Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Crime & justice fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about crime & justice. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

6,836 published reviews in this topic

Vera FilesCrime & justice

The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over drug-related killings in the country during the Duterte administration.

Publisher’s rating: Needs context

Research from related reporting directly addresses the claim through the ICC case against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. The report says appeals judges rejected his legal team’s request to throw out the case on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because the Philippines had withdrawn from the ICC. That reported decision conflicts with the categorical claim that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the killings at issue; it does not, by itself, establish the court’s jurisdiction over every drug-related killing in the country. The report also describes the case as concerning deadly anti-drug crackdowns allegedly overseen by Duterte, first as Davao mayor and later as president. It says ICC judges confirmed crimes-against-humanity charges, finding “substantial grounds” to believe he was responsible for dozens of murders. Duterte denies the charges. The excerpt does not provide the appeals judges’ reasoning or the full legal limits of the court’s jurisdiction, so it supports rejecting the claim’s absolute wording, not a broader conclusion about all potential cases.

Vera FilesCrime & justice

Walang hurisdiksyon ang International Criminal Court sa mga pagpatay na may kinalaman sa droga sa bansa sa panahon ng Duterte administration.

Publisher’s rating: Kailangan ng konteksto

Related reporting describes the ICC’s consideration of former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte’s challenge to its jurisdiction over alleged crimes connected to his administration’s war on drugs. The reporting does not establish that the ICC has jurisdiction over every drug-related killing; it specifically describes the court’s jurisdiction in relation to alleged crimes against humanity attributed to Duterte. A GMA News report says the ICC Appeals Chamber rejected Duterte’s appeal against an earlier ruling that had dismissed his jurisdictional challenge. It reports that the earlier decision found that the prosecution’s preliminary examination began before the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute took effect. The report also quotes ICC Assistant to Counsel Kristina Conti describing the Pre-Trial Chamber’s finding that the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed by Duterte as sound. Thus, this later reporting cuts against the categorical claim that the ICC has no jurisdiction, while its stated scope is alleged crimes against humanity, not all killings connected to the drug campaign.

Vera FilesCrime & justice

Ang International Criminal Court ay walang hurisdiksyon sa mga pagpatay na may kinalaman sa droga sa Pilipinas dahil hindi na ito miyembro ng Netherlands-based tribunal.

Publisher’s rating: Kailangan ng konteksto

Related reporting—not the original Vera Files review—provides later developments on the same jurisdictional issue. A GMA News report dated April 22, 2026, says the ICC Appeals Chamber rejected Duterte’s appeal against an earlier ruling that the court had jurisdiction. It reports that the Pre-Trial Chamber had reasoned that the prosecution’s preliminary examination began before the Philippines formally notified the ICC of its withdrawal from the Rome Statute. That chronology bears directly on the claim that departure from the tribunal alone removed its authority over the alleged crimes. The report also connects the jurisdiction dispute to the relevant allegations: it describes the proposed proceedings as concerning crimes against humanity associated with Duterte’s administration’s war-on-drugs campaign. It says the Appeals Chamber rejected all four grounds of appeal and considered Duterte’s request for immediate release moot after rejecting the appeal. The report therefore documents that the ICC’s jurisdictional ruling was upheld on appeal; it does not, in this excerpt, provide a full legal analysis of the court’s authority or independently assess every argument about withdrawal. The same report says a decision on whether the allegations would proceed to trial was expected on April 28, 2026. That is a reported future decision at the time of the article, not evidence here of what the court ultimately decided. These later developments address the claim’s subject, but they should not be mistaken for the original fact-check’s investigation or findings.