THE International Criminal Court (ICC) has amended its regulations to require all applications for arrest warrants and summonses be filed under strict confidentiality, marking a significant shift toward secrecy in the court’s procedures. The ICC announced that the new rule, adopted on Nov. 10, 2025, mandates that arrest warrants and summonses must be filed as “secret” or “under seal” from the outset. Under the amendment, all related filings and amendments must also remain confidential. The contents of such applications may only be disclosed if a Pre-Trial Chamber determines that publication could “maximize opportunities for arrest” or help prevent further crimes. The regulation codifies what had been an informal practice of keeping warrant requests confidential, making secrecy the default rather than the exception. ICC officials described the reform as a strategic safeguard designed to protect investigations and ensure the successful apprehension of suspects. Confidential filings, they said, reduce the risk of suspects fleeing, tampering with evidence, or intimidating witnesses. The timing of the regulatory change has sparked renewed attention in the Philippines, where speculation continues over whether the ICC has issued a warrant for Sen. Ronald dela Rosa, the former police chief who spearheaded ex-president Rodrigo Duterte’s controversial “war on drugs.” On Nov. 8, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said the ICC had already issued a warrant for dela Rosa’s arrest. Two days later, however, ICC spokesman Fadi El Abdallah said the court could neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a warrant. This statement now takes on added weight in light of the confidentiality mandate. Legal experts note that under the new regulation, any warrant against dela Rosa would likely be sealed. “This does not ultimately mean that no warrant has been issued at all,” said ICC Assistant Counsel Kristina Conti. “It could have been done in secret.” The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has since confirmed that no official communication or document from the ICC has been received or posted on the court’s public registry, suggesting that if any action has been taken, it remains confidential. The revised rule grants the ICC greater flexibility to decide when to reveal or conceal its actions. Public disclosure may still occur if it serves strategic purposes — for instance, publicizing a warrant to pressure suspects or deter ongoing crimes. However, observers warn that this approach could also reduce transparency and limit public oversight, especially in politically charged cases. States receiving sealed requests may need to respond discreetly, which can complicate diplomatic and legal processes. Medical expert opposed Meanwhile, former president Rodrigo Duterte’s lawyers have asked the ICC to revoke the appointment of a medical expert to evaluate if he is mentally fit to stand trial, citing doubts over her professional credibility and ongoing suspension by a foreign regulatory body. The defense argued that the neuropsychologist’s inclusion in the expert panel “raises serious doubts about the impartiality and reliability” of the medical evaluation, which is central to determining Duterte’s ability to engage meaningfully in proceedings concerning alleged crimes against humanity during his presidency. Duterte’s lawyers said the neuropsychologist’s suspension has been repeatedly reviewed and upheld by her home country’s professional authority and was not disclosed to the ICC Registry at the time of her appointment. The ICC prosecution, too, has opposed the neuropsychologist’s inclusion in the panel for the same reason, and has recommended her replacement with an alternative from a Registry-provided shortlist. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber had originally appointed the neuropsychologist, along with two other experts, on Sept. 24, 2025, following a defense request for an indefinite adjournment due to Duterte’s alleged cognitive impairment. ICC rules require experts to uphold high standards of professional and personal integrity, disclose conflicts of interest, and act impartially, requirements that the defense contends were compromised in this case. Pre-Trial Chamber I, presided over by Judge Iulia Antonnella Motoc with Judges Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou and María del Socorro Flores Liera, is now tasked with reviewing the submissions from both the defense and the prosecution before determining whether to approve a replacement and how to proceed with the competency assessments.