THE HAGUE — In a courtroom thousands of miles from Manila, judges at the International Criminal Court are weighing whether one of Asia’s most polarizing leaders should stand trial for crimes against humanity. The confirmation of charges hearing against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, centered on the deadly anti-drug campaign that defined his rule, marks a consequential moment for international justice and Philippine politics alike.
The proceedings, which began this week, are not a trial and do not determine guilt. Instead, they represent a legal gateway: judges must decide whether prosecutors have shown “substantial grounds to believe” that Mr. Duterte bears criminal responsibility for killings carried out during his campaign against illegal drugs. If the charges are confirmed, Mr. Duterte would face a full ICC trial — an unprecedented development for a former Asian head of state.
Prosecutors’ Theory: A System of State Violence
ICC prosecutors have built their case around the doctrine of command responsibility, arguing that Mr. Duterte was not merely aware of abuses but was central to a system that encouraged and enabled them. In opening presentations, prosecutors described him as “at the very heart” of the killings, portraying the drug war as an organized policy rather than a series of rogue police actions.
According to the prosecution, Mr. Duterte carried into the presidency methods he had employed while mayor of Davao City, where vigilante-style killings of suspected criminals were long alleged by rights groups. Prosecutors argue that this local model — sometimes referred to by investigators as the “Davao template” — was scaled nationwide once he assumed office in 2016.
They contend that police units and affiliated gunmen operated within an environment shaped by official encouragement, operational support and implicit assurances of impunity. The case theory describes incentives for lethal operations, public praise for officers involved in killings and rhetoric that framed suspects as legitimate targets. Taken together, prosecutors say, these elements amounted to a state-sponsored campaign against civilians labeled as drug offenders.
A key legal question underlying the case is whether presidential speeches and policy pronouncements can establish criminal liability. Prosecutors argue that Mr. Duterte’s repeated calls to “kill” drug suspects and promises of protection for police constituted incitement and authorization. The defense counters that such rhetoric was political hyperbole aimed at deterrence rather than instruction.
Why the Case Focuses on 78 Victims
Despite estimates by human rights organizations that the drug war may have killed tens of thousands, the ICC case is built around a much smaller set of incidents: three counts of murder as crimes against humanity tied to 49 episodes and 78 victims. The selection reflects standard international criminal strategy rather than a narrowing of allegations.
ICC prosecutors typically rely on representative incidents to demonstrate a broader pattern of systematic abuse. By proving that a limited number of killings occurred within an organized policy framework, they seek to establish that similar acts elsewhere were part of the same campaign. Attempting to litigate every alleged killing would be impractical and unnecessary for legal purposes.
In this sense, the 78 victims function less as the totality of the case than as its evidentiary core. If judges conclude that these incidents plausibly show a coordinated attack against civilians, the prosecution’s wider theory gains legal footing.
Duterte’s Defense: Rhetoric, Rogues and Sovereignty
Mr. Duterte, now in ICC custody, waived his right to attend the hearing in person, leaving his legal team to advance arguments on his behalf. The defense strategy rests on three principal claims: that his rhetoric was misinterpreted, that killings were carried out by rogue officers beyond presidential control and that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the Philippines.
Defense lawyers argue that Mr. Duterte’s public statements were characteristic of political speech in a country struggling with narcotics crime, not directives to commit murder. They also contend that any unlawful killings were the actions of individual police officers, not the result of a centralized policy.
Jurisdiction remains a core point of contention. The Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2018 under Mr. Duterte’s administration, and his supporters maintain that the court’s intervention violates national sovereignty. ICC prosecutors respond that the court retains authority over crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member state, a position previously upheld by ICC judges.
The Legal Threshold Ahead
The confirmation phase requires prosecutors to meet a lower evidentiary bar than at trial. Judges need only determine whether there are substantial grounds to believe that crimes occurred and that the accused is responsible. The decision, expected within about two months, will either send the case to trial or halt it at the preliminary stage.
Even if charges are confirmed, conviction is far from assured. ICC trials often span years, and the prosecution must ultimately prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Still, confirmation alone would mark a historic escalation: a former Philippine president formally placed on trial before an international court.
A Case With Global and Domestic Stakes
The Duterte proceedings carry significance beyond the courtroom. If the case advances, it would represent the first ICC trial of a former Asian head of state for crimes against humanity, reinforcing the court’s mandate that leaders can be held personally accountable for mass violence.
For victims’ families and human rights advocates, the hearings symbolize long-sought recognition of the drug war’s human toll. For Mr. Duterte’s supporters, they are viewed as external interference in Philippine affairs.
Domestically, the case reverberates through an already polarized political landscape. Allies of Mr. Duterte have criticized the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. for cooperating with international authorities, while opposition figures frame the proceedings as overdue accountability. The outcome could shape political narratives leading into the Philippines’ 2028 elections, influencing alliances, voter loyalties and the legacy of Mr. Duterte’s presidency.
A Defining Moment
Ultimately, the ICC judges’ decision will determine whether the allegations against Rodrigo Duterte proceed from accusation to adjudication. The confirmation hearing does not resolve the central question of guilt. But it does confront a deeper one: whether the conduct of a democratically elected leader’s war on crime can meet the legal definition of crimes against humanity.
For the Philippines, and for international law, the answer may redefine the boundaries of presidential power and global accountability. ©️KuryenteNews