International Criminal Court Hears Duterte: The Legal and Political Game of the Philippines' War on Drugs

On the early morning of February 23, 2026, the First Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, convened. In front of the three judges lay thousands of pages of evidentiary documents. Deputy Prosecutor Mamadou Mandiaye Niang presented to the court that former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, during his administration's war on drugs, condoned extrajudicial killings through fear and monetary incentives, allegedly committing three counts of crimes against humanity. This four-day confirmation of charges hearing will determine whether the 80-year-old former president will face a formal trial. The ruling not only concerns the demands of tens of thousands of Philippine victim families but will also test the International Criminal Court's practical capacity to hold sitting heads of state accountable.

The charges and evidence in court.

The prosecution's charges span a decade, extending from Duterte's tenure as mayor of Davao City to his presidential term. The first charge involves 19 murders between 2013 and 2016, alleging that he directly commanded the Davao Death Squad while serving as mayor. The second charge focuses on the period from 2016 to 2017, early in his presidency, concerning the killings of 14 individuals listed as high-value targets. The third charge is the broadest in scope, involving the deaths of 43 suspected drug users or small-scale drug dealers during the nationwide anti-drug operations from 2016 to 2018.

Nyang presented video recordings of Duterte's multiple public speeches in court. In a widely circulated speech from 2016, Duterte told law enforcement officers: If drug dealers resist, you kill them. I will protect you. In another recording, he claimed: When I was the mayor of Davao, I used to ride a motorcycle around the streets, looking for criminals to kill. The prosecution argued that these remarks were not exaggerations but clear command signals. Court documents show that some of the police officers involved admitted to receiving instructions from higher-ups, with cash rewards ranging from 20,000 to 50,000 Philippine pesos per completed operation, equivalent to several months' salary.

The defense lawyer for Duterte, Nicholas Kaufman, adopted a dual strategy. On the legal front, he insisted that the International Criminal Court lacks jurisdiction over the case, as the Philippines formally withdrew from the Rome Statute in March 2019. On the factual front, he argued that the prosecution selectively extracted fragments of Duterte's bold statements, asserting that his client's remarks were never intended to incite violence but rather represented a unique style of political communication. Kaufman had previously submitted Duterte's medical reports to the court in an attempt to prove his inability to participate in the proceedings due to age and health reasons, but this claim was dismissed by the court in January of this year. The judge determined that Duterte is capable of effectively exercising his litigation rights.

Division on the Streets of Manila and Domestic Political Turmoil

On the day of the hearing, starkly different street scenes emerged in the Metro Manila area of the Philippines. At the Hope Home Community Center operated by the Catholic Church in Quezon City, over 100 relatives of victims gathered in front of television screens to watch the live broadcast of the trial. Patricia Enriquez, a 36-year-old activist, told AFP reporters: "This is a historic moment, carrying both pain and hope." Gloria Samiento, whose boyfriend and his brother died in the final weeks of Duterte's term, stared at the screen and said: "He dares not appear in court, perhaps unwilling to admit his sins, perhaps out of cowardice."

Meanwhile, hundreds of Duterte supporters gathered at another square in Manila. Aldo Villarta, a 35-year-old chef, held up a sign, arguing that the International Criminal Court's trial of former national leaders is an insult to Philippine sovereignty. This division is directly reflected at the highest political level in the Philippines. The power struggle between current President Ferdinand Marcos II and current Vice President Sara Duterte—Duterte's daughter—has become public. In the third week of February 2026, Sara Duterte officially announced her candidacy for the 2028 presidential election. At a press conference in Manila, she said: I am Sara Duterte, and I will run for President of the Philippines.

This confrontation has its institutional roots. In the Philippines, the president and vice president are elected separately, meaning individuals from different political parties or even political rivals may hold these two positions simultaneously. In 2025, the Philippine Supreme Court blocked the Senate from initiating impeachment proceedings against Sara Duterte, which involved corruption allegations and her alleged involvement in an assassination plot against President Marcos. Analysts point out that the Marcos administration's arrest of Duterte in Manila on March 11, 2025, and her subsequent transfer to The Hague were actions aimed at weakening the political rival's family. Duterte's supporters criticize the current government for handing over the former leader to a court whose jurisdiction is questionable.

Jurisdictional Disputes and Judicial Precedents

The core legal dispute in this case lies in jurisdiction. The Philippines ratified the Rome Statute in 2011. After the International Criminal Court announced the initiation of a preliminary investigation in February 2018, Duterte declared the start of the withdrawal process in March of the same year. According to the Statute, the withdrawal takes effect one year after notification is given, and the Philippines officially ceased to be a State Party in March 2019. Duterte's defense team therefore argues that the Court has no jurisdiction over events occurring after March 2019, and also lost jurisdiction over events prior to that due to the Philippines' withdrawal.

In September 2025, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court issued a ruling dismissing the defense's jurisdictional objections. The ruling stated that a state cannot abuse its right of withdrawal to shield alleged perpetrators already under the court's review. The court held that its jurisdiction over this case is based on the preliminary investigation initiated while the Philippines was still a state party (i.e., before March 2019), and such jurisdiction is continuous. The defense has appealed this ruling, and the case remains under review. If this legal interpretation is ultimately upheld, it will close a potential escape route for future state leaders seeking to evade investigation by withdrawing from the International Criminal Court.

From a broader perspective, the Duterte case serves as a significant test for the International Criminal Court in handling cases of large-scale atrocities beyond non-international armed conflicts. Unlike previous cases handled by the Court, such as those in Congo, Uganda, and Darfur, Sudan, the Philippine drug war occurred within a relatively stable domestic governance framework, with the alleged perpetrators being the country's law enforcement system rather than anti-government forces. The prosecution needs to prove that these killings were part of a widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population and that Duterte had the intent as an organizer or commander. The official death toll reported by the Philippine National Police is 6,181, while estimates from ICC investigators and human rights organizations range between 12,000 and 30,000, with the vast majority being young men from urban impoverished communities.

Regional and Global Impact

The direction of the Duterte case will impact the discourse on human rights and the rule of law in Southeast Asia and even globally. Within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia have long faced severe drug-related crime issues. Duterte's iron-fisted approach to drug enforcement once received tacit support from some citizens and hardline political figures in neighboring countries. If the International Criminal Court ultimately decides to prosecute and convict, it may curb the tendency for similar extreme law enforcement actions to emerge in the region in the future. However, this could also ignite nationalist sentiments and be portrayed as interference by Western judicial institutions in the internal affairs of Asian nations.

From a global perspective, the International Criminal Court is facing pressure from multiple fronts. Although the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, it has threatened court staff with sanctions over investigations into U.S. citizens or allies. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the court issued an arrest warrant for Putin, sparking a new round of debate on the politicization of international criminal justice. The Duterte case has now entered the substantive trial phase at such a sensitive moment, meaning every procedural step and substantive ruling by the court will be closely scrutinized. The court must demonstrate to the international community that its operations are based on law rather than political considerations, and that it can handle cases from different regions of the world impartially.

Ronald Mendoza, a professor of political science at Ateneo de Manila University, pointed out: The outcome of this case will define the boundaries of applying 'crimes against humanity' in non-war contexts. If the prosecution succeeds, any national leader who systematically incites extrajudicial killings in the future, whether during armed conflict or not, could face trial in The Hague. If it fails, the authority of the International Criminal Court will be further undermined, perceived once again as a selective institution capable only of handling African cases. The court is expected to decide within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearings, by the end of April 2026, on whether to confirm the charges and proceed to a formal trial. Regardless of the outcome, these three days of hearings in The Hague court have already brought the echoes of thousands of gunshots on the streets of the Philippines into the heart of international rule of law.