The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has rejected former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte’s bid for interim release, ordering that he remain in detention in The Hague as proceedings in his crimes against humanity case continue.
In its ruling, the chamber affirmed the January 2026 decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I, which concluded that Duterte is medically fit to take part in pre-trial proceedings. The finding was based on an assessment conducted by independent experts in December 2025.
The Appeals Chamber said doctors chosen by the defense team did not conduct a new medical examination and that the defense report presented no new information about Duterte’s health.
Confirmation of charges hearings pushes through
From February 23 to 27, the ICC held the confirmation of charges hearing to determine whether there are “substantial grounds” to believe Duterte committed crimes against humanity. The ICC will decide within 60 days whether to confirm the charges and proceed to trial, decline them, or adjourn the hearing and request further investigation by the prosecutor.
Duterte faces three counts of crimes against humanity for alleged killings carried out between 2011 and 2019 during his time as mayor of Davao City and later as president. He waived his right to attend the hearing in person, refusing to acknowledge the ICC’s jurisdiction.
ICC prosecutors argued that Duterte oversaw systematic killings carried out nationwide through a “national network” of alleged co-perpetrators. This network reportedly included members of law-enforcement agencies, police officers, and civilians who were involved in carrying out the killings.
According to ICC trial lawyer Robynne Croft, Duterte is considered an indirect co-perpetrator because of his role in a shared plan to eliminate suspected criminals. She stated that this included his alleged control over the Davao Death Squad (DDS) and the broader national network that was used to implement the plan.
Evidence presented included official and independent records of drug-related deaths, a list of suspected drug personalities, and a 2016 command memorandum issued by Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, who was then the chief of the Philippine National Police and is now a senator. The memorandum outlined a strategy to “neutralize” drug dealers. According to insider witnesses linked to the DDS and cited by ICC prosecutors, the term “neutralize” was understood to mean killing.
Croft argued that Duterte acted as an indirect co-perpetrator, designing and directing the campaign while controlling those who executed it. “There can be no doubt about Duterte’s knowledge and intent,” she said.
Duterte lawyer rejects “killing policy”
Duterte’s lawyer Nicholas Kaufman repeatedly argued that the Davao Death Squad was fictitious, claiming that evidence of its existence relied only on anecdotes and hearsay. He rejected the prosecution’s assertion that it functioned as an organized network behind a killing policy in Davao City that was later expanded nationwide.
Kaufman insisted that his client had never killed anyone, despite Duterte’s past public statements appearing to admit involvement in killings. He murdered no one, Kaufman said, adding that there is “absolutely nothing” directly linking Duterte to the deaths in the drug war.
The defense also challenged the credibility of prosecution witnesses. During the defense presentation on February 26, 2026, Kaufman described key witnesses as “self-confessed vicious murderers,” arguing that their testimony is “inherently unreliable.” He also argued that Duterte’s remarks appearing to order killings were merely hyperbole.
Evidence shows clear directive understood as “kill,” says prosecution
In contrast, Gilbert Andres, the victims’ common legal representative, said the former president’s public statements effectively functioned as policy. He noted that whenever Duterte encouraged killings, alleged drug users were killed across the Philippines.
Senior trial lawyer Julian Nicholls of the ICC prosecution team argued that the evidence shows that Rodrigo Duterte conveyed a clear directive that was understood and carried out by those responsible for the killings. According to Nicholls, the message signaled that those who committed killings under Duterte’s direction would receive protection, financial rewards, and promotions.
Nicholls also told the court that even if Duterte’s public speeches were set aside entirely, the prosecution still has substantial evidence supporting its case. He said the broader body of evidence contradicts the defense claim that Duterte merely intended his subordinates to follow the law and that his speeches were rhetorical exaggerations.
On the final day of pre-trial proceedings on February 27, Kaufman presented police records to support the defense’s claim that drug war victims had offered armed resistance. He argued that documents such as arrest warrants, operational reports, and firearm recovery records show that incidents were legitimate police operations that escalated into gunfights, prompting officers to shoot in self-defense.
Families dispute defense’s claims victims fought back
Estrella Nonay, the 72-year-old mother of drug war victim Bernard Nonay, said she does not believe the defense’s arguments. Her son, a tricycle driver and the family’s sole breadwinner, was shot dead by two motorcycle-riding assailants on June 20, 2018 after dropping off a passenger.
Nonay said she remains hopeful that the case against Duterte will move forward and believes that the pursuit of justice for the victims is fair and justified.
Purisima Dacumos also condemned the defense’s claim that victims fought back, saying her husband Danilo did not resist and was not a violent person. Llore Pasco said they were saddened by the loss of their loved ones but grateful for the opportunity to share their stories in court, while angered by what they described as misleading claims by the defense.
Sheerah Escudero, whose brother was also killed, dismissed the defense’s statements, saying the families themselves are living proof of the brutality of the so-called “war on drugs.”
ICC is victims’ last chance for justice
Lawyer Joel Butuyan, who represents victims before the ICC, called for the case to proceed to trial, describing it as the victims’ last chance for justice. He warned of ongoing impunity in the Philippines and said a full trial would document the history and highlight the human toll of the drug war.
Also representing victims, lawyer Gilbert Andres said the Duterte administration failed to prosecute police officers responsible for government-acknowledged killings during the Philippine drug war.
Andres argued that the deaths point to a state policy of extrajudicial killings, noting that the government’s reporting of the fatalities as accomplishments could suggest state sponsorship of the killings.
Andres said the anti-drug campaign was widespread, systematic, and disproportionately targeted the poor, including children. Citing the Philippine Supreme Court, he stressed that police cannot claim a presumption of regularity in operations where deaths occur, underscoring the need for accountability.
“The victims want these charges to be confirmed because they want to be reintegrated into their communities,” Andres said. “They are still in the shadow of fake news, fear, and threats from Mr. Duterte’s supporters.”
Advocacy groups reported that victims’ families involved in the ICC proceedings faced online harassment and disinformation.
Rubilyn Litao, national coordinator of Rise Up for Life and for Rights, reported that victims, including herself, are being targeted by an AI-assisted disinformation campaign during ongoing ICC hearings. After the confirmation hearing concluded, families and human rights advocates celebrated briefly with small cakes inscribed in Tagalog “Tuloy ang laban” (“The fight continues”). The Duterte Panagutin Campaign Network called for continued public support to hold Duterte and his allies accountable.
Evidence against Duterte is strong, says legal analyst
Legal analyst Paolina Massidda said the evidence against Duterte appears strong enough to move forward to trial. She explained that victims whose cases fall within the confirmed charges and timeframe – up to 2019 – may participate safely in the proceedings, with protections such as anonymity.
Massida is a lawyer with the ICC’s Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV), whose mandate is to represent victims of mass atrocities before the ICC. Victims’ participation, she said, is essential to documenting crimes, amplifying their voices, and strengthening cases, even if some affected individuals fall outside the formal scope.
Meanwhile, Michael Tiu Jr., head of the UP Law Center International Criminal Law Program, said he was surprised by portions of Kaufman’s opening statement, particularly its references to Philippine politics. He noted that such political commentary is unusual in ICC hearings and appeared intended more to influence public perception than to present evidence relevant to the judges’ decision on whether to advance the case to trial.