Listen to the article
Former Philippine President Remains in ICC Custody Despite False Claims of Release
Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte remains detained at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, contradicting widespread online claims of his imminent release. The ICC Appeals Chamber unanimously rejected Duterte’s request for interim release on November 28, a decision that Philippine courts have no authority to overturn.
A viral YouTube video claiming Duterte had been released and would spend Christmas in the Philippines has garnered significant attention with over 37,000 views and nearly 3,000 likes. The misleading content, posted by a channel falsely presenting itself as a legitimate news outlet, also alleged that mainstream media was concealing information about Duterte’s supposed release and that the Philippine Supreme Court had issued an “ultimatum” demanding his return.
The video’s title, translated from Filipino, dramatically proclaimed: “Finally! It’s confirmed! Father Digong will be freed! The Supreme Court has issued a strong order to bring him home!”
These claims are entirely false. No credible sources have reported Duterte’s release because he remains in detention at the ICC Detention Centre in Scheveningen Prison. Moreover, assertions about Philippine Supreme Court intervention are fundamentally flawed, as domestic courts have no jurisdiction over ICC custody decisions or proceedings.
The ICC, established under the Rome Statute as “an independent and impartial judicial institution,” maintains full authority over its detention orders, which cannot be overturned or influenced by any national judicial body. The court has consistently emphasized it operates “independently and impartially, undeterred by external pressure,” with all decisions governed exclusively by the Rome Statute.
The case against Duterte continues to develop, with recent procedural developments focusing on jurisdictional questions. On December 16, 2025, the ICC Appeals Chamber requested additional information from both prosecution and victims’ lawyers regarding the court’s jurisdiction over Duterte in the ongoing crimes against humanity case linked to his administration’s controversial war on drugs.
The court has directed parties to submit “additional observations” by January 16, specifically addressing the interrelationship between Articles 12(2), 13(c), and 127 of the Rome Statute. These provisions outline the preconditions for ICC jurisdiction, when the court may assert that jurisdiction, and a state’s continuing obligations even after withdrawing from the ICC β a significant point given the Philippines’ formal withdrawal from the Rome Statute during Duterte’s presidency.
Duterte’s defense team has until January 23 to respond to these submissions. This directive follows the defense’s November 14 appeal challenging the court’s jurisdiction, which itself came after the Pre-Trial Chamber’s October 23 ruling that affirmed the ICC’s authority to prosecute and detain the former president.
The case has drawn significant international attention as it represents one of the highest-profile prosecutions in the ICC’s history, focusing on alleged crimes against humanity committed during Duterte’s controversial anti-drug campaign. Human rights organizations have documented thousands of extrajudicial killings during this period, though the former president’s supporters maintain the operations were legitimate law enforcement actions.
The circulation of false information about Duterte’s status highlights the continuing polarization in Philippine politics and the challenges of combating disinformation in the digital age, particularly around high-profile international legal cases.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
This case highlights the ongoing challenges of upholding the rule of law and human rights, even for former heads of state. I’ll be following the developments closely.
This is a concerning development regarding the former President of the Philippines. It’s critical that the rule of law is upheld, regardless of political affiliations. I hope the ICC proceedings are transparent and fair.
Spreading misinformation about a high-profile legal case like this is irresponsible and can sow further division. I appreciate the fact-checking efforts to debunk the false claims.
You’re right, we need to be vigilant about verifying information, especially around sensitive political issues. Relying on credible sources is key.
While the details are complex, it’s important that the ICC proceedings are conducted fairly and transparently. Maintaining the integrity of the legal process is crucial, even for high-profile figures.
The spread of misinformation around Duterte’s status is concerning. I hope the public remains discerning and relies on authoritative sources to stay informed about this case.
Agreed. Fact-checking is essential to combat the proliferation of false narratives, especially on sensitive political topics like this.
The situation with Duterte highlights the challenges of balancing justice and national interests. I’m curious to see how this case unfolds and what the implications will be for the Philippines.