Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s unexpected arrest and transfer to The Hague was livestreamed from a jet in March 2025 amidst a feud between his daughter vice-president, and incumbent Philippines president Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos. His family and political supporters were furious, while lawyers who had been fighting on behalf of victims of a drugs war in which thousands had been killed were delighted.
Last week, the same spectrum of emotions – and partisan players – were on display outside the confirmation of charges hearings in The Hague at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Just outside the ICC’s revolving glass doors there were daily press briefings and a battery of Filipino journalists livestreaming commentary back home via social media. Inside the court the presiding judge, Romanian Antoanella Motoc, kept strict time keeping amidst sharp disagreements on the nature of what was known as the ‘war on drugs’, and whether Duterte should be held personally responsible for the killings.
Much of the potential drama of the sessions was reduced by the judges’ agreement that Duterte did not have to be in court personally to hear the basics of the evidence against him. The world’s media attention dropped off without the spectacle of the alleged strong man in court. But also in the flurry of last-minute motions, two Filipino lawyers were added to the team representing victims, against strenuous objections from the defence. The tone of filings was testy, providing plenty of fodder for commentators, with epithets such as “social media klaxon”, passing from defence counsel and “incoherent” and “theatrical” back from judges. According to court insiders, the additional victims’ lawyers did not get email access to the relevant files until the Friday before proceedings started on the Monday.
A policy to “neutralise” alleged criminals
Duterte faces charges of crimes against humanity, for murder and attempted murder. The alleged crimes are limited to the time that the Philippines was a member of the court, from 2011-2019, although the crimes are alleged to have originated back in the 1980’s. He is accused of “designing and disseminating the policy to ‘neutralise’ alleged criminals” as mayor of Davao between 2013 and mid 2016,during his presidential campaign in early 2016 and as president between 2016 and 2018, including by endorsing an anti-illegal drugs campaign and “establishing and overseeing” the “Davao death squad” and later a “national network” to commit the killings. During his presidency, he is also accused of responsibility for a plan to eliminate ‘high value targets’ alleged to have been involved in the drugs trade and for the deaths of many low-level traffickers.
The prosecution chose a limited range of 49 specific incidents and 78 direct victims. In his presentation to the court, senior trial lawyer Julian Nicholls explained that Duterte was at the top of the scheme to conduct the war on drugs and that he promises to “pay” and “promote” those who obeyed the orders. The prosecution used a collage of video extracts from Duterte’s own speeches in which Duterte’s own hyperbolic violent language told law enforcement to kill. They also covered their bets by using three different modes of potential liability for the former president: indirect co-perpetrator, inducing or ordering, or thirdly aiding and abetting.
Edward Jeremy, another prosecution trial lawyer, told the court how one mayor was targeted and how Duterte boasted after he had surrendered to the police, “I had him tracked down like a dog”. Although the police official version was that the mayor died in a shoot-out with police in prison, in fact he reportedly had been murdered in the prison cell, with CCTV disabled, says the ICC prosecutor.
Gilbert Andres, victims counsel, focused on the how the anti-drugs campaign “disproportionately affected the poor and marginalised”, describing victims houses made of scavenged material, limited education and job opportunities. He argued that Duterte’s rhetoric publicly further dehumanised these marginalised communities.
Duterte’s defence counsel Nick Kaufman showed how these extracts were “cherry-picked” and in fact, contradicted by later quotes in which Duterte made it clear that police should only use lethal force when they were in danger. He challenged the prosecution’s reliance on a presidential directive that ordered law enforcement to “neutralise” the drugs threat, suggesting it could have different meanings. Kaufman also focused on the limited number of incidents in the prosecution’s brief, arguing that there was no proof amounting to the widespread and systematic attack required to charge crimes against humanity.
“More testimonies will come”
In the prosecution’s document containing the charges, Duterte is described as “a co-conspirator, and some of his closest political allies are named alongside him. Senator Ronald dela Rosa, for example, is a former police chief originally from Davao and later headed the national police force. No public ICC arrest warrants have been issued against him or the other named co-conspirators, but video clips of Dela Rosa’s threats to kill were also featured during the hearings.
Kristina Conti has been a lawyer for the Philippines NGO ‘Rise Up’ for some of the alleged victims. She says there have been many attempts in the Philippines to get accountability for the drug killings, but the few cases that have been heard have been controlled by the authorities with no cases against the most senior. Mention of Dela Rosa’s name was no surprise to her because of his closeness to Duterte and his role as former police chief. But she noted that the senator has not been seen publicly since December. He “may be uncertain whether or not he is politically protected” against a potential ICC arrest warrant, says Conti.
Conti expects more victims to come forward to join the case. “Now they know that Duterte is not going to be released, when applications open again, it will expand a lot. A huge number of people have been emboldened, basing their courage on that of the victims who have already come along”. She recounts how one person approached her in the ICC’s public gallery during the hearings, whose brother had been killed but was not a currently recognised as a victim: “If judges agree this goes to trial, I think more will come”, she said.
Judges now have 60 working days in which to make the decision to go to trial or not.
