Day in Court: The arguments to expect in Duterte’s charge confirmation hearing

The International Criminal Court (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber I has set four hearing days between February 23 and 27 to confirm the charge of crimes against humanity against former President Rodrigo Duterte. 

The Chamber has allowed two sessions of 1.5 hours each per hearing day due to “special measures and adjustments” based on observations by the panel of experts and the detention center’s medical officer.

Based on the documents and observations submitted by the Office of the Prosecutor, the Defense team of Duterte, and the Common Legal Representatives of Victims, here are the expected key arguments on the hearing days.

The Hearing (Feb 23-27, 2026)

Office of the Prosecution (OTP)

Allocated time: 30 minutes (opening) + 2 hours 30 minutes (merits) + 30 minutes (closing).

During its presentation, the OTP is expected to make submissions on three items, based on the Document Containing the Charges (DCC) and the Pre-Confirmation Brief (PCB).

The charged crimes: It will present evidence regarding the three counts of murder, namely:

• Count 1: Murders in and around Davao City allegedly by Davao Death Squad (DDS) members, during Duterte’s mayoral period (2013-2016)
• Count 2: Murders of “high-value targets” nationwide, during Duterte’s presidency (2016-2017)
• Count 3: Murders during “barangay clearance operations” nationwide, during Duterte’s presidency (2016–2018)

In the DCC, the Prosecution has clarified that the 49 incidents and 78 victims listed are a “non-exhaustive list of examples” intended to demonstrate the pattern of conduct, rather than the totality of the crimes.

Contextual elements of Article 7 (Crimes against humanity): The OTP will argue that the alleged crimes occurred in the context of a “widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population pursuant to a State policy to attack alleged criminals."

Modes of liability: The OTP will argue Mr. Duterte is liable under Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute, specifically as an indirect co-perpetrator (using the police/Davao Death Squad as tools), for “ordering and/or inducing”, and “aiding and abetting” the crimes.

Defense for Mr. Rodrigo Roa Duterte

Allocated time: 30 minutes (opening) + 3 hours 30 minutes (merits) + 30 minutes (closing).

The Defense requested the most time for its oral presentation to challenge and argue for the following: 

Core legal issues: The Defense will expand on what it described as “a number of core legal issues” concerning the “modes of liability” imputed to Mr. Duterte, and the “contextual requirements” of crimes against humanity. 

The Defense is expected to challenge whether Mr. Duterte fits the legal definition of an indirect co-perpetrator or one who ordered crimes, as well as to argue against the existence of a State policy to attack civilians.

Specific incidents: The Defense strongly disagrees with the Prosecution’s “non-exhaustive” approach (i.e., the incidents and victims are “intended only to provide examples of the conduct underlying the charges”. 

The Defense will likely argue that the Prosecution must prove each of the 49 incidents individually to “satisfy the substantial grounds threshold” to define the factual ambit of the case. The Defense has stated that an accused “cannot be judged on ‘examples’, but only on concrete facts”.

General denial: The Defense has explicitly stated for the record that “Mr. Duterte did not commit any criminal offence” and that he “served his city and country, faithfully and with pride”.

No witnesses: The Defense has indicated it will not call witnesses to testify at the charge confirmation hearing, viewing credibility assessments as having “little weight” at this stage, nor will it supply written testimonial evidence. Instead, they will rely on documentary evidence.

The Victims (Common Legal Representatives for the Victims)

Allocated time: 30 minutes (opening) + 1 hour 30 minutes (merits) + 30 minutes (closing).

The Common Legal Representatives of Victims (CLRV), comprising Joel Butuyan, Gilbert Andres, and a counsel from the Office of Public Counsel for the Victims (OPCV), have indicated they will present arguments in support of the confirmation of charges, in the interests of the victims they represent. They are also expected to focus on:

The extent of victimization: In their observations on the hearing organization, they stated they will present on the “extent of the victimization suffered by the victims."

Support for the broad scope: The victims have supported the Prosecution’s stance that the incidents listed are non-exhaustive examples. They intend to argue that a broad scope reflects the “true nature and extent of their victimization” and reinforces a “victim-centred approach." —LDF, GMA Integrated News