Philippines' Duterte to have first court appearance in The Hague
By Stephanie van den Berg and Anthony Deutsch
THE HAGUE - Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte makes his first appearance at the International Criminal Court in The Hague on Friday, where he faces murder allegations stemming from his "war on drugs".
Duterte arrived in the Netherlands on a flight from Manila on Wednesday and was taken into ICC custody after being arrested by authorities on an International Criminal Court warrant.
Prosecutors have accused him of crimes against humanity for what they call a systematic attack on the civilian population.
Thousands of purported drug dealers and users were killed during the crackdown, when death squads he allegedly created and armed carried out widespread extrajudicial killings.
The 79-year-old arrived at Rotterdam airport on a chartered plane Wednesday and was transferred to a detention unit on the Dutch coast up the road from the ICC building. In video message on social media, Duterte took responsibility for his actions.
Duterte, who led the Philippines from 2016 to 2022, is set to be the first Asian former head of state to go on trial at the ICC, a court of last resort created more than two decades ago to prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, aggression and genocide.
During an initial appearance, judges usually summarise the allegations against a suspect, who will not be asked to enter a plea. Duterte will be represented by a court-appointed defence council and his former executive secretary Salvador Medialdea.
The ageing former president will also be asked about his condition and the conditions in detention.
Duterte has said that he suffers from a series of ailments including a chronic neuromuscular disorder, back problems, migraines and a condition that can cause blockages in the blood vessels.
Duterte's surrender to the court marks a big victory for Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, who faces U.S. sanctions over his arrest warrant for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu.
After the initial appearance, the court will likely set a confirmation of charges hearing in several months, when prosecutors can present part of their evidence and judges decide what charges can be in the indictment. A trial would not be expected to start until early 2026.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
7 hours ago
- Forbes
US State Department Sanctions International Criminal Court Judges
General view with a sign with the official logo and inscription of the International Criminal Court ... More ICC or ICCt, an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICC is distinct from the International Court of Justice, an organ of the United Nations that hears disputes between states. September 2024 (Photo credit: Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images) On June 5, 2025, the United States Department of State sanctioned four individuals currently serving as judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the only permanent criminal tribunal in the world. The Department of State's designations are made pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14203, which authorizes sanctions on foreign persons engaged in certain efforts by the ICC and aims to impose significant consequences on those directly engaged in the ICC's actions against the United States and Israel. A statement issued by the Office of the Spokesperson to the State Department stated: 'We do not take this step lightly. It reflects the seriousness of the threat we face from the ICC's politicization and abuse of power.' The four judges sanctioned by the State Department are Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, Appeals Division of the ICC, Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza of Peru, Appeals Division of the ICC, Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou of Benin, Pre-Trial and Trial Division of the ICC, and Beti Hohler of Slovenia, Judge, Pre-Trial and Trial Division of the ICC. They were sanctioned for 'directly engaging in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.' Judges Bossa and Ibanez Carranza ruled to authorize the ICC's investigation against U.S. personnel in Afghanistan. However, several years later, no arrest warrants have been pursued against U.S. personnel. Indeed, as is clear from recent ICC communications, their focus is on the Taliban since their takeover in August 2021, and in particular, the treatment of women and girls as crimes against humanity of gender persecution. Judges Alapini Gansou and Hohler ruled to authorize the ICC's issuance of arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. In a press statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that 'As ICC judges, these four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC's illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel. The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies. This dangerous assertion and abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.' As emphasized by the State Department, as a result of the sanctions designations, all property and interests in property of the sanctioned person that are in the United States or in possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Additionally, all individuals or entities that are owned, either directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, 50% or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked. All transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons are prohibited unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC or exempt. These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. However, these sanctions may have a much more wide-ranging impact. Indeed, after the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan was sanctioned in February 2025, all his bank accounts were frozen, and he is said to have lost access to his emails. The new sanctions have been widely criticized. The ICC issued a statement indicating that 'These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 States Parties from all corners of the globe. (…) Targeting those working for accountability does nothing to help civilians trapped in conflict. It only emboldens those who believe they can act with impunity. These sanctions are not only directed at designated individuals, they also target all those who support the Court, including nationals and corporate entities of States Parties. They are aimed against innocent victims in all Situations before the Court, as well as the rule of law, peace, security and the prevention of the gravest crimes that shock the conscience of humanity.' Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, stressed that 'Attacks against judges for performance of their judicial functions, at national or international levels, run directly counter to respect for the rule of law and the equal protection of the law - values for which the U.S. has long stood. Such attacks are deeply corrosive of good governance and the due administration of justice.' After Prosecutor Khan was sanctioned, multiple lawsuits have been brought before US courts to challenge the application of the E.O. 14203. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are U.S. citizens who engage with the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) as law professors and human rights advocates who argued that the order exceeds the scope of President Trump's authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and violates their constitutional rights. They seek preliminary injunctions. One of the cases, brought by a U.S. citizen working in the OTP on the situation in Darfur, trial attorney and U.S. Army veteran, Eric Iverson, was voluntarily dismissed after he received a license from the U.S. government authorizing him to continue his work. All other cases are still ongoing. The sanctions imposed by the State Department on ICC judges are highly concerning as they do attack judicial independence. The sanctions will cause some disruption in the work of the ICC. They will also alarm anyone working for or with the ICC. However, contrary to what the State Department may believe, these sanctions will not stop the work of the ICC.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Oranje boss Koeman speaks on Brobbey situation: 'You wouldn't wish it on anyone'
Ronald Koeman has responded to the news regarding Brian Brobbey's blackmail fiasco. The national coach was informed by Ajax a day before the publication in Het Parool. Incidentally, Brobbey has not been called up for the upcoming international matches. On Saturday, the Dutch team will play Finland in Helsinki, as part of 2026 World Cup qualification. Advertisement Koeman was shocked by Brobbey's story, whereby the striker had been the victim of a blackmailing scam since the end of 2022. 'His club Ajax informed us about this yesterday,' said the national coach. 'It is intense that this is happening. But at the same time, it does not surprise me. I think there is a lot more going on than we know. That Brobbey and his family have become involved in this – you do not wish that on anyone.' According to Het Parool, Brobbey was approached by a criminal who said he could prevent the striker from getting into trouble with other criminals. In return, he demanded money. The pressure was increased with attacks on a house and two cars, after these turned out to be hypothetical scenarios. A friend of Brobbey's, who stood up for him, was even shot. Brobbey ultimately decided not to press charges. The perpetrator has since been convicted of other crimes. GBeNeFN | Max Bradfield
Axios
a day ago
- Axios
The great poaching: America's brain drain begins
The Trump administration's spending cuts and restrictions on foreign students are triggering a brain drain — and American scientists are panicking. Why it matters: U.S. researchers' fears are coming true. America's science pipeline is drying up, and countries like China are seizing the opportunity to surge ahead. 'This is such a race for being the science powerhouse that you never fully recover,' says Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences. 'You might accelerate back up to 60, but you can't make up for those years when you were at a standstill while the competition was racing ahead.' Driving the news: The National Science Foundation, which funds much of America's fundamental science research, is already doling out grants at its slowest pace in 35 years, The New York Times reports. More cuts to science could come with the "big, beautiful bill." Universities are also watching with bated breath as the administration tries to limit the number of foreign students studying in the U.S.. Harvard is pushing back, but could face a total ban on recruiting internationally. The Trump administration says it will " aggressively revoke" visas for Chinese students studying in "critical fields." By the numbers: While American universities are rescinding offers to incoming PhD students, other countries are recruiting heavily from U.S. labs. The journal Nature analyzed data from its jobs platform to track where scientists are looking for work. In the first few months of the Trump administration, there were jumps in the the number of U.S. applicants looking for jobs in Canada (+41%), Europe (+32%), China (+20%) and other Asian countries (+39%), compared to the same period in 2024. U.S. jobs saw fewer applications from candidates in Canada (–13%) and Europe (–41%). Case in point: France's Aix-Marseille University, which made headlines for earmarking millions of dollars for U.S. scientists, closed its application window after receiving a flood of apps. After American Nobel laureate Ardem Patapoutian's federal grant was frozen, he got an email from China offering 20 years of funding if he relocates his lab, The New York Times' Kate Zernike writes. He declined. 'This is a once-in-a-century brain gain opportunity,' the Australian Strategic Policy Institute wrote in a brief. The other side: The White House argues that its changes to the system will usher in a golden age of science and rebuild public trust. President Trump has also suggested that spots freed up by rejecting international students could be filled by American applicants. But professors say this isn't entirely realistic. "In hard sciences, in astronomy and physics and computer science, for example, there's no way you would fill that hole with local applicants of comparable quality," says Chris Impey, an astronomer at the University of Arizona. What to watch: 'The optimistic part of all of us thinks science is strong enough to outlast one administration, and for a while I thought that, but the hit to young people is at the center of the whole enterprise,' Impey says. 'It's like pulling the rug out from under the whole thing." It's not just brain drain of existing talent, he says. Students who are in high school and college now and thinking about a career in research might reconsider. "There's plenty of things smart kids can do. They don't have to go into science." At the same time, McNutt says she tells students: "If you went into graduate school in the fall of this year, by the time you get your PhD, this madness may be over. You come out with your new PhD ready to fill the gap."
