Boomeranged

By Artchil B. Fernandez

“The chamber hereby rejects the request and the renewed request…orders the continued detention of Mr. Duterte,” declares the Pre-Trial I Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands. Thus concludes the decision of the ICC denying the request of former strongman Rodrigo Duterte for an interim release.

An appeal for an interim or temporary release from the ICC detention facility in the Netherlands was filed by Duterte through his lawyers, citing four reasons: he is not a flight risk; his release will not endanger witnesses and evidence against him; he will not commit more crimes; and humanitarian grounds. His lawyers also argued that he is not fit to stand trial due to cognitive impairment.

In denying his request for an interim release, the ICC said all three risk factors for why Duterte should not be out of jail are present in his case. These factors are: fleeing from the case, intimidating witnesses, and re-committing the crimes he is accused of.

The ICC contends that Duterte is a clear flight risk. Duterte, the ICC says, “continues to pose a flight risk and detention is necessary to ensure his presence during the pre-trial proceedings and possible trial.” There is a huge possibility that Duterte will flee from his case and will not return to face trial if granted temporary freedom.

Duterte’s continued questioning of his arrest and detention, calling what happened to him “a pure and simple kidnapping,” was specifically quoted by the ICC. Duterte’s family and supporters kept on harping that his arrest was “kidnapping,” questioning the jurisdiction of the ICC over his case. Furthermore, the ICC noted that Duterte’s “family not only physically resisted, but also publicly voiced criticism regarding his arrest and detention, and demanded that he should be brought back to the Philippines.” Among members of his immediate family, it was the statement of Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, that convinced the ICC he is indeed a flight risk.

“More specifically, the Chamber notes that, on 19 July 2025, Mr. Duterte’s daughter mentioned in public speeches the idea of breaking Mr. Duterte out of the ICC Detention Centre, and attempted to delegitimise the Court’s proceedings against Mr. Duterte, citing collusion between the Court and the government of the Philippines as well as the use of ‘fake witnesses,’” the ICC said. In short, it was Inday Sara’s big mouth that ensured her father would not get a temporary relief from detention.

Moreover, the ICC is cognizant of the fact that Duterte and his family remain influential and powerful in the Philippines. Duterte, the ICC said in its decision, “appears to have the necessary political contacts, as well as to benefit from a network of support within that country.” The proof of this influence is the Senate resolution signed by 15 senators asking the ICC to put Duterte under house arrest.

The move of the 15 senators boomeranged. It only served to confirm the ICC’s contention that Duterte enjoys a network of support in the country which he can use to evade trial from the ICC. The 15 senators thought that by filing that resolution, they were doing something good for their patron/big boss, but its effect was the opposite. Demonstrating Duterte’s enduring support in the highest echelon of the Philippine government only strengthened the ICC’s resolve to detain him for trial.

The second risk factor — Duterte may intimidate and harass witnesses as well as jeopardize the evidence against him — is also strongly present, the ICC found. “Notably, the Chamber notes Mr. Duterte’s alleged involvement in briefing a witness due to testify before the Philippine Senate’s inquiry into the Davao Death Squad, as well as threatening and taking retaliatory actions against individuals opposed to him, which, in the Chamber’s view, indicate Mr. Duterte’s propensity to interfere with investigations against him.” Duterte, the ICC believes, continues to pose a threat to potential witnesses, “either directly or indirectly through his supporters.”

Vocal, fanatical supporters of Duterte who attack families of the victims of his brutal and gory war on drugs only confirmed the ICC’s belief that the former strongman is capable of putting witnesses in grave risk. The fanatical supporters assumed they were helping their “Tatay” with their dirty antics, but instead, it only guaranteed his continued incarceration. Their filthy acts not only failed to help Duterte — they secured his detention.

Lastly, the ICC thinks Duterte will continue to commit the crimes he is charged with. The ICC “recalls that some of the crimes alleged in the Warrant of Arrest and under Count 1 in the DCC were allegedly committed when Mr. Duterte held the position of Mayor of Davao City. As such, should he return to Davao City, Mr. Duterte would be placed in the very position that allowed him to commit the crimes for which his arrest and surrender to the Court was initially sought.” This possibility is supported by the fact that Duterte was elected mayor of Davao City in the recent election.

His son — Baste Duterte — being elected as his vice mayor also convinced the ICC that the third risk is real. “Considering Mr. Duterte’s son’s position of power in the Philippines at one of the locations of the crimes alleged in the Warrant of Arrest and the DCC [Document Containing the Charges], the Chamber finds that this risk continues to exist even if Mr. Duterte would be released to a location that falls outside of the geographic scope of the alleged crimes.” Baste’s win made it worse for his dad.

The advantages of the Dutertes — their clout and influence, fanatical supporters, and positions of power gained — turned out to be their Achilles’ heel, major liabilities in their plea for the temporary release of the Duterte patriarch from ICC detention. Everything backfired on them. Instead of helping the elder Duterte get released from prison, these “assets” of the Dutertes made certain he remains in jail for a long, long time.