Prosecutor v. Duterte, the TLDR

International Criminal Court · Trial Chamber III · No. ICC‑01/21‑01/25

TLDR Case Flow

Where it standsWaiting for the trial, which opens on November 30, 2026. The three questions that could have stopped it earlier have all been answered against him.

The Philippines left the court in 2019

Had to be settled before anything else

Can this court hear the case at all?

Yes · final since Apr 22, 2026

This is a question about jurisdiction, which just means the court’s power to hear a case. The court only has power where a country has joined its treaty. The Philippines joined in 2011 and then left, and the leaving took effect on March 17, 2019. The judges didn’t approve an investigation until 2021, which is more than two years after that. So his lawyers said the court had no power left by the time it acted, and that everything done since should be undone.

It came down to one sentence in the treaty, which says that leaving doesn’t stop the court from carrying on with any matter it was already considering. The prosecutor’s office had started a preliminary examination, which is basically a first look, in February 2018. That was before the country left. The judges said that first look counts, so the court kept its power over what happened while the Philippines was still a member.

The appeals judges agreed in April 2026, four to one. That makes this a yes, and it can’t be argued again.

If no

Outcome

No power over the case

Then

The case ends and he goes home

If the judges had gone the other way, the court would have had no power to try him, and nothing else on this page would matter. His lawyers asked for exactly that, along with his immediate release.

It wouldn’t have been a finding that he did nothing. It would have been a finding that this court isn’t the one that gets to decide. One of the five appeals judges would have ruled this way. He wrote that a year was enough time for the prosecutor to get an investigation approved before the country was out.

If yes
His health

Asked twice, and it can be asked again

Is he fit to stand trial?

Yes · last decided Sept 28, 2026

Fitness is about whether he can actually take part in his own trial. It doesn’t mean healthy. It means he can understand what he’s charged with, follow what is said in court, and tell his lawyers what he wants them to do. He was 80 when his lawyers raised it in 2025. They said his memory and thinking had declined so much that the case should be put off with no end date.

The judges had three independent doctors examine him, and then had the same three do it again before trial. Both times the doctors said he could do those things, and both times the judges agreed, first in January 2026 and then in September 2026. He is physically frail, so the court is making adjustments, like hearing support, a nurse at the breaks, and shorter days if he needs them.

This one isn’t closed for good the way the first question is. If his health really changes, his lawyers can ask again.

If no

Outcome

Not fit

Then

The trial is put on hold

If the judges found he couldn’t follow the trial or instruct his lawyers, the trial would be adjourned, which means postponed. That isn’t an acquittal and it doesn’t end the case.

The court would look at it again every few months, and if he got better the trial would go ahead. If he never did, there would be no verdict either way. This is what his lawyers asked for in August 2025.

If yes
The hearing of February 2026

A filter, and not a verdict

Is there enough to send it to trial?

Yes · all three counts, Apr 23, 2026

Before anyone goes on trial at this court, three judges have to check that the prosecution has enough to justify one. That step is the confirmation of charges. The prosecution doesn’t have to prove the case at this point. It only has to show substantial grounds to believe he committed the crimes, which is a lot lower than what a conviction takes. No witnesses came in for this one. The judges read the written evidence and heard four days of argument.

His lawyers argued that the evidence was hearsay from admitted killers, that his speeches were bluster, and that nothing tied him to any of the deaths. The judges said those are arguments about who to believe, and that sorting that out is what a trial is for.

On April 23, 2026, all three judges confirmed all three counts. That’s the reason there is a trial. It isn’t a finding that he did it.

If no

Outcome

Charges not confirmed

Then

No trial on them

If the judges had found the evidence too thin, they would have declined to confirm the charges, or some of them, and there would be no trial on those. His lawyers asked for all of them to be thrown out and for him to be sent back to his family.

That still wouldn’t be the same as being found not guilty. The prosecution could come back later with more evidence and ask again.

If yes
The trial · opens November 30, 2026

The case is here

What has to be proved first

Were crimes against humanity committed?

Not yet heard

From here on the test is the hard one. The prosecution has to prove everything beyond reasonable doubt, and he doesn’t have to prove anything. Three judges decide, and there is no jury. They’re supposed to try for a verdict all three agree on, and if they can’t get there, two out of three is enough.

There are three counts, and each one gets its own answer. One is about killings in Davao City while he was mayor. One is about people on a list of high-value targets. One is about police operations in neighborhoods. For any of them, the first thing to prove is that a crime against humanity happened at all.

That takes two things, and they’re the two cards inside this one. A no on either means not guilty on that count, and the judges never get to the question of him.

Who must prove itThe prosecution, all of it. That’s the burden of proof, and it stays on the prosecution from the first witness to the last.

Both are needed

The killings

Were these people murdered?

Disputed

This is about the specific deaths. There are 56 incidents now, because in October 2026 the trial judges let in seven more than the 49 that were confirmed. Neither side says these people didn’t die. The fight is over how.

For a lot of them there is a police report saying officers went to make an arrest or a buy-bust, the person pulled a gun, and the police shot back. The word for that in the Philippines is nanlaban, which means fought back. If that’s what happened, it isn’t murder.

The prosecution says the reports were written to cover the killings and that guns and drugs were planted, and it has former police officers and gunmen who say so. The defense says those witnesses are admitted killers, and that the reports are the only records made at the time and nothing shows they’re fake. Some of the deaths aren’t police operations at all, like the Davao killings and the two men shot inside a jail. Each incident gets looked at separately.

and

The wider attack

Were they part of an attack on civilians, carried out as policy?

Disputed

A murder by itself isn’t something this court handles. What makes it a crime against humanity is that it was part of a widespread or systematic attack on civilians, and that the attack carried out the policy of a government or an organization. So the prosecution has to prove there was a campaign to kill people accused of drug crimes and other crimes, that it was big enough or organized enough to count, and that it was policy and not just something that happened.

A lot of this comes down to one word. The police order that started the national campaign talked about neutralizing drug suspects. The prosecution says everyone involved understood that to mean kill, and that there were cash rewards for killings. The defense says it means arrest or subdue, that the word was in police manuals before he was president, and that his speeches kept telling police to shoot only in self-defense.

The defense also says that where a killing was unlawful, it was individual officers acting for their own reasons, and that isn’t a policy.

If no

Outcome

Not guilty on that count

Then

The other counts carry on

The three counts are separate, so this isn’t all or nothing. If the judges aren’t sure the Davao killings were part of an organized attack, for example, count one fails and counts two and three carry on.

A count that fails here never reaches the question of what he did or what he knew.

If yes
His part in it

Where the defense has put most of its weight

Is he responsible for them?

Not yet heard

This is the question the defense has fought hardest. He isn’t accused of pulling a trigger. He’s accused of being the person at the top, as mayor and then as president. So even if the judges find the killings were murder and part of an attack, the prosecution still has to tie them to him. It also has to prove what was in his head, meaning that he meant for the killings to happen and knew about the wider attack.

The charges give three different ways he could be responsible, and they’re the three cards inside this one. The prosecution only needs one of them to hold up for a count.

His lawyer at the February 2026 hearing said there is “absolutely nothing to directly link” him to the deaths. The lawyers who argued that have since been replaced, and the new team hasn’t set out its case yet. Its first written statement was due on October 30, 2026, and it hasn’t been made public.

A yes on any one is enough

Route one · With and through others

Was there a plan to kill, and did he control the people who did it?

Disputed

This is the main one, and the law’s name for it is indirect co-perpetration. The prosecution has to show three things. One, that he and others had a common plan that was going to lead to killings. Two, that his part in it was essential, so the plan wouldn’t have worked without him. Three, that he and the others controlled the people who did the actual killing, so that when the word came down it got done.

The prosecution says the plan started in Davao with the Davao Death Squad, and went national when he became president and put people from Davao in charge of the police and other agencies. It points out that the two times he pulled the police off the campaign, the killings dropped, and says that shows control.

The defense says there was no plan and that the squad is a fiction. It says only about one in twenty of the people on the target list ended up marked “neutralized,” and that a plan to kill wouldn’t look like that.

or

Route two · Ordering or inducing

Did he order the killings, or push people into them?

Disputed

This route doesn’t need a shared plan. It asks if he used his authority to tell people to kill, or said things that prompted them to. Ordering doesn’t have to be in writing, and the judges who confirmed the charges said so. The prosecution leans on his public speeches here, like the promises to protect police who killed, and on the lists of names he read out, some of them people who were killed afterward.

The defense says nobody has produced an order from him, and that not one of the prosecution’s inside witnesses heard him give one. The prosecution answers that one witness heard the order for a Davao killing come from him over the phone.

The defense also says his speeches were rough talk meant to scare criminals, and that a politician saying violent things isn’t the same as a killing being his doing.

or

Route three · Aiding and abetting

Did he help or encourage them, on purpose?

Disputed

This is the fallback, and it asks the least of the three. Aiding and abetting means helping or encouraging a crime that somebody else commits, in order to make it easier. Here that could be the promises of protection and pardons, the rewards, or the people he appointed. He wouldn’t have to be the one in charge for this to apply.

It still needs proof that he meant to help with killings, and not just with policing. The defense’s answer is the same as on the other two routes. It says what he backed was lawful police work and that he kept saying so in public.

If yes

Outcome

Guilty on that count

Then

A sentence, and then an appeal

A conviction on any count leads to a separate sentencing stage. This court can give up to 30 years, or life in the most extreme cases, and it has no death penalty. The time he has already spent in detention would count toward the sentence.

After that the judges can order reparations for victims. He could appeal both the conviction and the sentence to the five appeals judges.

If no

Outcome

Not guilty on that count

Then

Released, if it is every count

If none of the three routes is proved for a count, he is acquitted on it. If that happens on all three counts, he is released. The prosecution can appeal an acquittal at this court, which isn’t how it works in the US.

An acquittal would mean the prosecution didn’t prove its case to the standard a criminal court needs. It wouldn’t be a ruling on everything that happened in the Philippines in those years.

Back to the case

Notes

How this was made, and what it leaves out

Source

Built from the court’s own public record of the case, which held 577 documents on November 8, 2026. These pages rest on the decisions, the charges, each side’s main filings and the transcripts of ten hearings, and not on a reading of every annex. Every characterization here comes from a filing, a transcript or a signed decision, and each side is quoted from its own filings and its own lawyers.

Every record number in a citation opens that document in the ICC Legal Tools Database, an open online library that carries the court’s public records. Citations to a page open the document at that page.

What is blacked out

A great deal. Most filings exist twice, a confidential version and a public one with parts redacted, and these pages can only read the public one. In the charges that takes out the names of all but five of the 78 people and the dates and places of most of the 49 incidents. Nearly every witness is only a number, like P-0002. The medical findings about him are blacked out, and so is the country he asked to be released to.

His lawyer at the time told the judges the redactions were “so sweeping that virtually nothing intelligible remains of the 49 incidents” for the public to read. The presiding judge answered that the defense sees all of it, and that “it just is not available to the public.”

Record 178-Red2 ¶¶ 27–77 · Tr. T-007, 44:17–20, 52:5–7

Names and numbers

Victims are named here only where the public charges name them, which is five people. The charges also name eight officials the prosecution says shared the plan with him. None of the eight is on trial in this case, and the judges wrote that what they said about those eight is not a finding about anyone’s guilt but his.

The charges covered 78 people, and in October 2026 the trial judges let in seven more incidents. The prosecution calls that a fraction. The Philippine government’s own count of people killed in police anti-drug operations from July 2016 to February 2019 was 5,281, and the estimates the court cited when it opened the investigation ran from 12,000 to 30,000. A wider number is used on these pages only with whose number it is.

Record 417-Red ¶ 85 · Record 519-Red ¶ 47 · Record 12 ¶¶ 39, 67

What this is not

Not legal advice, not a finding, and not a verdict. Judges have said twice that there is enough here to go on, once to order his arrest and once at the confirmation of charges, and both times the test was lower than proof. A conviction takes proof beyond reasonable doubt. No witness has testified yet, and his lawyer told the court in February 2026 that he maintains his innocence.

The two sides have formally agreed on four facts so far: when and where he was born, his nationality, what the initials PRRD stand for, and what a barangay is. Everything else is in dispute. Where the record doesn’t reach, these pages say so and stop.

Tr. T-004, 38:17 · Record 259-Red ¶ 3

Tell me what I got wrong

If something here is missed, misrepresented or unfairly portrayed, let me know. Point me at a filing or record and I will verify it on my end. I actively look to correct, improve and remain unbiased.

No account, no name, no email. The submission stores what you typed, your address and your browser string, to make abuse traceable and for nothing else.

Record reviewed through November 8, 2026. Nothing filed after that date is reflected here.

Terms

Plain English

Words these pages use because the court uses them. A few are special to this court, which has no jury and gives victims a voice of their own.

The court

International Criminal Court: A permanent court in The Hague, in the Netherlands, that tries individual people for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression. It is not part of the United Nations, and it only has power where its treaty gives it power.
Rome Statute: The treaty that set up the court and says what it can do. A country that ratifies it becomes a State Party, and the court can then try crimes committed on its soil or by its nationals.
Withdrawal: A country leaving the treaty. It takes effect one year after the country gives notice, and the treaty says leaving does not stop the court from carrying on with a matter it was already considering.
The Prosecutor: The head of the court’s Office of the Prosecutor, which investigates and brings cases on its own authority. Every case here is titled in the Prosecutor’s name.
Chamber: A panel of judges. A Pre-Trial Chamber of three handles a case up to the decision to send it to trial, a Trial Chamber of three hears the trial, and the Appeals Chamber of five hears appeals. There is no jury.
Registry: The court’s administration. It runs the courtroom, the detention center, the records, and the support given to witnesses and victims. It takes no side.
Accused: What this court calls the person on trial once the charges are confirmed. Before that the word is suspect.
Victims’ lawyers: At this court people harmed by the charged crimes can apply to take part. They do not bring the case and are not a side, but lawyers appointed for them can file papers and speak in court on what affects them. The court’s term is common legal representatives.

The paperwork

Record number: How a filing is cited. ICC-01/21-01/25-417 is the 417th document in this case, shortened here to Record 417. “Red” on the end means it is the public version with parts blacked out.
Redacted: Blacked out. Most filings here exist in a confidential version and a public one with names, dates or places removed, usually to protect witnesses and victims.
Transcript: The word-for-word record of a hearing. Cited by page and line, so 9:14 means page 9, line 14.
Filing: Any document a side or the court puts on the record. A side’s request is answered by a response, and sometimes that is answered by a reply.
Trial brief: A written outline, filed before trial, of the case a side means to prove and the evidence it will use.
Disclosure: The prosecution handing its evidence to the defense before trial, including anything that might help the defense.

The charges

Crimes against humanity: Certain acts, murder among them, when they are part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population, carried out under a government’s or an organization’s policy.
Count: One charge. This case has three.
Incident: One of the specific killings or attempted killings the prosecution lists as an example under a count.
Widespread or systematic attack: What turns a murder into a crime against humanity. Widespread is about scale. Systematic is about being organized and following a pattern. Either is enough, and the attack has to be aimed at civilians.
Policy: The attack has to carry out the policy of a government or an organization. It does not have to be written down, and it can be shown by what was done and said.
Common plan: An agreement between two or more people that, if carried out, will lead to crimes. It is the core of the first way the prosecution says he is responsible.
Indirect co-perpetration: Committing a crime together with others and through other people. The person need not have been at the scene. The prosecution has to show a common plan, an essential part in it, and control over the people who did the killing.
Ordering or inducing: Telling someone to commit a crime from a position of authority, or prompting them to commit it.
Aiding and abetting: Helping or encouraging a crime that someone else commits, in order to make it easier.
“Neutralize”: The word in the Philippine police order that began the national anti-drug campaign in 2016. The prosecution says it meant kill. The defense says it meant arrest or subdue. The court’s records spell it “neutralise.”
Davao Death Squad: What the charges call a group of police officers and hired gunmen said to have killed people accused of crime in Davao City. The prosecution says he created and ran it. His lawyers have called it a fiction.
Barangay: The smallest unit of local government in the Philippines, about the size of a village or a neighborhood.
Buy-bust: A police sting in which an officer poses as a drug buyer and the seller is arrested in the act.
Nanlaban: Tagalog for “fought back.” It is what Philippine police reports say of a suspect who was shot after resisting arrest.

How a case moves

Jurisdiction: Whether this court has the power to hear this case at all. Here that depends on dates, because the Philippines left the court in 2019.
Preliminary examination: The Prosecutor’s first look at a set of events, to decide whether to ask for a full investigation. No judge is involved yet.
Investigation: The formal stage of gathering evidence. When the Prosecutor starts one on their own, three judges have to authorize it first.
Deferral: The court is meant to step in only when a country is not genuinely investigating or prosecuting the crimes itself. A country can ask the Prosecutor to stand back in favor of its own investigation.
Arrest warrant: A court order to arrest someone. Judges issue one when there are reasonable grounds to believe the person committed a crime and an arrest appears necessary.
Surrender: A country handing an arrested person over to the court. The court has no police of its own.
First appearance: A short hearing soon after someone arrives. The judges check who the person is, that they know the charges and their rights, and set a date for the next stage.
Interim release: Being let out of detention while the case goes on, with or without conditions. It is refused if there is a risk the person would flee, interfere with the case, or keep committing crimes.
Fitness to stand trial: Whether a person is able to understand the proceedings, follow the evidence and instruct their lawyers. It is a legal question that doctors inform and judges decide.
Waiver: Giving up a right in writing. He has waived his right to be present at most hearings so far. He cannot do that for the trial as a whole.
Disqualification: Removing a judge, prosecutor or lawyer from a case because their impartiality could reasonably be doubted.
Confirmation of charges: The stage where three judges decide whether the prosecution has enough to justify a trial. It is a filter, and it is not a verdict.
Status conference: A hearing about scheduling and logistics. No evidence is heard.
Appeal: Asking the five appeals judges to overturn a decision. Some decisions can be appealed as of right. For others the judges who made the decision must first give leave, meaning permission.
Dissent: A judge’s written disagreement with the majority. It changes nothing in the result.
Struck: Removed from the record or from the case, so that it cannot be relied on.

The stamp on a ruling

Granted: The judges said yes to the request on this card, whichever side made it.
Granted in part: The judges gave some of what was asked for and refused the rest.
Denied: The judges said no to the request on this card, whichever side made it. When a challenge is denied, what it challenged stands.
Dismissed: The appeals judges turned the appeal down, so the decision it was against stands.
Confirmed: The charges passed confirmation: the judges found enough evidence to send them to trial. It is not a finding of guilt.

Proof

Standards of proof: How sure the judges have to be. Reasonable grounds to believe is enough for an arrest warrant. Substantial grounds to believe is enough to send a case to trial. A conviction takes proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Burden of proof: Which side has to prove a thing. In a criminal trial it is the prosecution, and the accused does not have to prove anything.
Insider witness: A witness who was part of the group or operation being described, such as a former police officer or gunman.
Limited-use assurance: A written promise from the prosecution that what a witness says in an interview will not be used against that witness at this court. It is not immunity, and it is off if the witness lies.
Hearsay: Repeating what someone else said to prove it was true. This court can admit it, and decides how much weight it deserves.
Corroboration: Other evidence that backs up what a witness says.
Prior recorded testimony: A witness’s earlier statement or interview, admitted in place of some or all of their testimony in court. The court’s rules call it Rule 68.
Reparations: What a convicted person can be ordered to provide to victims, such as compensation. It is decided only after a conviction.

TLDR Case Flow

Can this court hear the case at all?

No power over the case

The case ends and he goes home

Is he fit to stand trial?

Not fit

The trial is put on hold

Is there enough to send it to trial?

Charges not confirmed

No trial on them

Were crimes against humanity committed?

Were these people murdered?

Were they part of an attack on civilians, carried out as policy?

Not guilty on that count

The other counts carry on

Is he responsible for them?

Was there a plan to kill, and did he control the people who did it?

Did he order the killings, or push people into them?

Did he help or encourage them, on purpose?

Guilty on that count

A sentence, and then an appeal