In a move that has sent political and legal shockwaves rippling across the globe, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has done what many believed was impossible. On September 23, 2025, the court in The Hague announced it had formally charged former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, sealing his fate to an international legal battle over his brutal and bloody “war on drugs.” The decision has left observers speechless, not just for its audacity in targeting a once-popular head of state, but for the unbelievable reason behind it: the court is officially treating his signature domestic policy as a systematic crime against humanity.

This is not a story about distant history or a forgotten conflict. This is a story about a man who, less than four years ago, held the absolute reins of power, a leader whose fiery rhetoric and iron-fisted approach made him a global icon of populist defiance. Now, that very defiance has placed him in the crosshairs of the world’s highest court.

The indictment is the culmination of a years-long investigation that Duterte and his administration fought at every turn. It strikes at the very heart of his six-year presidency, an era defined by a relentless anti-narcotics campaign that left thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, dead. For his supporters, he was a savior cleaning up a nation plagued by addiction. For his critics and the families of the dead, he was a monster presiding over a reign of terror. The ICC has now cast its lot, and its decision could rewrite the rules for leaders everywhere.

The ‘Unbelievable Reason’: When Policy Becomes a Crime
To understand the shock of this decision, one must first understand the charge. Rodrigo Duterte is not being accused of simple corruption or political malfeasance. He is charged with “crimes against humanity.”

This is a specific, grave classification under international law, reserved for acts like murder, extermination, torture, and rape when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. The “unbelievable reason” his fate is now in question is that the ICC prosecution argues his “war on drugs” was exactly that: a systematic attack disguised as a crime-fighting initiative.

When Duterte swept into power in 2016, he made an unambiguous promise: “I will kill all of you” drug addicts and dealers, he warned. He famously said he would be “happy to slaughter” three million drug addicts, and that fish in Manila Bay would grow fat from feeding on the bodies.

What followed was a brutal campaign that stunned the world. Night after night, news reports were filled with images of bodies littering the streets of Manila’s poorest slums. Police operations, known as “Oplan Tokhang,” officially resulted in thousands of deaths, with authorities consistently claiming the suspects had “fought back” (a narrative known as nanlaban). Simultaneously, vigilante-style killings by masked gunmen on motorcycles became horrifyingly commonplace.

Human rights organizations and journalists on the ground painted a grim picture: this was not a war on drugs, but a war on the poor. They documented cases of mistaken identity, of small-time users and peddlers being executed, and of a police force allegedly operating with total impunity, driven by quotas and presidential encouragement.

The ICC’s charge suggests that these were not isolated incidents of overzealous police work. It frames the entire campaign as a state-sponsored policy of murder. This is the legal linchpin that transforms a domestic policy into an international crime, and it’s a line that few have ever dared to cross with such a high-profile leader.

The Long, Defiant Road to a Reckoning
This day of reckoning was never a guarantee. Duterte was a master of political maneuvering and legal stonewalling. When the ICC’s then-Chief Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, first opened a preliminary examination in 2018, Duterte responded with characteristic contempt.

In March 2019, he ordered the Philippines’ immediate withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court. His legal team argued that this move stripped the court of all jurisdiction. He mocked the prosecutors, dared them to arrest him, and insisted that as a sovereign leader, he was immune from any foreign court.

But the ICC did not back down. In a crucial series of legal victories, the court ruled that its jurisdiction was locked in. The ICC’s position was firm: a country cannot simply commit crimes and then quit the court to avoid accountability. The court retains jurisdiction over any crimes committed during the period the country was a member—in the Philippines’ case, from 2011 to 2019, the exact window covering the drug war’s most violent years.

Even after his presidency ended, the fight continued. The new administration of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. initially maintained Duterte’s stance, appealing the ICC’s decision to resume its investigation. But in July 2023, the ICC’s Appeals Chamber rejected the Philippine government’s bid, clearing the final hurdle for the prosecutor to move forward. The walls, which Duterte had confidently built around himself, were crumbling. This latest move—advancing from investigation to formal charges—signals that the prosecution believes it has the evidence to prove its case.

A Nation Divided, A World Watching
The reaction to the charges has been as explosive and divided as Duterte’s presidency itself. For the thousands of families who lost loved ones, this is a moment of profound, painful validation. For years, groups of mothers, wives, and children have marched, held vigils, and meticulously documented the deaths of their relatives, often at great personal risk. They were called liars, political operatives, and supporters of criminals. The ICC’s decision is the first official recognition on a global scale that their loved ones mattered and that their fight for justice was not in vain.

Conversely, for Duterte’s millions of loyal supporters, this is an outrageous affront to Philippine sovereignty. They see the ICC as a neocolonial tool, a biased Western institution interfering in a domestic problem that foreigners cannot understand. They will rally behind their former leader, painting him as a patriot persecuted for having the courage to do what was necessary to save the nation from the scourge of drugs. The political climate in the Philippines is now a tinderbox.

The decision also places the current Marcos administration in an impossible position. The next logical step for the ICC is to issue a warrant of arrest. If that happens, will the Philippine government cooperate? To arrest a predecessor—and an ally—would be a politically seismic event, potentially alienating a huge portion of the voting public. To defy the ICC, however, would risk international isolation and further accusations of coddling a leader charged with mass murder.

The Precedent That Changes Everything
The fate of Rodrigo Duterte is now inextricably linked to the future of international justice. This case is no longer just about the Philippines; it’s a test for the entire world. It poses the ultimate question: Is any leader, no matter how popular or powerful, truly above the law?

For decades, the concept of “sovereign immunity” has often shielded heads of state from accountability for actions taken within their own borders. The ICC’s charging of Duterte is a direct, stunning challenge to that norm. It sends a clear and terrifying message to other authoritarian-leaning leaders around the globe: your domestic policies can have international consequences.

The world is now left to hold its breath. A legal, political, and emotional storm has been unleashed. The charges are laid, the lines are drawn, and the man who once bragged about killing criminals now finds his own fate in the hands of a court he so arrogantly dismissed. The “unbelievable reason” his legacy is on the brink is not just that he waged a war, but that the world is finally daring to call it by its real name.