duterte legal team

THE LEGAL battle surrounding the detention of former President Rodrigo Duterte reached a critical juncture on Jan. 28, as his defense team filed a formal appeal seeking his immediate interim release from International Criminal Court (ICC) custody.

The appeal directly challenges a Jan. 26 decision by the Pre-Trial Chamber to maintain the former President’s detention.

The defense argues that the chamber committed a serious error by “categorically disregarding” a medical report detailing Duterte’s declining health and cognitive condition.

According to the filing, the chamber rejected the medical evidence solely because it originated from the defense, while simultaneously refusing requests for an independent medical assessment.

The defense maintains that this “undermines his right to a fair hearing” and is now petitioning the Appeals Chamber—presided over by Judge Erdenebalsuren Damdin —to reverse the detention order.

VP Sara: ‘No plans to change lawyers’

Amidst the legal maneuvering, Vice President Sara Duterte, currently in The Hague, addressed concerns from both supporters and detractors regarding the performance of the defense team.

In an interview at The Hague with the media, the vice president confirmed that she personally consulted her father about whether he was satisfied with his current legal counsel.

“I asked him exactly your question: do you want to change them because you are not satisfied? He said, no change,” the Vice President shared.

She further revealed that the former President has issued specific, private instructions to his lawyers to guide the next phase of the proceedings.

As the Appeals Chamber—including Judges Tomoko Akane , Solomy Balungi Bossa , Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza , and Gocha Lordkipanidze —begins its review of the case, the vice president emphasized faith over legal speculation.

“The most important thing there is prayer, because the power of prayer is very strong when many people pray together,” she concluded.

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.

Duterte defense appeals for immediate release, VP Sara confirms firm trust in legal team

Lawyer seeks Duterte’s ‘unconditional release’; halt to drug war probe