THE defense team of former president Rodrigo Duterte will not present witnesses to testify during the confirmation of the charges hearing on the crimes against humanity cases filed against the 80-year-old former leader.
The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber 1 has set the confirmation hearing on September 23, 2025.
In a filing dated July 24 but only made public Tuesday, lead counsel Nicholas Kaufman said they will only present documentary evidence during the hearing.
“The Defense will not call witnesses to testify at the confirmation hearing. This is a principled decision because credibility is given little weight at confirmation,” the defense said.
“Furthermore, the Defense does not wish to give advance notice of the many potential Defense witnesses who would counter the evidence provided by the Prosecution’s discrete and carefully selected band of witnesses,” it added.
The filing also said Duterte will “not supply written testimonial evidence” at the confirmation hearing.
“The Defense also has no books, documents, photographs or other tangible objects that the Prosecution is entitled to inspect pursuant to Rule 78 of the Rules of Procedures and Evidence,” it said.
The prosecution team has submitted more than 2,000 documents and evidence against Duterte as required by the Pre-Trial Chamber 1.
Kaufman previously said the defense team will raise an issue to halt the September 23 confirmation hearing after receiving additional documents concerning his client.
He said the documents, whose contents were redacted from public view, would show that the September 23 cannot proceed.
“For the sake of clarity, and in light of the newly received (redacted) information, the Defense formally notifies the Pre-Trial Chamber that it will raise the issue of (redacted) as a bar to the holding of a hearing on the confirmation of charges,” Kaufman said in a filing dated July 18.
Meanwhile, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor and the Office of the Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) have opposed the request of the Duterte camp to delay the ruling on their own motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction over the case.
In a filing dated July 23 but only made public Tuesday, Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang said jurisdiction is a key issue in the case.
“The Prosecution respectfully requests that the Chamber reject the Defense request to postpone the decision on the challenge with respect to jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a central issue in this case,” the prosecution said, adding that there is no reason for the chamber to delay its ruling.
“The parties have filed their submissions and the Chamber’s decision is pending. Contrary to the Defense’s submission, it would be inefficient for the Chamber to delay its ruling on jurisdiction to an unknown point in the future based solely on speculation that the Chamber may accept the Defense argument that (redacted),” the prosecution said.
“A prompt ruling on jurisdiction can only promote the efficiency and expeditiousness of the proceeding,” it added.
The OPCV, in its response filed by Principal Counsel Paolina Massidda, said the request of the Duterte camp should be junked.
“The request should be dismissed as it lacks any proper procedural foundation, it is at best premature, and it is, in any event, irreconcilable with the interests of the victims,” it said.
It also pointed out that the reasons cited by the Duterte camp in their request pertained to a matter that had no bearing on the ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes committed during the Duterte administration’s war on drugs.
“For the victims, the jurisdictional challenge concerns the situation in the Republic of the Philippines as a whole. It is not limited to the case of Mr. Duterte and the ruling will necessarily have an effect on further cases within the situation, hence, the interests of the victims, and ultimately, the interest of justice demand that the Chamber dispose of the matter without delay, interruption or indefinite suspension,” the OPCV said.
“Consequently, there exists no legal basis for the Chamber to suspend, interrupt, adjourn or otherwise postpone its consideration of the jurisdictional challenge,” it also said, adding that delaying the ruling would “ultimately be prejudicial to the victims exercising their statutory rights before this Court, setting a dangerous precedent.”
Kaufman said Duterte can “theoretically” return to the Philippines even if the country is no longer a member of the Rome Statute if their plea for interim release is granted by the ICC.
“I’m just saying that the possibility, theoretical or not, exists for someone to be released, interim released, to the country from where he comes and from where the crimes allegedly were committed. As I said, allegedly were committed,” Kaufman told ABS-CBN News in an interview.
He added that for someone to be temporarily released from detention at the ICC, there is a need for a host state to receive him.
He said they have undergone negotiations on the matter, though he added, these have yet to bear fruit.
“We have another state which is currently contemplated by the court and by the prosecution. The prosecution objected, and it’s for the judges to decide,” Kaufman said.
Last month, the Australian government ruled out hosting Duterte if the ICC grants his petition for interim release.
In asking the chamber for interim release, Duterte’s camp said he is not a flight risk and that a country had accepted in principle to temporarily host him.
They also cited humanitarian consideration in asking for his interim release, saying he is already 80 years old.
But in a complete turnaround, his lawyers asked the chamber to delay issuing its resolution on the interim release plea, saying they need more time to get information and documents to support their application.
