QUEZON CITY (MindaNews / 19 Dec) — Christmas is a season associated with mercy, reunion, and hope. Yet in The Hague this year, the season unfolds within the cold clarity of international criminal law. The International Criminal Court Appeals Chamber has rightly denied the request for the interim release of Rodrigo Duterte, affirming that detention must continue while proceedings for crimes against humanity move forward. Duterte remains in jail, and his family will travel to The Hague to visit him there.
The Appeals Chamber’s decision rests on principles that go to the core of the ICC’s mandate. Interim release is not a right. It is an exception. Under the Rome Statute, release may only be granted if detention is no longer necessary to ensure the accused’s appearance, to prevent obstruction of the investigation, or to protect the integrity of proceedings. The Chamber stressed that detention remains justified when release would undermine what it repeatedly calls the “interests of justice.”
𝗥𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲
In denying interim release, the Appeals Chamber emphasized that the gravity of the alleged crimes weighs heavily against release. Crimes against humanity are not ordinary offenses. They involve widespread or systematic attacks against civilian populations. The Chamber recalled that such gravity is a legitimate and continuing factor in assessing detention, particularly where the accused once exercised extraordinary power and influence.
The decision also focused on risk, not sentiment. The Chamber noted that interim release must be denied where there is a real risk that the accused might fail to appear, interfere with proceedings, or otherwise frustrate the Court’s work. In ICC jurisprudence, this is often framed in terms of the danger of “obstructing or endangering the investigation or the Court’s proceedings.” The Appeals Chamber found that these concerns had not been sufficiently mitigated to justify release.
Importantly, the Chamber rejected the argument that family considerations, age, or political stature outweigh these risks. While the Court acknowledged humanitarian factors, it made clear that such considerations cannot override the fundamental requirement that detention remain necessary to safeguard justice. The Appeals Chamber reiterated that interim release must not be granted if it would “undermine public confidence in the administration of justice,” a phrase that carries particular weight in cases involving mass victimization.
Ironically, the very sources of Rodrigo Duterte’s power worked against his bid for interim release. His election as mayor of Davao City, his daughter Sara being the Vice President of the Philippines, and the continued political dominance of the Duterte family were not mitigating factors but aggravating ones in the eyes of the Court. They underscored his enduring influence over state institutions, law enforcement networks, and public discourse. Instead of demonstrating that he had been politically neutralized, these facts reinforced the concern that he retained the capacity to interfere with witnesses, intimidate victims, or shape narratives surrounding the case.
Compounding this was the aggressive and often threatening behavior of his most vocal supporters, whose online harassment of critics, witnesses, and advocates illustrated precisely the kind of climate of intimidation the Court seeks to prevent. Taken together, Duterte’s sustained political relevance and the conduct of his followers weakened any claim that interim release would be safe, contained, or compatible with the interests of justice.
𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗮𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗘𝗝𝗞 𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗺𝘀
For the Duterte family, this means Christmas will be spent differently. They will not celebrate together at home, but they will see him. They will speak to him. They will leave knowing he is alive, legally protected, and treated with the procedural fairness that international law guarantees to every accused person, even those facing the gravest charges.
For thousands of Filipino families, Christmas offers no such consolation.
Their loved ones were never detained, never charged, never tried. They were killed without warrants, without hearings, without the presumption of innocence that now shields the former president. There are no visits to plan, no conversations to hold, no chance for reunion. Their grief is permanent, and every Christmas sharpens the absence.
The Appeals Chamber’s decision, when read carefully, exposes this moral contrast. Duterte benefits from a system that insists on legality, restraint, and reason. His alleged victims were denied all three. The denial of interim release does not erase that imbalance, but it does affirm that power does not confer immunity, and that accountability, however delayed, remains possible.
𝗙𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗹𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝘆 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗼
This context makes the attacks against Fr Flavie Villanueva SVD all the more disturbing. Fr Flavie has walked with families of those killed, often immediately after the violence, offering prayers, presence, and dignity when the state offered bullets and denial. He has insisted that the dead are not statistics, and that justice begins with remembering their names.
The harassment directed at him by Duterte Diehard trolls is not accidental. It is a reaction to truth telling. To acknowledge victims is to challenge impunity. To stand with the grieving is to expose the moral cost of policies defended as order or discipline. Fr Flavie’s ministry embodies the very values the ICC seeks to protect, respect for human dignity and accountability for grave harm.
This Christmas, as Duterte remains detained in The Hague and his family visits him in jail, we must widen our moral lens. The harder Christmas belongs to the families who will never again hear a knock on the door from someone they love. Standing with them means supporting the Court’s decision, resisting disinformation, and defending voices like Fr Flavie Villanueva who continue to insist that justice, though slow, must never be abandoned.
That is the meaning of Christmas that cannot be silenced.
[MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Dean Antonio Gabriel La Viña is Associate Director of Manila Observatory where he heads the Klima Center. He is also a professor of law, philosophy, politics and governance in several universities. He has been a human rights lawyer for 35 years and a member of the Free Legal Assistance Group. He is currently the managing partner of La Viña Zarate and Associates, a development and social change progressive law firm that provides legal assistance to the youth student sector, Lumad and other Indigenous Peoples, desaparecidos and their families, political detainees, communities affected by climate and environmental justice, etc. Dean Tony is a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague and Chair of the Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy. He is founding president of the Movement Against Disinformation and the founding chairs of the Mindanao Climate Justice Resource Facility and the Mindanao Center for Scholarships, Sports, and Spirituality (MCS³)]
