The Tamesis
April 23, 2026
Manila – The Appeals Chamber confirmed the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over former President Rodrigo Duterte’s crimes against humanity case, rejecting a defense request to annul the court’s authority and halt proceedings related to the drug war.
The ruling clears a key hurdle for the case to move forward at the ICC in The Hague, despite the Philippines withdrawing from the ICC.
The five-member Appeals Chamber rejected the defense’s appeal and said demands for Duterte’s immediate and unconditional release were pointless after reading out the ruling at the ICC headquarters.
The 81-year-old former president faces three crimes against humanity for alleged murder, in which he was allegedly an “indirect accomplice” in the killings carried out as part of anti-drug policies implemented during his administration.
LIVE UPDATES: ICC ruling on Duterte’s jurisdiction | April 22
The charges relate to his time as mayor of Davao City from 2013 to 2016 and then as president until March 2019, when the Philippines withdrew from the International Criminal Court.
Duterte’s defense lawyers have argued that the court has no jurisdiction over alleged crimes in the Philippines because the country is no longer governed by the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. Prosecutors countered that the alleged crimes occurred while the Philippines was still a member of the court and that the ICC could proceed.
In a preliminary ruling in October, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber sided with prosecutors, ruling that the investigation into Duterte began before the Philippines’ troop withdrawal.
The Appeals Chamber rejected the defense team’s challenge to the decision.
“The court rejects all four grounds of appeal,” said presiding judge Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza.
“Having dismissed the appeal in its entirety, the Appeals Chamber finds the defense’s request for Mr. Duterte’s immediate and unconditional release to be moot,” she said.
The first ground of appeal that was dismissed was the defence’s argument that the Pre-Trial Chamber erred in concluding that the Court still had jurisdiction over a State that had withdrawn from membership.
The Appeals Chamber said the state’s withdrawal did not automatically deprive the court of its jurisdiction. Article 127 of the Rome Statute sets out what happens when a state withdraws, and the court noted that the statute ensures an “appropriate balance” in that states can withdraw but cannot use withdrawal to avoid responsibility for crimes that the court has already considered.
Therefore, the Chamber unanimously rejected the defense’s first ground of appeal and held that there was no legal error in the Pre-Trial Chamber’s interpretation of the statute.
The Chamber also rejected by majority the defense’s second ground of appeal, which claimed that the Pre-Trial Chamber erred in believing that the preliminary examination might be consistent with matters before the Court.
“The Appeals Chamber notes that, in the specific circumstances detailed in the challenged decision, the Prosecutor (a) decided to initiate a preliminary examination before the Philippines withdrew from the Statute; (b) publicly announced the initiation of a preliminary examination; (c) took a series of procedural steps, some of which involved judicial decisions; and (d) submitted a request to initiate a pro se investigation based on the outcome of the preliminary examination,” Ibanez Carranza said.
“The Appeals Chamber therefore rejects this argument,” she added.
The third ground of appeal rejected by the Chamber was the defence’s argument that the Pre-Trial Chamber made a legal error in interpreting the term “court” in article 127(2) to include the Office of the Prosecutor.
However, the Appeals Chamber noted that the Pre-Trial Chamber used the word “court” in a “distinctive meaning”.
“Taking into account the analysis of the Pre-Trial Chamber, in particular with regard to the context of the use of the term “Court” in the Statute and Article 127, the Appeals Chamber considers that the defense has failed to show how the Pre-Trial Chamber erred in finding that the term “Court” includes the Office of the Prosecutor for the purposes of Article 127 (2), and therefore dismisses the third ground of appeal,” said Ibanez Carranza.
The final ground rejected was the defense’s argument that the Pre-Trial Chamber made a policy-oriented decision allowing the investigation into Duterte’s alleged crimes to continue despite the Philippines’ withdrawal from the statute.
The Appeals Chamber disagreed, finding that the Pre-Trial Chamber had not erred in its interpretation of article 127.
“The Appeals Chamber is unable to find any error in the interpretation of article 127 by the Pre-Trial Chamber,” said Ibanez Carranza.
“The Appeals Chamber is not convinced by the defence’s submission that the one-year withdrawal period provided for in section 127(1) is sufficient to preserve the object and purpose of the statute, as prosecutors can pursue investigations during this period,” she added.
“Continuing the preliminary review after the one-year withdrawal period reflects the balance found by the Appeals Chamber between the responsibilities that States accept when ratifying the Statute, including the objectives set out in the preamble: ending impunity and the ability of States to effectively withdraw from the Statute within a clear timetable,” she said.
The Chamber also rejected the defence’s argument that the Pre-Trial Chamber relied on subjective political criticism of the Philippines’ motives for withdrawing, noting that references to the country’s motives were indicative of the circumstances that Article 127 was designed to prevent and were not part of the legal reasoning itself.
“The Appeals Chamber therefore finds that the defense failed to demonstrate that the Pre-Trial Chamber committed an error of law and dismisses the fourth ground of appeal,” Ibanez Carranza said.
Watch: ICC ruling on Rodrigo Duterte appeal and jurisdiction
Duterte’s defense lawyer Nicholas Kaufman said he was not surprised by the verdict and said allowing the appeal would “effectively clear the court’s docket.” He said the Duterte case was the only remaining high-profile case at the International Criminal Court.
Confirm charge
In a separate proceeding, judges are considering whether to confirm the charges against Duterte, the final step before a trial that would be the first against a former head of state in Asia.
During a hearing in February, prosecutors accused Duterte of causing thousands of deaths during the war on drugs.
His defense attorney said there was no “conclusive evidence” directly linking Duterte’s rhetoric and threats against drug users to the actual murder.
Duterte is unlikely to appear in court anyway.
The court granted his request not to attend a February hearing, with his defense claiming he was mentally unsound.
His only appearance since his arrest and transfer to The Hague was his first appearance via video link, where he appeared confused and exhausted.
He did not attend the event where the decision was announced.
Lawyers Joel Butuyan and Gilbert Andres, co-representing the victims in the case, earlier expressed hope that the Appeals Chamber would rule “upholding the rights of the victims,” adding that domestic courts in the Philippines had failed to investigate and prosecute government officials and military police behind thousands of killings. /dl/cb/dm Report by Catherine de Vera
