The International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) Appeals Chamber on Friday, Nov. 28, rejected the appeal by former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte seeking interim release while awaiting trial. 

The judges, in a unanimous decision, affirmed the earlier ruling of the I.C.C. Pre-Trial Chamber I rejecting Duterte’s request for conditional release. 

The defense had raised three main grounds in their appeal: That the pre-trial judges misjudged the “risk” he posed (flight risk, interference with proceedings, etc…).

The defense had also raised the appeal that the court wrongly rejected state guarantees and proposed conditions for his release (such as residence in another country, possible monitoring, etc…). 

Lastly, it raised the appeal that the judges failed to properly consider humanitarian factors namely his advanced age (in his 80s) and alleged declining health. 

In reading the decision, presiding judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza said the Appeals Chamber found no “legal or factual error” in the Pre-Trial Chamber’s reasoning. 

Mr. Duterte had waived his right to attend the hearing in person or virtually, instead instructing his lawyers to represent him during the Appeals Chamber’s reading of the judgment. 

As a result, the Appeals Chamber “unanimously confirms the impugned decision” meaning Mr. Duterte must remain in detention as the case proceeds. 

The judges accepted the Pre-Trial Chamber’s original conclusion that Mr. Duterte poses a flight risk, and that release could enable him to interfere with investigations or intimidate witnesses. 

The court specifically noted prior statements by Mr. Duterte, his family, and his supporters including calls for his return to the Philippines, and even remarks about a possible “break-out” from detention. 

Regarding the defense’s proposed guarantees and conditions for release: the Appeals Chamber held that those were insufficient to mitigate the risks identified. In other words, no combination of monitoring or host-state assurances overcame the court’s concern about flight or interference. 

On the humanitarian argument: although Mr. Duterte is elderly, the court reasoned that “the presumption of liberty does not mean that detention cannot be imposed where there exists a legal basis for doing so.” The mere claim of ill-health does not automatically override recognized risks. 

Mr. Duterte was not present at the hearing. He signed a formal waiver of his right to appear in person or virtually and instructed his lawyers to represent him when the judgment was read. 

He remains detained at the I.C.C. Detention Centre in The Hague (within the Scheveningen prison facility) while proceedings continue. 

The charges against him involve multiple incidents of murder and attempted murder crimes against humanity allegedly committed during his time as mayor of Davao City and later as President, in connection with his government’s anti-drug campaign. 

Victims’ groups and human-rights advocates largely welcomed the decision. For many, the ruling represents an important step toward accountability, offering assurance that evidence and testimony can proceed without undue interference. 

The legal representatives for victims argued that detaining Mr. Duterte is “crucial” to ensure that witnesses and victims feel safe coming forward. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Duterte’s family issued a statement saying they accept the decision “with peaceful hearts,” and will continue supporting him and cooperating with his defense team. 

The current Philippine government through the presidential office publicly stated that it “respects” the I.C.C.’s decision. 

Supporters and political allies of Mr. Duterte, however, criticized the outcome, calling it politically motivated and characterizing the former president as a “victim of politicized justice.” 

The current interim-release appeal is not the first. The earlier request for provisional release based on similar grounds  had already been denied by the Pre-Trial Chamber in Sept., 2025. 

The court then cited risks of flight, obstruction, and continuation of alleged crimes. 

At that time, the court noted that Mr. Duterte’s family and supporters had publicly rejected his arrest and detention, and that there were statements suggesting they might help him evade custody. 

He is accused of crimes against humanity including murder and attempted murder for what prosecutors describe as a widespread, state-sanctioned “war on drugs,” spanning from his time as Davao City mayor (2011–2016) and during his presidency (2016–2022). 

The denial of release now clears the way for the court to proceed toward the confirmation of charges hearing, a critical next step that could move the process closer to a full trial. Many victim-advocate groups see this as a turning point in pursuing accountability for alleged crimes during the so-called “war on drugs.” 

Meanwhile, the fact that the court maintained custody despite Mr. Duterte’s age and health underscores the ICC’s position that procedural safeguards (flight risk, interference, evidence preservation) outweigh humanitarian arguments at least at this stage.

Duterte was arrested in March, 2025 and handed over to the I.C.C. in The Hague, after the court issued an arrest warrant. 

Even though the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019, the I.C.C. argues the court retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed while the country was a member. 

This ruling marks a major moment in the I.C.C. case against Mr. Duterte: the court has reaffirmed that even a former head of state can remain detained if judicial risk remains high, and that age or health do not automatically guarantee release.