ICC Counsel Urges Rejection of Duterte’s Interim Release Request

The Office of the Public Counsel for Victims at the International Criminal Court (ICC) formally requested that the tribunal deny former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's appeal for interim release. This motion was articulated by Principal Counsel Paolina Massida on June 25, 2025, in light of ongoing pre-trial proceedings regarding charges of crimes against humanity stemming from Duterte's controversial war on drugs.

Massida emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating, "Considering that Mr. Duterte has been recently arrested, his interim release would be hard to fathom for the victims who have clearly expressed the view that he should remain in detention at the Court pending the pre-trial proceedings." Such sentiments reflect the perspective of many victims who fear potential repercussions from Duterte and his supporters if he were to regain freedom.

Duterte's legal representative, Nicholas Kaufman, filed a request asserting that a country has agreed to accept the former president, who faces serious allegations linked to extrajudicial killings during his tenure as mayor of Davao City and subsequently as president of the Philippines. Kaufman indicated that the prosecution does not oppose this interim release, contingent upon adherence to specific terms outlined in their filing.

However, the ICC prosecution countered Duterte's request, stressing the necessity of his continued detention to ensure his appearance at trial. The prosecution pointed to Duterte's previous dismissive remarks about the ICC's authority and his petitions against the Philippine government's cooperation with the court, arguing that these actions demonstrate his reluctance to accept the legal process.

In its detailed response, the prosecution stated, "A victim of a kidnapping is unlikely to return to the custody of the kidnapper if allowed to escape." This comment references Duterte's claim of being a victim of abduction, which has been echoed by his family and supporters, further complicating the legal narrative surrounding his case.

Massida's opposition to Duterte's release highlights concerns over his influence and popularity in the Philippines. She remarked, "He is still very popular in the Philippines and commands widespread respect and obedience," indicating that any potential release could pose a significant risk to victims and the integrity of the court’s proceedings.

Furthermore, the political landscape surrounding Duterte remains complex, with his daughter, Sara Duterte, serving as the Vice President and his sons holding influential positions within Davao City. This familial power dynamic raises alarms regarding the potential for intimidation against witnesses and victims if Duterte were allowed to return to public life.

The ICC's proceedings against Duterte mark a pivotal moment in international law, as they represent one of the few instances where a sitting or former head of state faces prosecution for human rights violations by an international tribunal. Legal experts, such as Dr. Emily Carter, a Senior Fellow at the International Institute for Justice, argue that the ICC's handling of this case could set significant precedents for future prosecutions of political figures. Dr. Carter stated, "The ICC must navigate the complexities of state sovereignty and political influence while upholding the principles of justice for victims."

As the ICC continues to deliberate on the matter, the implications of its decision could resonate far beyond the courtroom, influencing international perceptions of justice and accountability. The outcome of this case is anticipated not only by the victims and their advocates but also by global leaders and human rights organizations monitoring the developments closely.

In conclusion, the ICC's response to Duterte's interim release request will likely shape the trajectory of the ongoing proceedings and could either reinforce or challenge the court's authority in holding political leaders accountable for human rights abuses. The situation remains fluid, with potential ramifications for both national and international law moving forward.