Duterte’s Detention Fuels ICC Debate: Human Rights, Funding Issues, and Claims of Selective Justice

Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Judge Luz Del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza

Duterte’s Detention Fuels ICC Debate: Human Rights, Funding Issues, and Claims of Selective Justice

By Bing Jabadan and Wilma N. Yamzon – TheNATIONWEEK.Com | December 2, 2025

THE HAGUE/MANILA – The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) recent decision to maintain the detention of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has sparked controversy, prompting urgent discussions on human rights, court neutrality, and allegations of selective justice.

The rejection of Duterte’s request for interim release comes amid ongoing claims of improper influence and dubious funding tied to the ICC’s investigation into his administration’s aggressive “war on drugs,” which was purportedly aimed at safeguarding innocent individuals from the scourge of illegal drugs.

The ICC Appeals Chamber, presided over by Judge Luz Del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, unanimously dismissed Duterte’s appeal, indicating that the arguments presented were insufficient to challenge the Pre-Trial Chamber’s conclusions.

Duterte’s defense contended that his age, health status, and proposed release conditions would mitigate any risks of flight or witness tampering.

However, the ICC asserted that the defense did not adequately demonstrate any significant flaws in the lower chamber’s rationale.

While Duterte’s legal team, led by Nicholas Kaufman, intends to submit another request for interim release following a comprehensive medical evaluation, representatives for victims, including ICC-listed attorney Gilbert Andres, are staunchly opposing such actions.

The ICC Office of the Prosecutor remains dedicated to advancing the confirmation of charges hearing, which is currently on hold pending the medical assessment.

Concerns on Funding, Eroding Public Trust

The ICC’s ruling is further complicated by ongoing, unfounded allegations of improper funding affecting the proceedings.

A widely shared, yet debunked, social media claim suggested that the Philippine government transferred $100 million to the ICC to facilitate Duterte’s arrest warrant.

Although this allegation has been fact-checked and disproven, it has tapped into existing public skepticism and heightened concerns about the perceived integrity of the ICC’s investigation.

The situation underscores the challenges the ICC faces in upholding public trust amidst a backdrop of misinformation.

Duterte’s Defense: Claims of Political Retaliation, Jurisdictional Issues

Duterte’s legal representatives have consistently argued that the ICC’s investigation is politically motivated retaliation following the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute in March 2019.

They assert that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed after the withdrawal date, thereby rendering the current proceedings illegitimate and infringing on Duterte’s human rights.

This argument raises essential questions regarding the ICC’s jurisdiction and its capacity to pursue cases against individuals from nations that have exited the court.

The “War on Drugs” and Allegations of Crimes Against Humanity

Duterte faces accusations of crimes against humanity linked to his administration’s “war on drugs,” a campaign marked by widespread extrajudicial killings and human rights violations.

While the Philippine government officially acknowledges over 6,000 fatalities, human rights organizations estimate the true number could reach as high as 30,000.

Additionally, he is accused of involvement with the Davao Death Squad during his tenure as mayor of Davao City.

These allegations paint a troubling picture of systemic violence and impunity throughout Duterte’s administration.

Selective Justice: The Netanyahu Example?

Adding another layer of complexity, Duterte’s supporters argue that the ICC exhibits selective justice.

They point out that, despite numerous allegations of genocide and war crimes, the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

However, Netanyahu remains at large, raising concerns about the court’s political neutrality and its willingness to hold influential leaders accountable.

This perceived inconsistency fosters skepticism regarding the ICC’s motives and its commitment to universal justice.

Philippines’ Relationship with the ICC: A Complicated History

During its membership in the ICC, the Philippines made obligatory annual contributions to the court.

The last recorded payment, amounting to €397,896 (approximately P25.4 million), was made in March 2018.

These contributions were essential for funding the court’s operations.

The Philippines officially withdrew from the Rome Statute in March 2019, leading to complex legal questions surrounding the ICC’s continued jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed during its membership.

A Lengthy Legal Battle with Global Implications

The ICC’s decision to deny Duterte’s release sets the stage for a protracted and contentious legal struggle.

The upcoming confirmation of charges hearing will be a crucial moment, drawing intense scrutiny regarding the evidence against Duterte, the legitimacy of the ICC’s jurisdiction, and the validity of allegations concerning improper influence.

The outcome of this case will have significant ramifications for international justice, the Philippines’ relationship with the global community, and the lasting legacy of Rodrigo Duterte’s presidency.

Furthermore, it will test the ICC’s credibility and its ability to navigate the intricate political landscape of international justice.