ICC chamber seeks counsel, prosecution ‘observations’ in Duterte’s jurisdiction appeal

THE Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has ordered the prosecution and counsel for victims to file “additional observations” on the appeal of former Philippine President Rodrigo R. Duterte challenging the court’s jurisdiction over his crimes against humanity.

In an order dated Dec. 16, the Appeals Chamber invited the Deputy Prosecutor and the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) to submit the observations by Jan. 16, 2026, with the defense allowed to respond by Jan. 23, 2026.

The chamber explained that the additional briefing is needed “for the proper disposal of the Appeal” and that the parties should address issues “which have not been fully developed in the Impugned Decision and in the submissions presented before the Appeals Chamber thus far.”

The ruling was issued by a five-judge panel presided over and signed by Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza.

Specifically, the judges requested input on how Articles 12(2) and 13(c) of the Rome Statute should be interpreted within the ICC’s legal framework on jurisdiction. These articles define the legal framework governing the ICC’s ability to initiate proceedings and exercise jurisdiction over core international crimes.

The judges also sought observations on how these provisions interact with Article 127, which governs the withdrawal of a state from the court.

“How do Articles 12, 13 and 127 of the Statute interact? What are the consequences of such an interaction, both generally and in the specific case at hand?” the chamber asked the parties to clarify, the order read.

In a decision dated Oct. 23, Pre-Trial Chamber I rejected the defense’s challenge to the ICC’s jurisdiction, noting that Article 127 provides for the “consequences” of the withdrawal of a state from the Statute and, as such, takes precedence over the general rules on jurisdiction for the matters the court must decide in this case.

Mr. Duterte’s defense filed its appeal on Nov. 14, arguing that the Pre-Trial Chamber erred in law by treating Article 127 as overriding the jurisdictional requirements in Article 12. 

The defense also argued that the ICC shouldn’t be able to continue the case after the Philippines withdrew and questioned whether the court, including the prosecutor, had the authority to proceed.

In its response, the prosecution said citing its first instance submission, that the two articles should be read to only require that a “state has the status of a state party to the Statute” at the time the alleged crimes were committed.

The prosecutor also submitted that the Pre-Trial Chamber’s interpretation of these provisions “was adopted with very limited reasoning, was not strictly necessary.”

The Appeals Chamber rejected the defense’s request for leave to file a reply to the prosecution’s response, noting simply that it considers it appropriate to reject.

The families of those killed in the deadly drug war and their counsel have said that the primary issue before the judges is to determine whether Mr. Duterte is fit to stand trial and whether the international court has jurisdiction, arguing that the ICC must affirm its authority to hear the case against him. — Erika Mae P. Sinaking