The Supreme Court has been urged by the Office of the Solicitor General to dismiss the consolidated petitions for habeas corpus filed by the children of former president Rodrigo Duterte, arguing that the cases have become moot because Duterte is no longer in the country and is now under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Solicitor General Darlene Marie Berberabe said in a 133-page memorandum that the “undisputed fact” is that Duterte is in the custody of the ICC in the Netherlands, placing him beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Philippine courts and rendering any relief the high court may grant “ineffectual and without practical value.”

Berberabe said that since the former president is outside Philippine territory, any relief that may be granted by the Honorable Court cannot be enforced.

She added that the impracticality of enforcement makes the case non-justiciable and fails to meet the constitutional requirement of an actual controversy necessary for judicial review.

The memorandum was filed in response to the consolidated petitions lodged by Davao City Rep. Paolo Duterte, Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte, and Veronica “Kitty” Duterte, who are seeking the release and return of their father to the Philippines.

The siblings asked the high court to act on their habeas corpus petitions and take steps to facilitate Duterte’s return from The Hague, where he has been detained for more than 10 months for crimes against humanity filed before the ICC in connection with his administration’s bloody anti-illegal drug campaign.

The appeal was made in their respective memoranda, which the Supreme Court ordered submitted before resolving the petitions filed in March 2025 following the government’s surrender of the former president to the ICC.

The writ of habeas corpus is a legal remedy available to address illegal confinement or detention, or to determine rightful custody over a person.

The Duterte siblings urged the court to rule on the merits of their petitions and declare illegal the arrest, surrender, and continued detention of the former president, who has been held in The Hague since March over crimes against humanity linked to his war on drugs.

The memoranda were submitted by Paolo Duterte and Veronica Duterte on 5 January 2026, while Sebastian Duterte’s memorandum was received by the court on 29 December 2025.

They argued that Duterte’s detention abroad does not strip the Supreme Court of its authority to act on the petitions, nor render them moot.

The siblings cited foreign and local jurisprudence to support their claim that courts retain the power to grant habeas relief even when a detainee is held outside national territory.

Among the cases cited were the US Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, which recognized habeas corpus rights of foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay, and the Philippine case Villavicencio v. Lukban, a 1919 ruling involving the forcible transfer of women from Manila to Davao.

Veronica Duterte also cited a 2025 US case involving Abrego Garcia and the Philippine government’s efforts to secure the return of former lawmaker Arnulfo Teves Jr. from Timor-Leste.

Paolo Duterte said the Supreme Court was duty-bound to resolve the petitions because the case marks the first time in Philippine history that a former president was surrendered by his own government to an international tribunal.

“It is of utmost public interest for the citizens of our Republic to know whether such arrest was lawful or not,” he said, adding that a ruling would establish guiding principles for future cases involving similar circumstances.

The siblings further argued that their father’s arrest violated the 1987 Constitution, which requires arrests to be made only through warrants personally issued by a judge after a finding of probable cause.

Berberabe rejected the argument, maintaining that the Supreme Court cannot order the release of a person held by a foreign tribunal exercising jurisdiction in another country.

She said the absence of any enforceable relief places the case outside the scope of judicial review.