DAVAO CITY (MindaNews / 29 November) – The lawyer of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte will file next month a new request for his interim release after the results of Duterte’s medical evaluation are out.
In a statement issued Friday after the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) unanimously rejected Duterte’s plea for interim release, lawyer Nicholas Kaufman said the Appeals Chamber “has never affirmed the interim release of a person charged with crimes against humanity” but “the Defense awaits the results of the medical evaluation of the former President due next month and will reintroduce its request to release a man who is 80 years old, and as a result of debilitating physical conditions and cognitive issues, is incapable of flight, or as alleged, threats to witnesses.”
At the ICC, an accused has the right to request for interim release pending trial. If denied, the accused can request again as the Pre-Trial Chamber “shall periodically review its ruling on the release or detention of the person, and may do so at any time on the request of the Prosecutor or the person.” The periodic review is at least every 120 days.
Duterte was a no-show when a summary of the 40-page decision was read by Presiding Judge Luz Del Carmen Ibanez Carranza and livestreamed from the courtroom at The Hague in the Netherlands. He sent his lawyer to represent him.
According to the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the ICC, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall periodically review its ruling on the release or detention of the person, and may do so at any time on the request of the Prosecutor or the person.
The Pre-Trial Chamber, Carranza said, “may modify its initial ruling on detention pursuant to Article 60.3 of the statute and Rule 118.2 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.”
Crimes against humanity
The 80-year old Duterte is facing three counts of murder as a crime against humanity, involving at least 76 deaths during his bloody war on drugs — 19 in Davao City while serving as mayor from 2013 to 2016, and 57 while serving as President between 2016 and 2018.
But the ICC noted that the number of victims is only a “representative sample” of the thousands believed to have been killed extrajudicially within the period.
The Prosecution charged Duterte for the 76 murders and two attempted murders “although the actual scale of victimization during the charged period was significantly greater, as reflected in the widespread nature of the attack,” the ICC said in the 15-page document containing the charges (DCC).
The ICC released on September 22 a public redacted version of the July 5, 2025 DDC. September 23 was supposed to be the date for the confirmation of charges but on September 8 this was reset to a still unknown date, upon the request of Duterte’s counsel who claimed his client is “not fit to stand trial.”
Duterte, Mayor of Davao City from 1988 to 1998, 2001 to 2010, 2013 to 2016 and President of the Philippines from 2016 to 2022, and elected in May 2025 to serve a three-year term as Davao City Mayor, was charged as indirect co-perpetrator, ordering and/or inducing; and/or aiding and abetting the commission of the crimes.
Duterte lost his mayoralty seat on November 13, after failing to take his oath of office six months after his proclamation by the Commission on Elections. His son, Sebastian Duterte, elected Vice Mayor and Acting Mayor since June 30, has assumed the post of mayor after his father’s seat was deemed vacated.
June 12 request
Kaufman filed an urgent request for Duterte’s interim release on June 12, exactly three months after Duterte arrived at the detention center in The Hague, the Netherlands, after his arrest in Manila on March 11.
On October 10, the Pre-Trial Chamber denied the bid for interim release. Kaufman then appealed the decision on three grounds: that the Pre-Trial Chamber erred in finding Duterte poses a risk under Article 58 (1)(b) (i) to (iii) of the Rome Statute; that it erred in its rejection of the State guarantees; and erred by failing to take into account humanitarian considerations in assessing the right to interim release.
Article 58.1b provides that the arrest and detention of an accused is to ensure the person’s appearance at trial; to ensure that the person does not obstruct or endanger the investigation or the court proceedings; or where applicable, to prevent the person from continuing with the commission of that crime or a related crime which is within the jurisdiction of the Court and which arises out of the same circumstances.
In a unanimous decision, the five-member Appeals Chamber on November 28 rejected Duterte’s appeal on all three grounds.
In his June 12 “urgent request for interim release,’ Kaufman argued that Duterte is not a flight risk, that any risk is “totally neutralized” by Duterte’s affirmation that “he will refrain from public engagement, office, or communications with persons outside his family,” and that he has also agreed to abstain from use of the internet or any electronic devices, such as a mobile phone.
Kaufman also said that given these restrictions and “considering that he will be residing well outside the geographic scope of the alleged crimes,” the likelihood of Duterte posing a risk is “non-existent.”
But the Pre-Trial Chamber 1 in its October 10 decision denied the request for Duterte’s temporary liberty in an ICC member-state willing to accept him, citing, among others, public pronouncements of Vice President Sara Duterte that illustrate “rejection of the proceedings against him before the Court, and the will of his close family to help him elude detention and prosecution.”
Defense failed
In its decision, the Appeals Chamber said the manner in which the Pre-Trial Chamber undertook this assessment was “case-specific, as it took into account the specific circumstances of Mr. Duterte, amongst others, his position as former President of the Philippines and his recent re-election as Mayor of Davao City in May 2025.”
It said the defense failed to demonstrate that the Pre-Trial Chamber’s reliance on Mr. Duterte’s re-election as Mayor of Davao City in its assessment of the risks under Article 58.1b, subparagraph 3 of the statute, was unreasonable.
It said the Pre-Trial Chamber “relied on several factors in support of its finding that such risk existed.”
“It relied on a statement by Mr. Duterte, statements by others, Mr. Duterte’s position as former President of the Philippines and his recent re-election as Major of Davao City, as well as the matter of the gravity of the alleged crimes and concomitant sentences in case of conviction,” it said.
On the second ground of appeal, the Appeals Chamber “is of the view that the Pre-Trial Chamber was not obliged, as suggested by the defense, to seek further observations from the concerned state because it did not envisage the possibility of release given the risks it found Mr. Duterte presents under Article 58.1b of the statute.”
On the third ground of appeal, the Appeals Chamber said the Pre-Trial Chamber stated the reasons for which, in its view, the humanitarian grounds advanced by the defense were not sufficiently set out in Duterte’s case.
“Further, the Appeals Chamber recalls that the medical condition of a detained person may be a reason for a chamber to grant interim release with conditions, and that the chamber enjoys discretion when deciding on conditional release” but it noted that it is “not apparent from the Pre-Trial Chamber’s assessment that it was unreasonable. The Pre-Trial Chamber found the existence of risks under Article 58.1b of the statute which were not mitigated by Mr. Duterte’s purported condition, and also could not be mitigated by any condition imposed upon release.
“With peaceful hearts” and “borderline inhumane”
In a statement, the Duterte family said they accept the Appeals Chambers’ decision “with peaceful hearts” and will “continue to work with the defense team on the case and will keep supporting Former President Rodrigo Duterte with our daily conversations. We thank everyone who prayed with us today.”
But speaking to reporters outside the ICC in The Hague, Davao City 2nd district Rep. Omar Duterte said the decision was “borderline inhumane.”
He said he did not expect the rejection of the appeal. “Of course not. We expected that they appeal to the humanitarian side. I’m pretty sure they know my grandfather PRRD’s medical records. They know his age. They know that he uses a cane to walk. So I know that he’s not a risk to anybody.”
“I was shocked, but sadness took over my shock,” he said.
Asked by Duterte’s former spokesperson Harry Roque “what is your message to the Marcos administration who kidnapped and brought my father here?,” Omar replied: “I hope that they’re happy right now. I hope they feel vindicated on what they did. I hope they got some sort of reward from this. This is borderline, or almost borderline. No, it’s borderline. It’s borderline inhumane, keeping an 80-year old here, away from his family, away from the land he called home. So, yeah, I hope they’re happy.”
He thanked Duterte’s supporters for staying with them. “I can’t thank you enough. Whenever I see, whenever I walk around anywhere in the Philippines, even here in the Netherlands, you don’t hesitate to approach me, to tell me the deep, deep love, respect, and admiration you have for PRRD. That gives me inspiration to do better at my job, to be a better leader, and to help continue the fight to bring him home.”
Victims’ view: accountability of perpetrators
For the thousands of families of the victims of extrajudicial killings, the decision “provides a much-needed degree of assurance” and “reinforces the principle that no individual, regardless of their past office or power, is above the scrutiny of international law when alleged to have committed the most serious crimes,” the Union of Peoples Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM) said.
“This is not the end of the quest, but it is a powerful stride forward,” UPLM said, adding that the denial of interim release “keeps the accountability door wide open, validating the long and arduous struggle of the victims’ movement. We stand firmly with the victims and their legal representatives, and we shall continue to fight until truth and full justice are finally secured.”
The Mindanao-based lawyers’ group said the ICC’s decision is “a significant and crucial preliminary victory for the victims and survivors of the ‘War on Drugs’ and other alleged crimes against humanity.”
The Appeals Chamber, it said, has delivered a “definitive judgment that prioritizes justice and the integrity of the judicial process over political maneuvering.”
At the ICC, the Prosecution and the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) had earlier opposed the bid for interim release.
The OPCV cited among others, Duterte’s ‘access to a large amount of evidence, including the identities of some of the Prosecution’s witnesses’ and Sara’s statement relaying his claim that ‘he was brought to the Court illegally’; his ‘political position and international contacts, as well as his financial situation’; and Duterte’s and his family members’ ‘public positions’ and ‘continued influence in the Philippines’.
The OPCV also said the current medical documentation submitted by Duterte’s counsel “does not suffice to justify an interim release but rather demonstrates that Mr. Duterte still has mental and physical ability to evade justice and fail to appear before the Court; obstruct or endanger the investigation or the court proceedings, and continue with the commission of the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, if released.” (Carolyn O. Arguillas / MindaNews)
