Duterte’s ICC Trial Set for November 30, Judge Confirms
THE HAGUE — Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte will stand trial at the International Criminal Court starting November 30 on charges of crimes against humanity, the presiding judge announced Wednesday, setting the stage for a landmark case that could test the reach of international justice in Asia.
Judge Joanna Korner ruled that proceedings would begin on the date requested by prosecutors, who have accused Duterte of being directly involved in a wave of extrajudicial killings during his presidency and earlier as mayor of Davao City. The trial will examine three counts of crimes against humanity tied to what prosecutors describe as a systematic “war on drugs” that claimed thousands of lives.
At 81, Duterte becomes the first former head of state from Asia to face trial at the ICC, a tribunal designed to prosecute individuals for the worst international crimes, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The case places the court once again at the center of geopolitical tensions, as it navigates renewed U.S. sanctions and skepticism from some member states.
Prosecutors have indicated they plan to call between 60 and 70 witnesses to testify. In a February confirmation-of-charges hearing, they alleged that Duterte operated a so-called “death squad” in Davao City long before becoming president, and that as president he escalated a campaign of summary executions under the guise of drug enforcement. “Decades of murdering his own people, murdering the children of the Philippines, and he claims that he did it all for his country. He doesn’t deny it,” prosecutor Julian Nicholls said during the hearing.
Judge Korner said she was “prepared to accede to the prosecution’s request” for a November 30 start, but ordered further medical assessments to determine whether Duterte is fit to stand trial. His defense team, led by British barrister Peter Haynes after a reshuffle, had urged against setting a date. “It would be inappropriate to attempt to set a date… the defense position is that a commencement is contingent upon a determination… of Duterte’s fitness to stand trial,” the defense argued in court.
Duterte was cleared as fit for an earlier hearing confirming charges, but did not appear in person. His lawyers said at the time that he was not mentally sharp enough to follow proceedings, and they maintain his condition has continued to deteriorate. “His condition continues to deteriorate and will need more fully to be reviewed before any trial may commence,” the defense said.
It remains unlikely that the former president will ever appear inside the ICC courtroom in The Hague. Judges have granted him leave of absence at every hearing so far. The only public glimpse of Duterte since his arrest was a video appearance in which he appeared confused and tired, his speech barely audible.
The case has revived intense debate in the Philippines, where Duterte remains a popular figure among those who supported his ruthless tactics against drug suspects. Victims’ families and human rights advocates, however, argue that a full trial could bring long-overdue accountability and encourage others to testify. The true number of deaths during his anti-drug campaign is widely believed to be in the thousands, though official figures are disputed.
The ICC’s jurisdiction over the case rests on the court’s ruling that it may investigate alleged crimes committed in the Philippines between 2011 and 2019, despite the country’s formal withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019 ordered by Duterte himself.
Duterte’s former defense lawyer, Nicolas Kaufman, told the court in February that his client “absolutely” maintains his innocence, calling the evidence “wholly insufficient” and the charges “grievously misplaced and politically motivated.” He argued that while Duterte often used “bluster and hyperbole” in speeches, he also repeatedly instructed authorities to shoot only in self-defense.
The trial is set to begin amid mounting political headwinds for the ICC, including two rounds of U.S. sanctions imposed since June 2025. The outcome could shape the court’s credibility and its ability to pursue cases against powerful state actors.