ICC takes custody of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte

A supporter of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte waves a flag as he demonstrates outside the International Criminal Court detention center near The Hague in Scheveningen, Netherlands, on March 12, 2025. (AP)

• The court said in a statement that “as a precautionary measure medical assistance” was made available at the airport for Duterte
• If his case goes to trial and he is convicted, the 79-year-old Duterte could face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment

THE HAGUE: The International Criminal Court said Wednesday that former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has been surrendered to its custody, to face allegations of crimes against humanity stemming from deadly anti-drug crackdowns during his time in office.
The court said in a statement that “as a precautionary measure medical assistance” was made available at the airport for Duterte, in line with standard procedures when a suspect arrives.
Rights groups and families of victims have hailed Duterte’s arrest Tuesday in Manila on an ICC warrant, which was announced by current Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos.
Within days, Duterte will face an initial appearance where the court will confirm his identity, check that he understands the charges against him and set a date for a hearing to assess if prosecutors have sufficient evidence to send him to a full trial.
If his case goes to trial and he is convicted, the 79-year-old Duterte could face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
The small jet taxied into a hangar where two buses were waiting. An ambulance also drove close to the hangar, and medics wheeled a gurney inside. There was no immediate sign of Duterte. A police helicopter hovered close to the airport as the plane remained in the hangar, largely obscured from view by the buses and two fuel tanker trucks.
ICC spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah confirmed that Duterte was on the plane, which made a stopover in Dubai during its flight from Manila.
Duterte’s arrest was announced Tuesday by current President Marcos, who said the former leader was arrested when he returned from a trip to Hong Kong and that he was sent aboard a plane to the ICC.
Grieving families are hopeful
“This is a monumental and long-overdue step for justice for thousands of victims and their families,” said Jerrie Abella of Amnesty International.
“It is therefore a hopeful sign for them, as well, in the Philippines and beyond, as it shows that suspected perpetrators of the worst crimes, including government leaders, will face justice wherever they are in the world,” Abella added.
Emily Soriano, the mother of a victim of the crackdowns, said she wanted more officials to face justice.
“Duterte is lucky he has due process, but our children who were killed did not have due process,” she said.
While Duterte’s plane was in the air, grieving relatives gathered in the Philippines to mourn his alleged victims, carrying the urns of their loved ones. “We are happy and we feel relieved,” said 55-year-old Melinda Abion Lafuente, mother of 22-year-old Angelo Lafuente, who she says was tortured and killed in 2016.
Duterte’s supporters, however, criticized his arrest as illegal and sought to have him returned home. Small groups of Duterte supporters and people who backed his arrest demonstrated on Wednesday outside the court before his arrival.
ICC investigation
The ICC opened an inquiry in 2021 into mass killings linked to the so-called war on drugs overseen by Duterte when he served as mayor of the southern Philippine city of Davao and later as president.
Estimates of the death toll during Duterte’s presidential term vary, from the more than 6,000 that the national police have reported and up to 30,000 claimed by human rights groups.
ICC judges who looked at prosecution evidence supporting their request for his arrest found “reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Duterte is individually responsible for the crime against humanity of murder” as an “indirect co-perpetrator for having allegedly overseen the killings when he was mayor of Davao and later president of the Philippines,” according to his warrant.
What happens next?
Duterte could challenge the court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the case. While the Philippines is no longer a member of the ICC, the alleged crimes happened before Manila withdrew from the court.
That process will likely take months and if the case progresses to trial it could take years. Duterte will be able to apply for provisional release from the court’s detention center while he waits, though it’s up to judges to decide whether to grant such a request.
Duterte’s legal counsel, Salvador Panelo, told reporters in Manila that the Philippine Supreme Court “can compel the government to bring back the person arrested and detained without probable cause and compel the government bring him before the court and to explain to them why they (government) did what they did.”
Marcos said Tuesday that Duterte’s arrest was “proper and correct” and not an act of political persecution.
Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, criticized the Marcos administration for surrendering her father to a foreign court, which she said currently has no jurisdiction in the Philippines.
She left the Philippines on Wednesday to arrange a meeting in The Hague with her detained father and talk to his lawyers, her office told reporters in Manila.
Philippines no longer an ICC member state
Duterte withdrew the Philippines in 2019 from the ICC, in a move human rights activists say was aimed at escaping accountability.
The Duterte administration moved to suspend the global court’s investigation in late 2021 by arguing that Philippine authorities were already looking into the same allegations, arguing that the ICC — a court of last resort — therefore didn’t have jurisdiction.
Appeals judges at the ICC rejected those arguments and ruled in 2023 that the investigation could resume.
The ICC judges who issued the warrant also said that the alleged crimes fall within the court’s jurisdiction. They said Duterte’s arrest was necessary because of what they called the “risk of interference with the investigations and the security of witnesses and victims.”