The Hague vs Duterte: 3 lines of defence as war on drugs goes to court

Manila: Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte marked his 80th birthday in detention. The former strongman is currently facing charges at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The case against him: alleged “crimes against humanity” related to his administration’s “war on drugs”.

Arrested on March 11, 2025, upon his return to Manila from Hong Kong, Duterte was subsequently transferred to ICC custody on March 12, 2025. His subsequent extradition to The Hague is a significant moment. Duterte, the 16th Philippine president, has become the first Asian former head of state to be detained by the ICC.

The charges stem from Duterte’s alleged involvement in a widespread and systematic campaign targeting individuals suspected of being drug-offenders, both during his presidency (2016–2022) and his tenure as mayor of Davao City.

The trial puts the credibility and reach of the ICC on the line — especially after criticism that it disproportionately targets African nations.

Social media firestorm

The development has ignited a firestorm on social media. Supporters and critics of Duterte became locked in heated exchanges. Supporters have launched coordinated campaigns to defend him, flooding platforms with messages opposing the ICC’s actions.

Some have called for a remittance boycott (zero remittance) by his supporters among overseas Filipino workers (OFW).

Notably, they have targeted the ICC’s official Facebook page and the personal social media accounts of ICC officials, including Presiding Judge Iulia Motoc.

Legal experts warn that such actions could be construed as attempts to obstruct justice under Article 70 of the Rome Statute. Other more digitally militant Duterte supporters even suggested the idea of squirrelling their leader away from the ICC Detention Centre in The Hague’s Scheveningen.

Conversely, critics of Duterte view his arrest as a long-overdue step toward accountability. Families of drug war victims, human rights advocates, and opposition figures have expressed support for the ICC’s proceedings.

The online discourse reflects the deep divisions within Philippine society regarding Duterte’s legacy and the broader implications of international intervention in domestic affairs. As the ICC’s proceedings advance, the digital battleground is expected to remain a focal point for both advocacy and misinformation.

Duterte’s defence: Key possible points

As of now, specific details regarding Duterte’s defence strategy have not been publicly disclosed.

However, it is anticipated that his legal team may argue the following points:

• Sovereignty and jurisdiction: The defence could contend that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the case, emphasising that the alleged crimes occurred within the Philippines, a sovereign nation with its own judicial system.

• Legitimacy of the “War on Drugs”: Duterte’s administration has consistently maintained that the anti-drug campaign was a legitimate law enforcement effort aimed at addressing a severe national issue.

• Withdrawal from the ICC: The Philippines officially withdrew from the ICC in 2019. The defence may argue that the court does not have authority over actions taken during Duterte’s presidency. Duterte officially assumed his duty as Philippine president on June 30, 2016.

In the runup to the trial, speculation surrounds the composition of his defence team.

Duterte has appointed Nicholas Kaufman, a British-Israeli lawyer, as his lead counsel for the ICC proceedings. The ICC confirmed this appointment on March 18, 2025, following Duterte’s written request submitted on March 14, 2025.

Kaufman has extensive experience with international tribunals. He worked as a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, contributing to the conviction of Serbian and Montenegrin generals for war crimes.

At the ICC, he has represented clients such as Jean-Pierre Bemba, former Vice President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ayesha Gaddafi, daughter of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Lead counsel

As Duterte’s lead counsel, Kaufman has expressed confidence in Duterte’s acquittal.

In addition to Kaufman, legal experts expect a formidable roster of nationalist-leaning Filipino lawyers, seasoned in constitutional and criminal law, many of whom supported Duterte during his presidency.

Among the likely names: Salvador Panelo, Duterte’s former chief legal counsel, known for his loyalty and combative media presence, and Harry Roque, a former human rights lawyer-turned-Duterte-spokesperson and staunch defender, is also seen as a key legal figure.

It remains to be seen whether or not this could bridge the gap between public perception and courtroom strategy.

The team may also include other foreign consultants with experience in international criminal law.

By challengeingthe ICC’s jurisdiction and framing Duterte’s anti-drug campaign as a domestic policy issue, the main task is to convince the 18-member ICC bench?

One could expect the defence's case to be hybrid: a blend of legal technicalities with political messaging, appealing both to the court and to Duterte’s supporters at home.

Strongest challenges

What is the strongest line of Duterte’s defence at the ICC?

It's likely to hinge on a combination of these three arguments: jurisdictional challenge, legality of state withdrawal, and the “lawful exercise of sovereign authority” argument.

Here’s why these strategies matter:

Challenging the ICC’s jurisdiction

Duterte’s legal team is expected to argue that the Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2019, and therefore, the court no longer has jurisdiction over him.

Although the ICC insists it retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was still a member (2011–2019), Duterte’s camp might push the narrative that continuing the investigation violates Philippine sovereignty and oversteps the bounds of international law.

Why it’s strong: This argument doesn’t attempt to deny the alleged crimes directly but instead targets the legal foundation of the ICC case — potentially the most effective strategy in stopping the trial before it progresses.

“Act of State” or Sovereign Immunity

Duterte’s defence could argue that the anti-drug campaign was a domestic policy, not a criminal enterprise. As such, as a sitting head of state (at the time of the alleged crimes), he was executing lawful duties in combating a national drug crisis while operating under the framework of existing Philippine laws such as the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Why it’s strong: This approach reframes the war on drugs as a governance issue, not a criminal conspiracy.

It also appeals to the principle of non-interference in sovereign affairs — especially powerful when dealing with critics of global courts like the ICC.

With these expected lines of defence, Kaufman is convinced that he could get an acquittal for his client.

Duterte's ICC case will be a closely-watched drama.

As the gavel falls, history stands still — reckoning with power, justice, and truth. The echoes will thunder far beyond The Hague, into the heart of a nation wrestling with its scars and the weight of memory, as it dares to chart its future.