ICC rejects Duterte defense, Filipinos want him tried

By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan

The International Criminal Court’s Appeals Chamber on Wednesday upheld its jurisdiction over former President Rodrigo Duterte, unanimously rejecting his defense team’s challenge to the court’s authority — a decision that comes as a majority of Filipinos believe he should stand trial for alleged crimes against humanity.

Presiding Judge Luz del Carmen Ibañez Carranza announced the ruling in open session, with Judges Tomoko Akane, Solomy Balungi Bossa, Gocha Lordkipanidze, and Erdenebalsuren Damdin on the bench.

The decision sustained Pre-Trial Chamber I’s Oct. 23, 2025, ruling that the ICC retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in the Philippines while it was still a state party to the Rome Statute.

Duterte, who waived his right to appear at the hearing on April 13, was represented by defense counsel led by Nicholas Kaufman.

The defense had argued there was “no legal basis for the continuation” of ICC proceedings and sought Duterte’s “immediate and unconditional release.”

The Appeals Chamber found no legal error in the pretrial chamber’s interpretation of the statute, particularly regarding the effect of the Philippines’ 2019 withdrawal from the ICC.

“The Appeals Chamber unanimously rejects the defense’s first ground of appeal,” Carranza said, referring to arguments that the lower chamber misapplied Rome Statute provisions on jurisdiction.

The chamber ruled that jurisdiction remains valid for alleged crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member, emphasizing a balance between a state’s right to withdraw and its obligations under the statute.

“It could be incompatible with this object and purpose to enable a state party to evade its responsibilities under the statute by depositing a written notice of withdrawal,” the chamber said.

The tribunal also rejected, by majority, the defense’s second ground of appeal, which claimed that a preliminary examination should not qualify as a “matter under consideration” before the court.

The judges found that the preliminary examination into the Philippine situation was initiated, publicly announced, and acted upon before the country’s withdrawal, meeting the threshold under Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute.

That provision states that a state “shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have accrued.”

“The Appeals Chamber observes that the preliminary examination phase has a clear basis in the court’s legal texts,” Carranza said.

Judge Lordkipanidze issued a partial dissent, arguing that a situation falls under the court’s consideration only once a pretrial chamber authorizes a formal investigation. He said preliminary examinations “are not a matter under the consideration of the Court within the meaning of Article 127-2” and would have granted the defense’s second ground of appeal.

Despite acknowledging an error of fact by the pretrial chamber regarding the Philippines’ post-withdrawal conduct, the Appeals Chamber said the mistake did not materially affect the ruling.

“The factual conclusion amounts to an error of fact. Nonetheless, this error did not materially affect the impugned decision,” the chamber said, describing the issue as ancillary to the overall analysis.

The chamber likewise dismissed the third and fourth grounds of appeal, including arguments that the Office of the Prosecutor should not be considered part of the court under Article 127 and that the lower chamber relied on policy considerations.

“The Appeals Chamber cannot discern any error,” Carranza said, adding that the statute must be interpreted in line with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

With all four grounds rejected, the chamber confirmed the earlier ruling and declared the defense request for Duterte’s release moot.

“Having rejected the entire appeal, the Appeals Chamber considers that the defense request for the immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Duterte is moot,” Carranza said.

The chamber said its full written judgment would be released following the hearing.

The ruling clears the way for proceedings to continue in the court’s long-running probe into alleged crimes linked to Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, which authorities estimate killed thousands of Filipinos between 2016 and 2022.

The Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2019 under Duterte’s administration, but the court has maintained that it retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was a state party.

Meanwhile, public sentiment appears to favor the ICC case moving forward.

The latest Philippine Public Opinion Monitor survey by WR Numero, conducted from March 10 to 17, found that 59.5 percent of Filipinos consider it important for Duterte to face charges of crimes against humanity before the ICC, following the court’s confirmation of charges hearings in February. Only 24.5 percent disagreed, while 16 percent remained undecided.

The poll also showed that 43 percent of respondents believe Duterte should remain detained in The Hague to personally answer the charges, while 34 percent oppose continued detention and 22 percent expressed no clear opinion.

On accountability, 51 percent support holding Duterte responsible and allowing him to face trial over alleged extrajudicial killings linked to his administration’s war on drugs. About 29 percent disagreed, while 19 percent remained undecided.

Public trust in the ICC remains mixed, with 35 percent of respondents expressing confidence the court can conduct a fair trial, an equal share saying they do not trust the ICC, and roughly 32 percent uncertain about its ability to ensure fairness.

Despite those reservations, 56 percent of respondents said it is important to arrest and detain alleged co-perpetrators involved in drug war killings, while those who disagreed and those who remained undecided were both at 22 percent.

The survey also found that 46 percent of Filipinos oppose the Philippines rejoining the ICC, compared to 30 percent who support reentry.

Undecided respondents on the issue fell to 24 percent from 29 percent in a previous survey.

The nationwide survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews with 1,455 respondents and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points at the national level, with a 95 percent confidence level.

Subnational margins of error are plus or minus 7 percentage points for the National Capital Region, plus or minus 4 percentage points for the rest of Luzon, and plus or minus 6 percentage points each for the Visayas and Mindanao.