Rodrigo Duterte’s ICC Case: What the Confirmation Hearing Means and What Comes Next

Former Philippine president Rodrigo Roa Duterte is at the centre of one of the most significant international criminal cases in recent years. Long known for his hardline rhetoric and his deadly anti-drug campaign, Duterte now faces proceedings before the International Criminal Court (ICC) over alleged crimes committed in the Philippines between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019.

The case has drawn international attention not only because Duterte is a former head of state, but also because of what the proceedings could mean for victims’ families, for accountability in the Philippines, and for the role of international justice when domestic systems fail to act. After years of allegations, denials and limited accountability, the ICC’s confirmation of charges hearing has become a pivotal step in determining whether the case will move to trial.

Who is Rodrigo Duterte?

Rodrigo Duterte, sometimes known as “Digong,” was born on 28 March 1945 in Maasin, Philippines. He served as president of the Philippines from 2016 to 2022, but his political career began decades earlier. Before entering politics, he worked in the Davao City prosecutor’s office. He later served as vice mayor, mayor, congressman, and then mayor again in Davao City over multiple terms.

During his long tenure in Davao, Duterte built a reputation as a tough anti-crime leader. Supporters credited him with helping transform the city from a place associated with disorder into one seen as safer and more controlled. Critics, however, accused him of enabling or encouraging extrajudicial violence and killings. Human rights groups long alleged that he was linked to the so-called Davao Death Squad, which was accused of targeting street children, petty criminals and people suspected of involvement in drugs. Rather than distancing himself from those allegations, Duterte often projected the persona of a ruthless enforcer.

That persona became central to his rise to national power. In 2016, he won the presidency after campaigning on promises to crack down on crime and illegal drugs. His blunt language, outsider image and repeated threats of violence resonated with many voters frustrated by corruption and insecurity. Once in office, he launched a nationwide “war on drugs” that quickly became the defining feature of his presidency.

The “war on drugs” and the allegations against him

Duterte’s anti-drug campaign was presented as a drive to restore order and stamp out criminality. In reality, it became synonymous with large-scale killings, many of them carried out outside any formal judicial process. Human rights organisations and other monitors said the violence fell overwhelmingly on poor and marginalised communities, with victims frequently gunned down in streets, alleys and homes. Police repeatedly insisted that officers had acted in self-defence, while Duterte openly defended the campaign and used rhetoric that appeared to sanction lethal force.

The ICC case centres on allegations that these killings amounted to crimes against humanity. Duterte is accused of murder and attempted murder allegedly committed in the Philippines between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019 in connection with the so-called “war on drugs.” On 10 February 2025, the Office of the Prosecutor sought an arrest warrant against him on charges of murder, torture and rape as crimes against humanity. After examining the prosecution’s material, ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I found reasonable grounds to believe that Duterte was individually responsible, as an indirect co-perpetrator, for the crime against humanity of murder during that period.

The case spans two key phases of Duterte’s political career: his years as mayor of Davao City and the period after he became president in 2016. It focuses on 49 alleged incidents of murder and attempted murder involving 78 victims, including children, between November 2011 and March 2019, when the ICC still had jurisdiction over the Philippines. Prosecutors say those incidents represent only a small share of the thousands of killings attributed to police and hired hitmen during Duterte’s anti-drug campaign. Some human rights groups estimate that the death toll may have reached 30,000. During his presidency, Duterte also publicly urged police to use deadly force against suspected drug dealers and users.

Why the ICC is involved

The International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, prosecutes individuals accused of the gravest crimes under international law, including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. Designed as a court of last resort, it is meant to act when national systems fail to carry out credible investigations or prosecutions.

The ICC’s involvement in the Duterte case began years before his arrest. In February 2018, it opened a preliminary examination into 12,000 killings linked to the anti-drug campaign. A month later, after the former ICC prosecutor announced a preliminary inquiry into the situation in the Philippines, Duterte moved to withdraw the country from the Court’s membership. That withdrawal took effect in March 2019. In September 2021, the ICC authorised a full investigation into Duterte’s actions, but the process was paused two months later after Philippine authorities said they were carrying out their own inquiries into the extrajudicial killings. The investigation resumed in 2023. The Court has maintained that it retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member, covering the period from 1 November 2011 to 16 March 2019.

Duterte has consistently rejected the Court’s authority and denied the allegations against him, describing them as “an outrageous lie.” A challenge to the ICC’s jurisdiction is still pending before the Appeals Chamber, while his defence has continued to contest the prosecution’s case and assert his innocence.

The arrest warrant and surrender to the Court

A major shift in the case came in early 2025. On 7 March 2025, ICC judges issued a warrant of arrest against Duterte. The warrant was first classified as secret and then reclassified as public on 11 March 2025. On 12 March 2025, he was surrendered to the Court after being arrested by Philippine authorities in accordance with the warrant.

His initial appearance before the Court took place on 14 March 2025, and he appeared by video link as authorised by the Chamber. Since then, he has been held in ICC custody in the Netherlands.

Duterte’s arrest was not only a legal turning point but a political one. It unfolded amid a widening split between the Duterte and Marcos families, once powerful allies in the 2022 election but later divided by competing ambitions and an increasingly bitter feud. That breakdown, including mounting tensions between Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, and Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, reshaped the politics surrounding the ICC case. Marcos had previously refused to cooperate with the Court, but his position shifted as relations with the Duterte camp worsened. Since then, Duterte’s supporters have portrayed the proceedings as politically motivated, while rights groups and victims’ families have viewed his arrest as a long-awaited step toward accountability.

Victims, accountability and the scale of the issue

Domestic accountability in the Philippines has remained strikingly limited. Nearly a decade after the nationwide “war on drugs” began, only five cases had resulted in convictions, involving a total of nine police officers. Most of those allegedly responsible, including senior officials, have yet to face comparable legal consequences.

That gap helps explain why the ICC proceedings carry such weight for victims’ families and human rights advocates. For many, the hearing represents more than a procedural step in an international case. It is the clearest sign in years that evidence linked to the killings may finally be examined in a serious judicial forum after long periods of denial and inadequate accountability at home.

At the same time, the case has underscored the limits of international justice on its own. Rights groups have argued that Duterte’s surrender to the ICC does not remove the Philippine government’s responsibility to pursue accountability domestically. They have called for credible investigations into others suspected of involvement in extrajudicial executions, as well as fair trials for those responsible. From that perspective, proceedings in The Hague may be significant, but they cannot by themselves dismantle the culture of impunity that allowed the killings to continue for so long.

Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International, said the case also sends a wider message beyond the Philippines. As she put it, “It also reminds the international community that nobody is above the law, no matter the ferocity of attacks, sanctions and threats aimed at the ICC from some world leaders.”

What happens next?

The next step is the Chamber’s written decision on whether to confirm some, all or none of the charges. That ruling is expected within 60 days after the hearing. If the judges confirm the charges in full or in part, the case will move to a Trial Chamber for the next phase: the trial itself. If they do not, the proceedings could halt in their current form or require further action by prosecutors.

Whatever the outcome, the confirmation hearing has already marked a major moment. It has placed Duterte, once one of the most powerful men in the Philippines, within a formal international legal process. It has also brought victims and their representatives into a forum where their claims are being heard at the highest level of international criminal justice.

While legal accountability matters, lasting change also depends on investing in the next generation. For many children in the Philippines, education remains one of the strongest pathways out of poverty and exclusion. By sponsoring a child, you can help provide access to learning, greater stability and the chance of a better future, while standing alongside communities working toward opportunity and lasting change.

Even in times of crisis, education remains one of the strongest ways to build a fairer future. Help a child in the Philippines stay in school, grow in confidence and look ahead with hope.