Prosecutor v. Duterte, side by side

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

Side by Side Case Argumentation

1Was there a plan to kill?

Prosecution

Yes. It began in Davao with a death squad he created, and went national when he became president. The police order used the word “neutralize,” and the people carrying it out understood that to mean kill.

Defense

No. His lawyers at the February 2026 hearing said “neutralize” means lawful restraint, that the Davao Death Squad is a “fictitious construct,” and that only 248 of the 4,817 people on the target list were marked neutralized.

CourtFor trial. On the lower test used to send a case to trial, the judges found there was a common plan and that “‘neutralise’ meant ‘to kill’ in the context of the present case.”

Record 417-Red ¶¶ 54, 87

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

He and at least eight named officials shared a plan to “neutralise” people accused of crime “through violent crimes including murder.” It was carried out through two structures he sat at the top of: the death squad in Davao, and then a national network of police and other agencies. The charges list ten ways he contributed, from setting up the squad and appointing its people to national posts, to rewards, promises of protection, and naming targets in public.

Rests on

Sixteen insider witnesses, one of whom told investigators the words eliminate and neutralize mean “Kill. You have to kill, whether it is a legitimate operation or not a police operation.” A target list on which the two men shot in the Leyte jail are marked “neutralised” on the day they died. The drop in killings on both occasions he pulled the police off the campaign.

Record 178-Red2 ¶¶ 4, 9 · Tr. T-004, 11:7–10, 13:4–10 · Tr. T-007, 23:13–24:11

Authority

Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute, which the judges set out as indirect co-perpetration: a common plan, an essential contribution, and control over the people who carry out the crimes.

Where it is weak

No written order to kill has been produced, and the prosecution accepts that the same speeches and police documents also speak of self-defense and due process. The plan is shown largely through insiders who have not been cross-examined yet, and the public cannot see who they are.

Defense

The argument

There was a hard anti-crime policy, and not a plan to murder. “Neutralization” is a defined police term that covers “an arrest, capture, surrender, or other acts to subdue the suspect,” and it was police vocabulary before 2016. Even on the prosecution’s own list the numbers don’t look like a plan to kill. And nothing shows control passing from him down to the people who fired.

Rests on

The police operations manual, as read to the judges. A former police chief’s public statement that the word means arrest. The Philippine Supreme Court never having read it as kill. Witness statements describing arrest as the aim. The 248 of 4,817.

Tr. T-006, 25:9–27:12, 43:1–8, 44:8–13

Authority

The court’s own case law, which the defense read as requiring that crimes be a “virtual certainty” of carrying out the plan.

Where it is weak

The judges took this argument head on and found that here the word meant kill. The manual definition he read out was, by his own account, published in 2021, after the charged period. The witnesses he called the prosecution’s own are, the prosecution says, people it interviewed as suspects and does not rely on. And this is the earlier team’s case. The present team’s is due on October 30, 2026.

Record 417-Red ¶¶ 54, 87 · Tr. T-006, 25:22–24 · Tr. T-007, 25:3–9

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Did he and others share a plan that would lead to killings, and was his part in it essential?
Prosecution
The Davao model was scaled up to the whole country in 2016, with people from Davao put in charge of the police and other agencies.
What the word meant

Insiders say kill. The list marks two men neutralized on the day they died in a jail.

What the word meant

The manual says arrest or subdue. About one name in twenty on the list was marked neutralized.
Defense
No document and no witness shows an order passing from him to the people who fired.
Prosecution
He paused police operations twice and the killings dropped both times, which shows who controlled them.
Where it lands
Confirmed for trial on the lower test. Nothing here has been proved. At trial the insiders testify and are cross-examined for the first time.

2Do his own words show he meant it?

Prosecution

Yes. He said in public, many times, that drug suspects would be killed. He promised to protect and pardon police who did it, and told a Senate committee he had a death squad.

Defense

No. His lawyers called the speeches “hyperbole, bluster and rhetoric” meant to frighten criminals, and counted 45 speeches that speak of force only in self-defense against 10 that don’t.

CourtFor trial. The judges at the confirmation stage noted that the references to self-defense were “contained in the same speeches” that “included explicit instructions to carry out unlawful killings.”

Record 417-Red ¶ 53

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

His words are evidence of three things at once: the policy, what he intended, and his own contribution, because the people doing the killing heard them as instructions and as cover. The lawful-sounding passages were “sprinkled in” to “build a veneer of legality” and “to give his lawyers something to say when this day came.”

Rests on

The 2016 campaign line “If I become the president, I will order the military and the police to hunt down the drug lords, the big ones, and kill them.” His statement “They say I am the death squad? True. That’s true.” Promises of pardons. What he told Senate committees, which the prosecution says was under oath.

Tr. T-004, 10:15–17, 14:13–17, 52:12 · Tr. T-007, 24:12–22, 26:7–9

Authority

The charges list his public statements as one of his ten contributions to the plan, and intent can be inferred from what a person says and does.

Where it is weak

The prosecution accepts the self-defense language is there. A speech shows what he said. It does not by itself show that a given killing followed from it, and that link still has to be proved.

Defense

The argument

A man is not guilty of murder because he spoke crudely and people later died. The prosecution has to show he “actually desired and foresaw that people would be killed” as a result. Read whole, the speeches tell police to act within the law: “Abuse your authority, and there will be hell to pay.” The rhetoric, his lawyer said, “was calculated to arouse fear and obedience.”

Rests on

The defense’s own count of 45 speeches against 10. The later passage of the same July 2016 speech the prosecution quoted. An interview in which his justice secretary said the president was clear “that there will be no killing of unarmed offenders.”

Tr. T-004, 36:5–37:17, 37:21–38:9 · Tr. T-006, 29:1–9

Authority

The burden of proof. “They brought this case and they need to prove it.”

Where it is weak

The count is the defense’s own and has not been tested. The judges answered that the lawful-sounding lines sit in the same speeches as explicit instructions to kill, and were made while killings were going on and being rewarded. The prosecution adds that the defense has said both that his “word was his word” and that his words can’t be taken at face value.

Record 417-Red ¶¶ 52–53 · Tr. T-007, 25:23–26:9

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Do the speeches show he meant for people to be killed, and knew they would be?
Prosecution
He said it in so many words, before the campaign began and while it was running.
Defense
Further on in the same speech he tells police that abusing their authority will mean “hell to pay.”
The cautions

Added to build “a veneer of legality,” by a man who is himself a lawyer.

The threats

Bluster meant to scare dealers into surrendering, which many did.
Where it lands
For trial. The confirmation judges read the speeches whole and against what was happening at the time. What he intended is for the trial judges to decide.

3Were the deaths murder, or police defending themselves?

Prosecution

Murder. People who took part say the victims posed no threat and that guns, drugs and money were planted afterward. Police reports were “repeatedly falsified” to read as self-defense.

Defense

The records made at the time show attempted arrests, resistance and return fire. An official document is presumed to be regular, and there is “zero proof” that these were fabricated.

Victims’ lawyersThe police accounts “contrasted markedly” with what relatives described, and were “notably consistent among themselves,” differing “little besides the names, places, and dates.”

CourtFor trial. The confirmation judges wrote that witnesses directly involved “consistently” say the victims posed no threat.

Tr. T-005, 44:10–18 · Record 417-Red ¶ 74

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

These were executions written up as operations, done the same way again and again. Some cannot be self-defense on any reading, like two men shot inside a jail cell, or the killings in Davao. Sorting out which account of an incident is true is what a trial is for, and one witness who supports the charge is enough to get there.

Rests on

Former police officers and gunmen who describe planting drugs, money and guns, and sometimes firing the gun from the dead man’s hand. A video of one man being taken away on a motorbike between two officers. The sameness of the reports from one incident to the next.

Tr. T-005, 12:17–22, 13:15 · Tr. T-007, 20:10–22, 24:1–5 · Record 417-Red ¶ 74

Authority

Murder as a crime against humanity under article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute.

Where it is weak

For many incidents the direct evidence is one insider set against a file of documents made at the time, with no forensic proof of planting. By the defense’s count nine of the first 49 incidents have victims who are not identified, which limits what anyone can check. Where witnesses contradict each other the prosecution’s answer is that the trial will sort it out.

Defense

The argument

Across the police-operation incidents there is “contemporaneous buy-bust or warrant-based documentation. Reported exchanges of fire. Gunshot residue findings. Ballistic testing.” Where a killing was unlawful, it was “opportunism, personal animus, or corruption at the local level,” and not policy. And where the evidence supports two readings, the doubt goes to the accused.

Rests on

Police and forensic reports. Statements from officers who said the aim was arrest and that force was used only when lives were in danger. The point that the 32 deaths in Bulacan the prosecution called one operation were, by one of its own witnesses, several operations across a region.

Tr. T-007, 10:15–11:22, 12:7–20, 13:2–13

Authority

The presumption that an official document is regular unless the other side proves otherwise.

Where it is weak

The judges were not persuaded at the confirmation stage. A presumption that official papers are regular helps less when the charge is that officials wrote them to cover a killing. The defense itself accepted that “in some instances the record may reveal unlawful conduct by individual officers.” And this argument does not reach the Davao killings or the jail shooting in the same way.

Record 417-Red ¶ 74 · Tr. T-007, 11:16–19

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Was each death an unlawful killing, or did police fire because they had to?
Defense
The reports written at the time say the suspect resisted, and there are ballistics and residue tests behind them.
Prosecution
People who were there say the scenes were staged, and that the reports follow one script.
One witness

An account from someone who took part is enough to send an incident to trial.

One witness

A single insider cannot outweigh the documentary and forensic record.
Where it lands
For trial, incident by incident. There are 56 of them now, and the judges can find some proved and others not.

4Can the prosecution’s witnesses be believed?

Prosecution

These are insider witnesses. The people who did the killing are the ones who can say who it was for. None of them has been given immunity, and what each says is checked against the others and against documents.

Defense

The main witnesses are “self-confessed murderers” who talked under promises that work as immunity, and much of the rest is “pure unadulterated and undiluted hearsay.”

CourtNot decided, and it could not be at that stage. The judges wrote that the credibility of witnesses “can only be properly addressed at trial,” and that nothing bars relying on such witnesses.

Record 417-Red ¶¶ 28, 31

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

In a case against the person at the top, insiders are how the chain is shown, because leaders “don’t put it in writing.” A limited-use assurance only means a witness’s statement can’t be used against that witness. It is standard when interviewing suspects, and it is void if they lie. “Not one witness has been granted immunity in this case, none.”

Rests on

The statements of the insiders themselves, and the documents, lists and speeches the prosecution says back them up.

Tr. T-007, 21:12–22, 26:10–27:2

Authority

The Rome Statute lets the Prosecutor make agreements with witnesses, and the judges are free to weigh all evidence, hearsay included.

Where it is weak

None of these witnesses has been cross-examined. Their names are withheld from the public, so nobody outside the case can check them. People who took part in killings have a reason to point upward. The defense has also said some witnesses reached investigators through a go-between close to the present Philippine government, and that has not been tested either.

Defense

The argument

There is “something morally repugnant” in shielding several killers in order to convict one man. In many legal systems such witnesses need corroboration before a court will rely on them. Limited-use statements are meant for finding leads, and not to serve as the main evidence. Much of the rest is hearsay “twice or even three times removed.”

Rests on

The assurances given to the insiders. Inconsistencies between their statements. A recorded phone call, as the defense described it, in which someone says witnesses and pardons were arranged with the president’s authority.

Tr. T-006, 46:7–49:22, 51:5–20 · Tr. T-007, 42:18–19, 46:8–12

Authority

The article that lets the Prosecutor make such agreements only where they are “not inconsistent with the Statute,” and common-law practice on accomplice evidence.

Where it is weak

This court has no rule against hearsay or accomplice evidence, and the judges said so. The argument goes to how much weight the evidence deserves, which is a question for trial. Kaufman himself told the judges that credibility is “not normally litigated at confirmation.”

Record 417-Red ¶¶ 28, 30–31 · Tr. T-006, 46:7–9

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
How much weight can be put on people who admit to killing and were promised their words would not be used against them?
Defense
Almost none, without something independent to back them up.
Prosecution
They are not immune, the promise falls away if they lie, and their accounts fit the documents.
Why they talk

They have come forward and shown remorse, and the court is after the person most responsible.

Why they talk

They are buying their own safety, and some were delivered by his political opponents.
Where it lands
Open until they take the stand. No witness has testified yet.

5Are the charges too open-ended to defend against?

Prosecution

No. The 49 incidents were always “a non-exhaustive list of examples.” The confirmed charges fix the period, the places and the groups involved, and the trial brief gives notice of the rest.

Defense

Yes. The charges are “a moving target” built on illustrative incidents under broad headings, with eight more added three months before trial “with no judicial oversight.”

Victims’ lawyersThe first motion should be thrown out, because it re-argues how the charges were confirmed, which the defense already lost.

CourtMostly against the defense. On October 9, 2026, the trial judges refused to send the charges back and let in seven of the eight new incidents. They struck one for falling outside the dates of its count.

Record 498 ¶ 2 · Record 519-Red ¶¶ 30, 37, 44, 47, 51 · Record 445

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

A case about a campaign of this scale cannot list every killing, and it doesn’t have to. What a defendant is entitled to is notice of the case in time to prepare, and the charges, the brief and the witness lists together give it. Complaints about the form of the charges belonged at the confirmation stage, where the defense made them and lost.

Rests on

Its December 2025 clarification that the incidents are examples. The confirmation decision, which accepted that. The trial brief, where the added incidents are set out.

Record 330 ¶ 5 · Record 417-Red ¶¶ 22–24 · Record 499 · Record 504-Corr-Red

Authority

The confirmation decision itself, and Appeals Chamber rulings that notice can be given through documents like a trial brief.

Where it is weak

It did reach too far once. One added incident fell outside the period the prosecution had set for its own count, and the judges said it “cannot now be permitted to broaden the temporal scope.” They also said they “might have expected formal notice” by a written motion.

Defense

The argument

A person on trial has to know the case he must meet. Charges framed around “illustrative non-exhaustive incidents, grouped under topical headings” let the prosecution reach for any killing in a country of 120 million over seven and a half years. Haynes told the judges that would make the trial “a sort of public enquiry” in which “our investigations will be impossible.”

Rests on

The wording of the charges. The notice of eight more incidents on August 31, 2026. The remedy asked for: an order that the prosecution re-file “an exhaustive list” of the acts charged.

Record 487 ¶¶ 1–2, 21 · Record 502-Red ¶¶ 1–3 · Tr. T-009, 27:25–28:5

Authority

The right to be told the charges in detail, the rule that changing charges after confirmation needs a judge’s leave, and the rule that a verdict cannot go beyond the facts charged.

Where it is weak

The same argument failed at confirmation and again when the defense asked for leave to appeal. The trial judges held they have no power to order confirmed charges redrawn. What the defense won was the removal of one incident.

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Do the charges, read with the trial brief, tell him clearly enough what he has to answer?
Defense
A list that can keep growing is not a charge. It asks for the charges to be redrawn as a closed list.
Prosecution
The period, the places and the groups are fixed. Incidents inside those limits are examples of one charge.
The eight added incidents

They fall inside counts that were already confirmed, and the brief gave notice.

The eight added incidents

Adding them is changing the charges, and that needs a judge’s leave.
Where it lands
Seven in and one out. The trial covers 56 incidents. Witnesses on the new ones wait until the defense has had “reasonable time to prepare.”

6Was the evidence handed over in a state the defense can use?

Prosecution

Yes. Most of the volume is one set of police records of the deaths, which it was obliged to hand over. It has given the defense its own index to it, and a cap on evidence would be arbitrary.

Defense

No. In disclosure it got 62,130 items, about 57,000 of them since June, and fewer than 5,000 contain his name even once. It asks for the file to be cut to about 10,000.

CourtUndecided. The motion was filed on September 25, 2026, and no ruling was on the public record on November 8.

Record 507-Red · Record 510-Red · Record 516-Red

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

The volume is reasonable for a case about thousands of deaths. One data set makes up 44,495 of the items, and it is the local police records of killings in anti-drug operations, which go to both the charged incidents and the wider attack. How often a search word turns up “is in no way indicative of the relevance of evidence.”

Rests on

Its own index of the data set, “the product of many hundreds of hours,” which it shared. A chart of summaries linking documents to each death. Meetings and metadata fixes for stray pages. Other cases with evidence lists of similar size.

Record 510-Red ¶¶ 2–3, 5, 14, 18, 20

Authority

The duty of disclosure itself, which obliges it to hand over what is relevant to the defense as well as what it will use.

Where it is weak

It accepts there are real stray pages and says it is fixing them. The summaries it offers as a guide were written by software. It disclosed 5,275 items before the charges were confirmed and has more than 19,000 on its list of evidence now, after the presiding judge had said “we don’t expect to be drowned in documents.”

Record 510-Red ¶ 24 · Tr. T-009, 48:25

Defense

The argument

A record of that size, in that condition, eight weeks before trial, cannot be read, let alone tested. The complaint is about usability and not only volume: wrong labels, single loose pages, scans nobody can read, missing translations, duplicates. The defense says the big data set was put into the record “without meaningful review.”

Rests on

The counts in its motion: a 978 percent rise in disclosed items, more than 320,000 pages, and a 400-page document disclosed one page at a time.

Record 507-Red ¶ 2, ¶ 10 · Record 516-Red ¶¶ 1–3

Authority

The right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense.

Where it is weak

It is not asking for a later trial date, so the remedy it wants is a cap, and the prosecution says no defense team in comparable cases asked for one. Counting how often a name appears does not measure relevance. The prosecution says the defense has known about the data set since the first status conference and changed its position on receiving it.

Record 510-Red ¶¶ 12, 16, 18

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Has the defense been given the evidence in time, and in a form it can actually work through before November 30?
Defense
Sixty-two thousand items, most of them since June, many mislabeled or unreadable.
Prosecution
Seven in ten of those are one set of police death records, indexed and shared.
The remedy

Leave the record as it is. A cap would force relevant evidence out.

The remedy

Order a new, smaller record of about 10,000 items.
Where it lands
Nowhere yet. The judges have not ruled, and the trial date has not moved.

7Was the investigation fair?

Prosecution

Yes. The Prosecutor said no conflict arose from “briefly representing a group of victims” in 2018, and that the request to remove him rested on “speculative” personal attacks.

Defense

No. The man who ran it had earlier acted for victims and treated Mr. Duterte as a suspect from 2018. His lawyers called the charges “politically motivated,” brought with help from the government that followed his.

CourtSplit. Appeals judges took the chief prosecutor off the case in October 2025 for a reasonable appearance of bias, and found no actual bias. The case itself was left standing.

Record 286-Red pp. 15, 18

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

Helping a group of victims file one submission, years before taking office, is not a conflict, and the defense’s own lawyer first thought so too. If the appeals judges saw it differently he would step away, and he did. The evidence stands or falls on what it shows, and the office found and disclosed statements that help the defense.

Rests on

The Prosecutor’s written response. The disclosure of interviews with people who denied wrongdoing, which the prosecution points to as the opposite of a one-track inquiry.

Record 234-Red ¶¶ 1–3 · Tr. T-007, 25:3–15

Authority

The Rome Statute’s rule on when a prosecutor must step aside, which the prosecution read as setting a high bar.

Where it is weak

The appeals judges did not accept its view of how this looked. They called his earlier involvement “significantly intense and multifaceted” and noted that people connected to it are now prosecution witnesses.

Record 286-Red pp. 16–18

Defense

The argument

The investigation was “contaminated” by “a one-track crusade” toward a result fixed in advance. Three insiders were interviewed before the investigation lawfully resumed in 2023, while it was supposed to be paused. Removing the chief prosecutor came “too late in the day to salvage the integrity of the investigation.” Behind it all, the defense said, the president who followed him “set out to neutralise Rodrigo Duterte and his legacy.”

Rests on

The 2018 submission he signed as a private lawyer. The early interviews. The account of how witnesses were recruited.

Record 226-Red2 · Tr. T-004, 31:14–15, 39:1–41:10 · Tr. T-006, 49:7–22

Authority

The Prosecutor’s duty to look into circumstances that clear a suspect as carefully as those that incriminate him.

Where it is weak

It won the removal and asked for nothing more. The judges who confirmed the charges noted the defense raised the fairness of the investigation only in its opening remarks, did not “seek any relief,” and so they did not rule on it. The removal decision found no actual bias and did not touch the evidence. A motive for the case, political or not, does not answer what the evidence shows.

Record 417-Red fn. 65 · Record 286-Red p. 15

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Could a fair-minded observer think the person in charge had already made up his mind?
Defense
He acted for victims of these same killings in 2018 and later ran the investigation into them.
Prosecution
One brief piece of work years earlier. The evidence was gathered by an office, not one man.
What follows from it

He steps aside and the case continues under his deputy.

What follows from it

The whole investigation is tainted and cannot be saved by removing him.
Where it lands
He was removed. No finding of actual bias, and no ruling that the investigation was unfair.

8Is he fit to stand trial?

Prosecution

Yes. It never accepted the defense doctors’ conclusions, agreed only to a short delay for an independent examination, and relies on the court’s own panel, which found him capable twice.

Defense

No. He “is not fit to stand trial as a result of cognitive impairment in multiple domains,” his condition “will not improve,” and he “suffers from significant memory impairment.”

Victims’ lawyersAn open-ended halt “is not justified.” The judges should appoint independent experts to examine him instead.

CourtDecided against the defense twice, on January 26 and September 28, 2026. It can be raised again if his health changes.

Record 257-Red2 ¶¶ 3–4 · Record 356-Red p. 25 · Record 509-Red p. 17, ¶ 44

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

A case cannot be put off forever on the strength of reports from doctors hired by one side. Have independent experts examine him, decide quickly, and adjust the trial to what he needs. Being old and frail is not the same as being unable to take part.

Rests on

The court-appointed panel of three, which reported in December 2025 and again in August 2026 that he can understand the charges, follow the proceedings and instruct his lawyers.

Record 253-Red ¶¶ 1–3 · Record 509-Red ¶¶ 19–23

Authority

Fitness is a legal question that “does not depend, in and of itself, on whether the suspect has particular medical conditions.”

Where it is weak

The medical findings are blacked out, so the public cannot weigh them. The panel itself could not rule out “some mild or pre-clinical process,” and its members did not all agree on a diagnosis, though they agreed on what he is able to do. He is 81 and the trial is expected to be long.

Record 356-Red ¶ 20 · Record 509-Red ¶¶ 19, 21

Defense

The argument

He cannot retain what happened recently, so he cannot follow evidence from day to day or give his lawyers real instructions. That won’t get better, and no adjustment to the timetable fixes it. The judges should at least hear the experts in person and allow more testing before deciding.

Rests on

Reports from doctors the defense retained in 2025. His scores on the panel’s own tests. What his lawyers say they see when they meet him.

Record 230-Red ¶ 1 · Record 509-Red ¶ 25 · Record 383 ¶¶ 4–5

Authority

The court’s rule that a trial must be adjourned if the accused is unfit.

Where it is weak

The defense itself accepted that he “understands the nature of the criminal process” and “the concept of the charge of murder.” The panel was unanimous on his capacities both times. It “expressed reservations” about his test scores, citing inconsistencies and underperformance for which it found no medical explanation.

Record 356-Red ¶ 37 · Record 509-Red ¶¶ 22–23

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Can he understand the charges, follow the proceedings and instruct his lawyers?
Defense
Not with a memory that cannot hold on to recent information.
Prosecution
Three independent experts say he can, and said so twice.
What the tests show

Low scores that the experts doubted, with inconsistencies they could not explain medically.

What the tests show

Significant cognitive impairment, measured on the panel’s own tests.
Where it lands
Fit, with adjustments: hearing support, a nurse at breaks, hours decided as the trial goes. Open to review on a substantiated request.

9Should he be held while he waits?

Prosecution

Yes. It “strongly opposes” release. He “does not accept the legitimacy of the legal proceedings against him” and has the reach to flee or to get at witnesses.

Defense

No. He is past 80 and in poor health. A country whose name is blacked out agreed to take him, and he asked to be released there “under any conditions” the judges chose.

Victims’ lawyersBy saying he does not recognize the court and was kidnapped, he “has clearly demonstrated that he will abscond.”

CourtRefused on September 26, 2025, upheld unanimously on appeal, and kept in place at three reviews since.

Tr. T-007, 57:7–11 · Record 282-Red p. 23 · Record 326-Red p. 3 · Records 357-Red, 447, 506

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

All three risks the law names are present. He rejects the court’s authority, so he has every reason not to come back. He has contacts and support, including family in high office. Witnesses in the Philippines are within reach of people loyal to him.

Rests on

His camp’s description of the arrest as a kidnapping. His daughter’s office as vice president. His election as mayor of Davao City while in custody. A son’s position of power at one of the places named in the charges.

Record 159-Red ¶ 1, p. 4 · Record 252-Red ¶¶ 1–2 · Record 282-Red ¶¶ 50–53, 59

Authority

The Rome Statute’s test for detention: a risk of flight, of obstructing the case, or of further crimes. Any one is enough.

Where it is weak

The risks are predictions. The test is “the possibility, not the inevitability, of a future occurrence,” and the judges said they did not need to find that he “has actually taken steps to contact or exercise pressure on potential witnesses.” The defense also says the prosecution had at first told it that it would not oppose release to a member country on agreed terms.

Record 282-Red ¶¶ 52, 54 · Record 150-Red ¶ 3

Defense

The argument

He “is not a flight risk.” A government has agreed in principle to receive him and to enforce whatever conditions the judges set, and he would not embarrass his hosts by breaking them. He will not interfere with the case or commit crimes, the charged events are more than six years old, and his age and health are humanitarian reasons to let him out.

Rests on

The receiving government’s agreement, as the defense reported it. The terms and conditions it offered. Medical reports filed with the renewed request in August 2025.

Record 150-Red ¶¶ 1, 5, p. 16 · Record 231-Red

Authority

The Rome Statute’s article on release, under which a person is let out unless one of the three risks is shown.

Where it is weak

Words used on his behalf became evidence against release. The judges counted his election and his family’s offices as signs of a network that could help him run. They also held that “the issue of fitness to stand trial is factually and legally distinct from the question of interim release,” so poor health did not answer the risks.

Record 282-Red ¶¶ 51, 64 · Record 326-Red p. 3

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Is detention needed to make sure he appears, to protect the case, or to prevent further crimes?
Defense
His age and health remove any real risk, and conditions can cover the rest.
Prosecution
He calls the arrest a kidnapping. A man who rejects the court has no reason to return to it.
His standing at home

Political contacts and family in office are a way out and a way to reach witnesses.

His standing at home

Being elected by his city is not a reason to keep a man in a cell.
Where it lands
Detained since March 12, 2025. Reviewed in January, May and September 2026, and kept in custody each time.

10Can this court hear the case at all?

Prosecution

Yes. The treaty stops a country from taking a matter out of the court’s hands by leaving, and the examination opened in February 2018 was such a matter.

Defense

No. This is a challenge to jurisdiction. A country has to be a member when the court uses its power, and the Philippines had been out for two and a half years when judges opened the investigation.

Victims’ lawyersThe treaty’s wording is “crystal clear,” and the Philippines handing him over in 2025 is “irrefutable proof” that it still accepts the court’s power.

CourtDecided for the prosecution, and final. Pre-trial judges ruled on October 23, 2025, and the Appeals Chamber on April 22, 2026, with one judge dissenting in part.

Record 145 pp. 3, 15 · Record 309 p. 32 · Record 415 pp. 5–6 · Record 415-OPI

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

The treaty has a rule made for exactly this. A withdrawal “shall not prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court” before it took effect. The prosecutor’s first look began 13 months before the Philippines was out. Otherwise a country could take a matter out of the court’s hands just by leaving.

Rests on

The dates. The text of the treaty’s article on leaving. The 2021 decision that opened the investigation, which already said the court kept its power over crimes from the membership years.

Record 146-Red-Corr · Record 328 · Record 12 ¶ 111

Authority

Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute.

Where it is weak

The judges agreed with the defense that ordinarily a country must be a member at the moment the court’s power is used. Two different appeals judges, across the 2023 and 2026 appeals, read the treaty the defense’s way. And the prosecutor’s office took more than three years to move from its first look to asking for an investigation.

Record 309 ¶ 80 · Record 77-OPI · Record 415-OPI pp. 2–3

Defense

The argument

The article on the court’s power is written in the present tense. A country has to be a party at the moment that power is exercised, and that happened in 2021. The saving rule speaks of matters before “the Court,” which means the judges, and a prosecutor’s informal first look is not that. “The ‘fight against impunity’ cannot warrant an inappropriate application” of the treaty. If the prosecutor ran out of time, that is the prosecutor’s responsibility.

Rests on

The same dates. The wording of the two articles. The 2023 dissent by two appeals judges.

Record 121 ¶¶ 116–117 · Record 171-Red · Record 319 · Record 309 ¶ 36

Authority

Article 12(2) of the Rome Statute, read with article 13.

Where it is weak

It lost at both levels and the question is closed. The saving rule says “any matter,” which is hard to read narrowly, and it does not name a stage a matter has to have reached. The Philippine government itself carried out the arrest in 2025.

Record 309 ¶¶ 76–77, 84 · Record 415 pp. 5–6

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Was this matter already “under consideration by the Court” before March 17, 2019?
If a first look counts

It began on February 8, 2018, so the court kept its power.

If only judges count

Nothing reached a judge until May 2021, so there was nothing to keep.
Prosecution
“Any matter” is broad on purpose, and a preliminary examination is a step the treaty itself sets up.
Defense
The court’s power is exercised by judges. A prosecutor reading reports is not the court considering anything.
Where it lands
Resolved for the prosecution. The Appeals Chamber held that a preliminary examination “qualifies as a ‘matter under consideration.’” The trial goes ahead on that footing.

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.