which resulted in thousands of deaths. As the legal proceedings unfold, the complexities of international justice and the contentious issue of jurisdiction take centre stage in a case that could redefine accountability for state-led violence in the Philippines.
The charges against Duterte stem from the deaths of at least 43 suspected drug users, part of a broader campaign that human rights groups claim led to extrajudicial killings on a massive scale. Presiding Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc of Pre-Trial Chamber 1 outlined the procedural steps ahead, with a confirmation of charges hearing scheduled for 23 September 2025. In the meantime, critical questions about evidence disclosure, jurisdiction, and the participation of victims’ families are shaping the early stages of this landmark case.
A Legal Battle Unfamiliar to Many
For many Filipinos, the ICC’s processes are a far cry from the domestic legal system. Even seasoned local lawyers, like Duterte’s counsel Salvador Medialdea, who is not previously accredited by the ICC, face a steep learning curve. During the initial hearing, Medialdea attempted to expedite discussions on the legality of Duterte’s arrest and his health status through a “manifestation” to the court. While Judge Motoc acknowledged these concerns, she clarified that such issues would be addressed in subsequent “status conferences” designed to facilitate an orderly exchange of information between the prosecution and defence. 
The immediate priority following the 14 March hearing is the disclosure of evidence. Judge Motoc ordered the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) to begin sharing the information underpinning the arrest warrant, with a deadline to complete this process within seven days. This step is pivotal, as it allows Duterte’s defence team to scrutinise the allegations and prepare a response over the coming weeks.
Ruben Carranza, a senior associate at the International Center for Transitional Justice, described this evidence-sharing phase as fundamental to the ICC’s criminal procedure. Speaking to local media, Carranza emphasised that the prosecution must present not only incriminating evidence but also any material that could exonerate or mitigate the accused’s responsibility. This principle ensures a fair trial, a cornerstone of international justice, though it remains to be seen how Duterte’s legal team will counter the prosecution’s claims.
Victims’ Voices and the Burden of Proof
Human rights lawyer Kristina Conti, who is accredited as assistant to counsel at the ICC, underscored the prosecution’s responsibility to share all relevant evidence with the defence, including material that might weaken their case. Speaking at a news forum on 18 March, Conti clarified that only evidence formally entered into the record would be considered in future hearings. She urged both sides to act diligently, noting that the defence must raise any counterarguments or challenges promptly to shape the direction of the case.
Significantly, Conti pointed out that the burden of proof lies solely with the prosecutor, not with the victims or their families. Even if witnesses recant their testimonies—a common occurrence in high-profile cases involving state actors—it would not necessarily undermine the prosecution’s case. This legal framework aims to protect vulnerable parties from undue pressure while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
The families of the victims, whose identities have been redacted in public documents to ensure their safety, are also set to play a role at the pre-trial stage. Judge Motoc confirmed that the court would decide on their formal participation, allowing them to present their views and concerns. Conti explained that the families would likely select a common legal representative, or be supported by the ICC’s Office for the Public Counsel for Victims, akin to the Philippines’ Public Attorney’s Office. While the exact composition of this legal team remains undecided, their involvement underscores the ICC’s commitment to victim-centric justice.
Jurisdiction: The Defence’s Central Challenge
For Duterte’s legal team, the issue of jurisdiction looms as the most formidable obstacle. The Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute—the treaty that established the ICC—in 2019, under Duterte’s own administration. Harry Roque, a member of the defence team awaiting official recognition by the court, argued after the initial hearing that the ICC lacks authority over the case due to this withdrawal. Roque asserted that the court should rule on jurisdiction before proceeding to the confirmation of charges in September, as a lack of jurisdiction would render further proceedings moot.
Roque also raised the controversial claim that Duterte’s arrest amounted to a “kidnapping,” a narrative that could be leveraged to seek interim release for the former president. Legal experts suggest this tactic may be an attempt to shift focus from the substantive charges to procedural disputes, potentially delaying the trial. However, Conti noted that both sides could draw on existing Philippine laws, a 2021 Supreme Court decision on ICC jurisdiction, and a 2023 Appeals Chamber ruling on the government’s challenge to the OTP’s investigation to bolster their arguments.
The jurisdiction debate is not merely a legal technicality; it carries profound implications for the Philippines’ relationship with international justice mechanisms. If the ICC asserts its authority despite the country’s withdrawal, it could set a precedent for holding former leaders accountable, even in states that reject the court’s oversight. Conversely, a ruling in favour of Duterte’s team could embolden other nations to evade ICC scrutiny by exiting the Rome Statute, undermining global efforts to combat impunity.
A Legacy of Violence Under Scrutiny
Duterte’s tenure as president from 2016 to 2022 was marked by a relentless “war on drugs” that saw police and vigilante groups target suspected drug users and dealers with lethal force. Human rights organisations estimate that tens of thousands were killed, often in circumstances suggesting extrajudicial executions. The ICC’s investigation, launched in 2021, focuses on a fraction of these deaths—43 specific cases—but the symbolic weight of the charges is immense, representing a broader reckoning with state-sanctioned violence.
The former president has consistently defended his policies, framing them as a necessary response to the country’s drug crisis. Yet, critics argue that the campaign disproportionately harmed the poor and marginalised, with little evidence of long-term success in curbing drug use or trafficking. The ICC case offers a rare opportunity to examine these policies through the lens of international law, potentially holding Duterte accountable for actions that domestic courts have largely sidestepped.
What Lies Ahead?
As Duterte’s second week in ICC detention begins, the focus shifts to the meticulous process of evidence disclosure and procedural wrangling. The defence’s emphasis on jurisdiction and arrest legality signals a strategy of contesting the court’s legitimacy rather than engaging directly with the allegations at this stage. Meanwhile, the prosecution must build a watertight case, balancing the need for transparency with the protection of victims and witnesses.
Beyond the courtroom, the case reverberates across the Philippines and the wider South East Asian region, where leaders often wield significant power with limited accountability. If the ICC ultimately convicts Duterte—a scenario far from certain given the legal hurdles—it could signal a new era of scrutiny for authoritarian practices. However, if jurisdictional challenges prevail, the case may falter before reaching a verdict, leaving victims’ families and human rights advocates searching for alternative paths to justice.
For now, the world watches as the ICC navigates uncharted territory in its pursuit of accountability. The confirmation of charges in September will be a critical juncture, determining whether Duterte’s legacy will be defined not just by his populist rhetoric, but by a historic reckoning with the human cost of his policies. In Manila and beyond, the stakes could not be higher.
