Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal ICC Appeals Chamber Confirms Jurisdiction in Du...
Priority review Enforcement Amended Final

ICC Appeals Chamber Confirms Jurisdiction in Duterte Case

Favicon for www.icc-cpi.int ICC International Criminal Court
Filed
Detected
Email

Summary

The ICC Appeals Chamber on 22 April 2026 confirmed the Court's jurisdiction over The Prosecutor v. Rodrigo Roa Duterte case, rejecting by majority the Defence's appeal against Pre-Trial Chamber I's October 2025 decision. The Chamber held that jurisdiction attaches for alleged crimes committed on Philippines territory from 1 November 2011 (when the Philippines became a State Party to the Rome Statute) through 16 March 2019 (when withdrawal became effective), even though the Philippines deposited its withdrawal notice on 17 March 2018. The ruling interprets articles 12, 13, and 127 of the Rome Statute as requiring the relevant State to be a Party at the time the Court exercises jurisdiction, while preventing a State from evading accountability by withdrawing after investigations begin.

Published by ICC on icc-cpi.int . Detected, standardized, and enriched by GovPing. Review our methodology and editorial standards .

About this source

GovPing monitors ICC International Criminal Court for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 3 changes logged to date.

What changed

The ICC Appeals Chamber issued a judgment on 22 April 2026 affirming that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over alleged crimes against humanity committed on Philippines territory during the period when the Philippines was a State Party to the Rome Statute. The Chamber rejected the Defence argument that the Philippines' withdrawal notice voided the Court's jurisdictional basis, holding that withdrawal under article 127 takes effect 12 months after notice is deposited, and that a State cannot escape accountability for crimes examined by the Prosecution by strategically withdrawing once investigations commence.

Legal practitioners and international criminal law specialists should note the interpretive framework: the Rome Statute must be read systematically, with withdrawal not retroactive, but also not enabling indefinite jurisdiction post-withdrawal. Human rights organizations and international criminal justice observers will monitor whether this ruling influences how other States approaching withdrawal from the Rome Statute are treated. The Court's five-judge panel, including Presiding Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, also received a partly dissenting opinion from Judge Gocha Lordkipanidze.

Archived snapshot

Apr 22, 2026

GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.

ICC Appeals Chamber confirms jurisdiction in Duterte case Press Release: 22 April 2026

ICC Appeals Chamber confirms jurisdiction in Duterte case

Judges of the ICC Appeals Chamber at the delivery of the judgment on jurisdiction in the Duterte case, 22 April 2026 ©ICC‑CPI On 22 April 2026, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “the Court”) confirmed the Court’s jurisdiction in the case of The Prosecutor v. Rodrigo Roa Duterte. The Appeals Chamber, by majority, rejected the appeal brought by the Defence and confirmed Pre-Trial Chamber I's decision of 23 October 2025.

On 23 October 2025, the Pre-Trial Chamber found that the Court may exercise jurisdiction in the Duterte case over the alleged crimes that were committed on the territory of the Republic of the Philippines while it was a State Party to the Rome Statute, i.e. from 1 November 2011 to 16 March 2019.

Today, the Appeals Chamber, by majority, rejected the entire appeal brought by the Defence.

In particular, the Chamber confirmed that articles 12 and 13 of the Rome Statute require that the relevant State be a Party to the Statute at the time the Court exercises its jurisdiction and these provisions should be read together with article 127, which establishes when the withdrawal takes effect and the jurisdictional regime applicable in these circumstances.

The Appeals Chamber observed that the Rome Statute must be interpreted in a systemic manner and in line with the object and purpose of the Statute, which is to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. It ruled that it would be incompatible with this object and purpose to enable a State Party to evade its responsibilities under the Statute by depositing a written notice of withdrawal once it discovers that alleged crimes committed on its territory or by its nationals are being examined by the Prosecution. At the same time, a State’s right to withdraw from the Statute would not be effective if the Court were able to exercise jurisdiction indefinitely despite the State no longer being a Party. The Appeals Chamber’s interpretation ensures an appropriate balance between the ability of States to effectively withdraw from the Statute and the responsibilities that States accept upon ratification of the Statute, whilst providing a clear timeline within which a preliminary examination must be pursued.

The Appeals Chamber in this appeal is composed of Presiding Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, Judge Tomoko Akane, Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa, Judge Gocha Lordkipanidze and Judge Erdenebalsuren Damdin. The judgment was delivered in open Court, Mr Duterte was not present in the courtroom as he has waived his right to be present, and was represented by his Defence Counsel.

Judgment on the appeal of Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte against Pre-Trial Chamber’s “Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court” of 23 October 2025

Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Gocha Lordkipanidze

Non-authoritative summary

Audiovisual materials

Photographs of the hearing

Background: The Philippines, State party to the Rome Statute since 1 November 2011, deposited a written notification of withdrawal from the Statute on 17 March 2018. While the Philippines' withdrawal from the Statute took effect on 17 March 2019, the Court retains jurisdiction with respect to alleged crimes that occurred on the territory of the Philippines while it was a State Party, from 1 November 2011 up to and including 16 March 2019.

Mr Duterte is suspected of the crimes against humanity of murder and attempted murder, pursuant to article 7(1)(a) of the Statute, allegedly committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population on the territory of the Republic of the Philippines between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019 in the context of the “war on drugs” campaign. Following a request of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor, the warrant of arrest against Mr Duterte was issued by Pre-Trial Chamber I as “Secret” on 7 March 2025 and reclassified as “Public” on 11 March 2025. On 12 March 2025, Mr Duterte was surrendered to the ICC. The initial appearance of Mr Duterte took place on 14 March 2025.  The confirmation of charges hearing took place from 23 to 27 February 2026.

For further information on the case, click here.

For more information, please contact the ICC Public Affairs Unit: [email protected]. You can also follow the Court’s activities on Twitter/X, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Flickr

Named provisions

Article 12 Article 13 Article 127 Article 7(1)(a)

Get daily alerts for ICC International Criminal Court

Daily digest delivered to your inbox.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

About this page

What is GovPing?

Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission

What's from the agency?

Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from ICC.

What's AI-generated?

The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.

Last updated

Classification

Agency
ICC
Filed
April 22nd, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Branch
Judicial
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Substantive

Who this affects

Applies to
Government agencies Legal professionals Criminal defendants
Industry sector
9211 Government & Public Administration
Activity scope
International criminal jurisdiction Appeals process State party obligations
Geographic scope
International International

Taxonomy

Primary area
Criminal Justice
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
International Trade Human Rights

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when ICC International Criminal Court publishes new changes.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

You're subscribed!