The political landscape of the Philippines was shaken to its core this week following a landmark decision from the International Criminal Court (ICC). In a ruling that has sent shockwaves through the archipelago and ignited a firestorm of public opinion, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I officially declared former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (PRRD) medically fit to stand trial for alleged crimes against humanity. The decision, released on January 26, 2026, has not only accelerated the legal proceedings in The Hague but has also deepened the fissures within the Philippine political elite, sparking cries of “betrayal” that threaten to dismantle the fragile unity of the ruling coalition.
The announcement came after months of intense legal maneuvering and speculation regarding the 80-year-old former leader’s health. Defense lawyers had vigorously argued that Duterte was suffering from cognitive impairment and was therefore unable to meaningfully participate in his own defense. However, the Chamber, presided over by Judge Iulia Motoc, rejected these claims, citing the unanimous findings of a court-appointed panel of independent medical experts. The panel concluded that while the former president faces age-related health challenges, he retains the necessary cognitive faculties to understand the charges, instruct his counsel, and follow the proceedings.
For the millions of Filipinos who continue to support the former president, the news was received with a mix of disbelief and fury. Social media platforms instantly lit up with hashtags trending within minutes of the announcement. The prevailing sentiment among the “Diehard Duterte Supporters” (DDS) is not just anger at the international tribunal, but a profound sense of abandonment by the current administration. The narrative of “betrayal” has gained significant traction, with many accusing the Marcos administration of failing to protect the man who paved the way for their rise to power.
The “Marcos Hand” and Political Fallout
Central to the public outcry is the controversial figure of Nicholas Kaufman, Duterte’s lead legal counsel. Kaufman has been vocal in his criticism of the proceedings, but recent developments have seen his rhetoric take on a more political edge. In the wake of the ruling, Kaufman released a stinging statement accusing the court of denying his client due process. He argued that the defense was prevented from presenting its own medical evidence and was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the court-appointed experts.
However, it is the subtext of Kaufman’s defense that has fueled the most explosive conspiracy theories. Viral posts and political commentators are now openly discussing the “Marcos Hand”—a theory suggesting that the current administration’s “hands-off” approach to the ICC is, in reality, a tacit endorsement of the prosecution. Supporters point to the government’s refusal to block ICC investigators or formally protest the detention conditions as evidence of a backroom deal. The accusation is that by allowing the international court to proceed unimpeded, political rivals in Manila are removing a powerful kingmaker from the chessboard ahead of the next election cycle.
The silence from Malacañang has been deafening for the Duterte base. While official palace statements maintain that the Philippines has disengaged from the ICC and will simply “respect” the process as an independent observer, this neutrality is viewed by allies as a stab in the back. The term “Walang Utang na Loob” (ingratitude) is being thrown around liberally, signaling a potential end to the UniTeam alliance that dominated the 2022 polls. If these political cracks widen, the consequences for the country’s governance and stability could be severe.
The “Julia” Factor: From Courtroom to Celebrity Buzz
In a twist that could only happen in the Philippines, the serious legal drama has also intersected with the world of celebrity gossip and internet culture. The presiding judge, Iulia Motoc, has become an unlikely household name, referred to simply as “Julia” by Filipino netizens. Unfortunately, this familiarity has bred contempt in some corners of the internet.
Misinformation and vitriol directed at Judge Motoc have flooded social media feeds. Some posts have bizarrely conflated the international judge with local celebrities named Julia, creating a surreal blend of showbiz intrigue and international law. Search trends show a spike in queries asking “Who is Julia?”—with results mixing profiles of the Romanian magistrate with the latest updates on actress Julia Barretto. This conflation highlights how deeply the spectacle of the trial has permeated mass culture.
More seriously, the “Julia” narrative has been weaponized by trolls who are circulating unfounded rumors about the judge’s personal life and alleged political connections. These attacks attempt to discredit the impartiality of the court by painting Judge Motoc as biased or influenced by “western liberals” and local anti-Duterte factions. The ICC has had to issue warnings regarding the safety and security of its judicial officers, a rare move that underscores the volatility of the situation.
The Medical Verdict: Inside the Decision
To understand the gravity of the “fit for trial” ruling, one must look at the specific medical findings that dismantled the defense’s strategy. The defense had pinned its hopes on an indefinite adjournment, arguing that Duterte’s memory and cognitive processing were too degraded for a fair trial. They cited his advanced age and previous admissions of health issues during his presidency.
However, the three independent experts—a forensic psychiatrist, a neuropsychologist, and a neurologist—conducted exhaustive examinations in late 2025. Their reports were consistent: while the former president showed signs of physical frailty, his mental acuity regarding the legal case was intact. The court noted that Duterte was able to recall specific events, understand the nature of the crimes against humanity charges (specifically murder and attempted murder related to the War on Drugs), and communicate effectively with his legal team.
The Chamber’s decision emphasized that “unfitness” in international law requires a very high threshold—essentially a total inability to understand the proceedings. The experts found that Duterte did not meet this threshold. Consequently, the court ordered the resumption of pre-trial proceedings, setting the Confirmation of Charges hearing for February 23, 2026. This hearing is a critical step where judges will decide if there is enough evidence to proceed to a full trial, which could last for years.
A Nation Divided: What Lies Ahead
As the February 23 hearing approaches, the atmosphere in the Philippines is tense. Protests are being organized in Davao and Manila, with supporters demanding the government intervene to bring the former president home. Conversely, human rights groups and families of the victims of the Drug War are hailing the decision as a long-overdue victory for justice. For them, the “fitness” ruling is a validation that no one is above the law, regardless of age or former power.
The political ramifications are already being felt. Several key political figures who were previously aligned with the administration are beginning to distance themselves, wary of alienating the massive Duterte voting bloc. The possibility of a new opposition coalition forming around the “betrayal” narrative is real. The “Marcos vs. Duterte” proxy war, once fought in whispers, is now being fought in the open, with the ICC trial serving as the battleground.
For the ordinary Filipino, the saga is a mix of soap opera and national tragedy. It involves powerful families, international intrigue, celebrity cameos, and the deep, unresolved trauma of the drug war. As the world watches The Hague, the real verdict may not come from the judges, but from the court of public opinion in the barangays and streets of the Philippines.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Is former President Duterte currently in jail? Yes, former President Duterte is currently in the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC). He is being held at the ICC Detention Centre in Scheveningen, The Hague, Netherlands. He was surrendered to the court following his arrest in March 2025.
2. What does “fit to stand trial” mean? “Fit to stand trial” is a legal determination that a defendant has the mental capacity to understand the proceedings against them. It means Duterte can understand the charges, follow the evidence presented, and instruct his lawyers on how to defend him. It does not determine his guilt or innocence, only his ability to participate in the legal process.
3. Who is Nicholas Kaufman? Nicholas Kaufman is a British-Israeli defense lawyer who serves as the lead legal counsel for Rodrigo Duterte at the ICC. He is an experienced international lawyer who has previously worked as a prosecutor at the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and as defense counsel in other high-profile ICC cases.
4. Can the Philippine government stop the trial? Technically, no. The Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute (the treaty that created the ICC) in 2019, but the court retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was a member (up to March 2019). The current administration has stated it will not cooperate with the ICC but also will not obstruct the process, essentially taking a neutral stance.
5. Who is Judge “Julia”? “Julia” refers to Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc, a Romanian judge who is the Presiding Judge of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I. She is one of the three judges who signed the arrest warrant and ruled on Duterte’s fitness for trial. She is a distinguished expert in international law and human rights.