Rights advocates from Karapatan holds a press conference at the Ambai Modern Tambayan restaurant in Quezon City on September 9, 2025 on the ICC's postponement of the confirmation of charges of Rodrigo Duterte.The victims and their families, fear that any postponement in the proceedings gives the Dutertes the opportunity to harass, endanger or even eliminate the prosecution witnesses. Jonathan Cellona, ABS-CBN News/File
MANILA — Trial chambers at the International Criminal Court weigh opposing arguments over whether former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte should remain behind bars as legal proceedings against him advance.
The Office of the Prosecutor has urged the court to keep Duterte in custody, arguing that recent developments in the case have heightened the risks of him fleeing or tampering with witnesses.
Meanwhile, the legal team representing the former president has opted not to file substantive arguments on his detention at this stage, pointing instead to a pending medical evaluation regarding his fitness to stand trial.
“The Defense informed the Chamber, parties and participants on 4 September 2024 that 'it does not intend to submit observations at this time', but that it anticipated coming back as required after the question of the accused’s fitness to stand trial had been settled… The Defense raised the issue of Mr Duterte’s fitness on 25 May 2026, and requested that Mr Duterte undergo a medical examination to assess his fitness to stand trial,” as explained under submissions of Mr. Duterte’s defence team.
Under International Criminal Court rules, Trial Chamber III is required to periodically review the detention of an accused person within a 120-day timeframe, prompting the current round of submissions filed on September 14, 2026.
“The Trial Chamber acknowledged the Defense’s submission that it did not intend to submit observations on Mr Duterte’s detention at this time, but 'bearing in mind the obligation of the Chamber to rule on this matter by the upcoming 120-day time limit pursuant to Rule 118(2) of the Rules' noted that 'the Defense may address this issue in writing no later than 14 September 2026.'”
PROSECUTION CITES HEIGHTENED RISKS
In its observations submitted to the court, the prosecution maintained that the legal conditions requiring Duterte's detention under the Rome Statute remain fully met.
Acting Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang argued that circumstances have not changed in a way that warrants release; rather, developments have amplified the risks associated with the accused.
“To the contrary, there have been changes in circumstances that have increased the risk Mr Duterte presents under articles 58(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Statute,” as explained in the document by the office of the prosecutor.
The prosecution pointed to two main factors increasing the risk of flight under Article 58(1)(b)(i) of the statute. First, "recent advancements in this case have increased the prospect of Mr Duterte facing trial," noting that a definitive trial date has now been set. Second, prosecutors have expanded the scope of the case, having "added eight additional incidents to Mr Duterte's charges since the date of the Decision."
According to the prosecution, the expanding "number of incidents and victims, and therefore the prospect of a lengthy prison sentence, have increased, which militates in favor of Mr Duterte's continued detention."
Furthermore, prosecutors argued that the risk of witness interference has grown. On August 31, 2026, the prosecution provided its official List of Witnesses and related evidence to the defense. This disclosure supplies the defense with names, expected testimonies, and other sensitive details.
“The List of Witnesses provides Mr Duterte with the names of the Prosecution's witnesses, 10 as well as their expected testimony, and [REDACTED]."
Emphasizing that the evaluation of witness risks "revolves around the possibility, not the inevitability, of a future occurrence," the prosecution asserted that "Mr Duterte's history shows that he is able and has the means, either directly or through his associates, to interfere with" the proceedings.
Consequently, prosecutors requested that the chamber order his continued detention.
DEFENSE AWAITS FITNESS DETERMINATION
The defense response, led by counsel Peter Haynes, KC, took a different procedural track.
Following an order from the Trial Chamber, the defense initially informed the court that "it does not intend to submit observations at this time," anticipating that it would return to the matter once a critical preliminary issue is resolved.
“It anticipated coming back as required after the question of the accused’s fitness to stand trial had been settled,” explained under the defense’s submissions.
Although the chamber subsequently issued a reminder noting the mandatory 120-day review deadline and offering a September 14 deadline for written inputs, the defense maintained its position.
The core of the defense's current stance centers on health and competency. Back on May 25, 2026, the defense raised the issue of Duterte’s medical fitness and requested an examination to determine whether he is capable of standing trial.
While parties have submitted their positions based on medical expert findings, a formal ruling from the Trial Chamber is still pending.
The defense argued that the two matters are inherently connected, noting that "should Mr Duterte be found unfit to stand trial and the proceedings consequently adjourned, this would be relevant to the assessment of whether there has been a material change in circumstances."
Rather than engaging with the detention review immediately, the defense stated it "anticipates exercising its right under Rule 118(2) to seek a review of the detention regime once the Trial Chamber has determined Mr Duterte’s fitness to stand trial, if the circumstances merit it."
With both filings now before The Hague, Trial Chamber III faces the task of weighing the prosecution's observations on the former Philippine President’s detention against the defense's pending fitness evaluations as the legal process moves forward.
RELATED VIDEO: