The International Criminal Court (ICC) Appeals Chamber on Wednesday dismissed former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction, effectively clearing the way for the continuation of the proceedings against him over alleged crimes against humanity.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) Appeals Chamber on Wednesday dismissed former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction, effectively clearing the way for the continuation of the proceedings against him over alleged crimes against humanity.

The unanimous decision was handed down in open court, presided by Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, at 11 a.m. in The Hague (5 p.m. in Manila).

It also declared moot the request for his unconditional release following the denial of the appeal.

“The Appeals Chamber by majority has rejected all four grounds of appeal. Having rejected the entire appeal, the Appeals Chamber considers the defense’s request for unconditional release of Mr. Duterte moot,” the court said.

Former presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo questioned the tribunal’s dismissal of the plea on jurisdiction, suggesting it may have “pre-judged” the case.

Speaking in an interview on DAILY TRIBUNE’S program, Straight Talk, Panelo maintained that the ICC had no authority over the Philippines following the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute.

Duterte did not attend the hearing, having waived his right to appear. He was represented by his legal counsels Nicholas Kaufman, Dov Jacobs, and other members of his defense team.

The appeal sought to overturn an earlier decision by ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I, which rejected Duterte’s challenge of the court’s jurisdiction

The pre-trial judges ruled that the prosecution’s preliminary examination began before the Philippines formally withdrew from the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty.

Duterte’s lawyers argued that there was no legal basis for continuing the proceedings and asked for his immediate and unconditional release.

The case stemmed from an arrest warrant sought by the ICC Office of the Prosecutor on 10 February 2025 accusing Duterte of crimes against humanity, including murder, torture and rape.

Pre-Trial Chamber I later found reasonable grounds to believe Duterte bore individual criminal responsibility as an indirect co-perpetrator of alleged murders committed in the Philippines between November 2011 and 16 March 2019, the date the Philippines’ withdrawal went into effect.

A sealed arrest warrant was issued on 7 March 2025 and made public on 11 March 2025.

Duterte was arrested by Philippine authorities and surrendered to the ICC on 12 March 2025.

He made his initial appearance via video link two days later.

The proceedings were delayed after the defense sought an indefinite adjournment, citing concerns over Duterte’s fitness to stand trial.

The court granted a limited postponement for a medical evaluation, but on 26 January 2026, it ruled that he was fit to participate in the pre-trial proceedings.

The confirmation of charges hearing was held from 23 to 27 February 2026, during which prosecutors, defense lawyers, and victims’ representatives presented evidence and arguments.

“It appears to me that they have already prejudged the case. I hope I am wrong, because if we are talking about evidence, there is really no evidence to present,” Panelo said in Filipino.

He said that unresolved jurisdictional issues should have been settled first before the proceedings were allowed to continue.

Panelo said the court’s decision to proceed despite the defense’s objections created the impression that the outcome has been predetermined.

He said he hoped his impression was wrong, but stressed that due process requires jurisdiction to be clearly established before any substantive action is taken.

His remarks came hours before the ICC Appeals Chamber was set to issue a ruling at 5 p.m., Philippine time, on whether it retained jurisdiction over the crimes against humanity cases in connection to Duterte’s anti-drug war.

The ruling is expected to determine whether the case can continue toward trial.

If the chamber upholds its jurisdiction, it would remove a major legal hurdle and allow the proceedings to move forward.

If it sides with Duterte, it could halt the case and clear the way for the former president’s return to the Philippines.

Panelo described the case as an affront to Philippine sovereignty, saying that no foreign tribunal should exercise authority over the country without a clear legal basis.

He reiterated the position of Duterte’s allies that the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute should have barred the ICC from exercising its jurisdiction.

He questioned the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, calling it speculative and largely based on public speeches, statements, and media reports.

He added that such materials would not be enough to sustain a conviction if tested in court.

Duterte, currently in ICC custody, faces allegations of crimes against humanity, including murder and attempted murder, allegedly committed between 2011 and 2019 during the anti-drug campaign carried out while he was Davao City mayor and later president.

The case remains at the pre-trial stage. The judges are expected to decide separately within 60 days of the conclusion of the February 2026 confirmation-of-charges hearing whether the prosecutors presented sufficient evidence to either bring Duterte to trial, dismiss the charges, or require additional submissions.

The former president has repeatedly challenged the ICC’s jurisdiction but lost previous motions before the tribunal.

Panelo also linked the case to domestic political tensions, describing moves against Vice President Sara Duterte, including impeachment efforts, as part of a broader political process.

He also criticized government actions involving businessman Zaldy Co, alleging inconsistencies in the ongoing investigations.

“It’s a circus,” Panelo said, as he warned that legal institutions were being overshadowed by political maneuvering ahead of the 2028 elections.

Despite his criticism, he said he still hoped the institutions would ultimately act fairly.

Preliminary vs motu proprio

The ICC launched a preliminary investigation into the alleged extrajudicial killings tied to the notorious drug war in February 2018, almost two years after Duterte took office.

This prompted the Philippines, under Duterte’s orders, to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, one month later.

Under the court’s rules, a withdrawal only takes effect one year after the ICC receives notification from the state concerned. The window is designed to prevent a state party from immediately departing the treaty upon learning that it is under investigation for possible grave crimes.

Furthermore, the PTC-I previously ruled that a withdrawal does not automatically strip the ICC of its authority to exercise jurisdiction over matters already under its consideration at the time the withdrawal takes effect.

The defense has long contested the ICC’s jurisdiction, arguing that it launched a full investigation only in September 2021, more than two years after the Philippines ceased to be a party to the Rome Statute.

In a previous ruling, however, the PTC-I argued that it retained jurisdiction over alleged crimes that occurred between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019.

The defense contended that a preliminary examination and a decision to open an investigation were not identical, arguing that the organs of the court that conduct their consideration are subject to distinct provisions.

However, the Appeals Chamber did not buy the alibi.

What could have happened?

If the Appeals Chamber rules in favor of the defense, the 81-year-old Duterte may finally go home after over a year of being detained in the ICC.

The warrants for his co-perpetrators, such as Senator Ronald dela Rosa, would also be deemed ineffective.

Duterte is charged with three counts of murder for the killing of 78 individuals, including six children, allegedly suspected of drug dealings from 2013 to 2018, spanning his tenure as Davao mayor and as president.

Rights groups estimated that the actual death toll during his presidency alone could be as high as 30,000, mostly from poor communities.

Aside from the jurisdiction issue, the defense has made several efforts to halt the pre-trial proceedings and secure Duterte’s release from ICC detention. This includes Duterte’s alleged debilitating health, making him unfit to stand trial, and their botched attempt at an interim release.

Next week, the ICC will render a separate ruling on whether the charges against Duterte will be confirmed for a full trial.

Senator Imee Marcos, a known Duterte ally, meanwhile, stressed that the latest decision “disregard[ed]” the country’s withdrawal from the Statute and eroded the fundamental principle that domestic institutions must be given primacy where they are able and willing to act.

“At its core, this development raises serious concerns about the inviolate respect for national sovereignty and the proper limits of international jurisdiction. Justice must be pursued in a manner consistent with our Constitution, our laws, and the integrity of our own judicial processes,” she lamented.