THE LEGAL team for former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte has formally appealed to the International Criminal Court (ICC), demanding his immediate and unconditional release and the termination of all proceedings related to the investigation into his bloody “war on drugs.”
The appeal, a 21-page “Appeal Brief on Jurisdiction”, was filed with the ICC’s Appeals Chamber on Nov. 14, challenging a recent ruling that upheld the court’s authority over the former president.
The document, filed by counsel Nicholas Kaufman and the defense team, contests the October 23, 2025, decision by Pre-Trial Chamber I (PTC I), which had ruled that the ICC retained jurisdiction to continue its probe despite the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019.
The core of the defense’s argument hinges on the legal consequence of the Philippines’ formal withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, which took effect on March 17, 2019.
The defense contends that the PTC I made fundamental errors of law and that the ICC lost its legal basis (jurisdiction) to pursue the case after the country’s withdrawal.
The defense is specifically asking the Appeals Chamber to reverse the PTC I decision, declare that the court has no jurisdiction over the case, and issue an order for the former president’s immediate release.
Key legal arguments presented
The appeal brief targets the legal interpretations used by the lower chamber, highlighting three main points:
Rejection of ‘Lex Specialis’: The defense argues that the PTC I erred in classifying Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute (which governs withdrawal) as a “lex specialis” (special law) that overrides the general rules on jurisdiction (Article 12).
The defense argues this interpretation is a “legal novelty” unsupported by the Statute’s drafting history.
Definition of ‘Matter Under Consideration’: The lawyers dispute the finding that a preliminary examination by the Prosecutor, which began in February 2018, constitutes a “matter under consideration by the Court” that would allow for the retention of jurisdiction.
They argue this interpretation is overly broad.
Exclusion of the Prosecutor: The brief further argues that the term “the Court” in Article 127(2) refers only to the judicial organs and does not include the Office of the Prosecutor.
Therefore, the Prosecutor’s preliminary examination alone cannot satisfy the condition for continued consideration of the case.
The defense warned that allowing the PTC I’s decision to stand creates a “dangerous policy risk” by potentially enabling the Prosecutor to “frustrate legitimate withdrawal simply by opening a preliminary examination before the one-year withdrawal period becomes effective.”
The Appeals Chamber is now expected to review the submissions and issue a ruling that will determine the immediate future of the ICC’s controversial investigation into the alleged crimes against humanity committed during the drug war.
