FACT CHECK: Supreme Court did not dismiss Duterte’s ICC case

Claim: The Supreme Court (SC) has already dismissed the case against former president Rodrigo Duterte, effectively ending the International Criminal Court (ICC) proceedings related to him.

Rating: FALSE

Why we fact-checked this: The claim was posted on a Facebook page presenting itself as a news and media outlet with 41,000 followers. It was later reposted by a page with 23,000 followers. Combined, the posts have accumulated approximately 5,200 likes, 1,648 comments, and 283 shares as of writing.

Text overlaid on the photo reads: “Case dismissed na! Korte Suprema, nagdesisyon na sa wakas! Korte pinalaya si PRRD sa ICC?”

(The case has been dismissed! The Supreme Court has finally decided! The court has freed [former president Rodrigo Duterte] from the ICC?)

The caption in the post states: “Sa isang makasaysayang desisyon na hindi inaasahan ng marami bago matapos ang taong 2025, tuluyan nang ‘kumilos’ ang Supreme Court (SC) ng Pilipinas hinggil sa mainit na usapin ng International Criminal Court (ICC). Sa isang En Banc session, naglabas ng direktiba ang Mataas na Hukuman na tila nagbibigay ng ‘green light’ sa imbestigasyon ng international body sa bansa.”

(In a historic decision that many did not expect before the end of 2025, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has finally taken action on the contentious issue involving the International Criminal Court. During an en banc session, the High Court issued a directive that appears to give a ‘green light’ to the international body’s investigation in the country.)

The facts: There is no Supreme Court resolution, en banc decision, or directive stating that Duterte’s ICC case has been dismissed. 

More importantly, even if the High Court were to issue such a ruling, it would not impact or terminate the ICC’s ongoing investigation into the crimes against humanity charges against Duterte.

The ICC is an independent judicial institution established under the Rome Statute. It applies its own governing legal framework, as set out in Article 21 of the Rome Statute. Rulings or orders issued by local courts of ICC member states cannot override or nullify ICC actions.

Consistent with this framework, decisions on whether to proceed with, suspend, or terminate an investigation rest solely with the ICC prosecutor and judges, exercising their mandate free from political or judicial interference by states. (READ: Can Supreme Court petitions bring Duterte back from ICC?)

The false claim surfaced amid the consolidated petitions filed by Duterte’s children — Davao City 1st District Representative Paolo Duterte, acting Davao City mayor Sebastian Duterte, and Veronica “Kitty” Duterte — asking the SC to order their father’s release through a writ of habeas corpus. They argue that Duterte’s arrest, surrender to the ICC, and continued detention are illegal and unconstitutional.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), however, urged the High Court to dismiss the petitions for being moot. The OSG said Duterte is already in the custody of the ICC in The Hague, Netherlands, placing him beyond the territorial and enforceable jurisdiction of Philippine courts. Any order the Supreme Court may issue, the OSG argued, would be “ineffectual and without practical value.”

Medical assessment: Duterte remains detained at the ICC detention center in The Hague after the ICC appeals chamber unanimously rejected his appeal for interim release. He faces multiple counts of crimes against humanity linked to killings during his bloody drug war.

In December 2025, a three-member court-appointed medical panel assessed Duterte’s cognitive capacity and concluded that, despite his age and frailty, he retains the faculties necessary to participate in pre-trial proceedings. (READ: Duterte can undergo trial, medical experts tell ICC)

Duterte’s lawyers filed an urgent motion requesting a new medical report focused specifically on whether Duterte’s current cognitive state could affect detention-related risks under Article 58(1)(b) of the Rome Statute, including flight, interference with witnesses, or committing further crimes. 

The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I rejected the request, ruling that the existing expert assessment is sufficient. – Marjuice Destinado/Rappler.com

Marjuice Destinado is a senior political science student at Cebu Normal University (CNU) and an alumna of the Aries Rufo Journalism Fellowship of Rappler for 2025.

Keep us aware of suspicious Facebook pages, groups, accounts, websites, articles, or photos in your network by contacting us at factcheck@rappler.com. Let us battle disinformation one Fact Check at a time.