THE HAGUE — The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) legal proceedings against former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte have reached a decisive phase, as his defense team mounts an aggressive campaign to challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction over alleged crimes against humanity committed during his anti-drug crackdown.
Kristina Conti, assistant to counsel and co-representative of the victims, told reporters that Duterte’s defense has shifted focus from disputing the facts to disputing the ICC’s authority.
“He’s not addressing the killings or the scale of the campaign,” Conti said. “Instead, he’s attacking the court’s legitimacy. It’s a deflection tactic, not a legal defense.”
Duterte, currently detained in The Hague after his arrest earlier this year, is accused of orchestrating a violent anti-drug campaign during his presidency from 2016 to 2022, resulting in the deaths of over 6,000 individuals, many of whom were from impoverished communities, according to human rights organizations.
Although the Philippines formally withdrew from the ICC in 2019, Conti emphasized that the withdrawal does not exempt Duterte from accountability for crimes allegedly committed while the country was still under the court’s jurisdiction.
“The Rome Statute is clear—withdrawal does not nullify ongoing proceedings,” she explained. “What we’re seeing now is an effort to delay justice, not deliver it.”
Duterte’s legal team argues that the ICC lacks jurisdiction because the formal investigation began in 2021, two years after the Philippines’ exit from the Rome Statute.
However, Conti and several legal experts dismiss this as a procedural loophole lacking substantive merit.
“They concede the country was a member when the crimes occurred,” she noted. “Their argument rests on when the investigation started, which is a narrow technicality, not a foundation for justice.”
Citing the 2021 Philippine Supreme Court ruling in Paunilangan v. Cayetano, Conti argued that the court’s jurisdiction remains intact since a preliminary examination was already underway prior to the withdrawal.
“That examination is enough to sustain jurisdiction,” she said. “There’s legal continuity, and the ICC’s interpretation aligns with Philippine jurisprudence.”
While the ICC’s decision to proceed was not unanimous, with two judges dissenting on procedural grounds under Article 97 of the Rome Statute, Conti believes the majority ruling rightly prioritized substantive justice.
“The dissenting opinion is now being misused to muddy the waters,” she said. “But the majority view clearly supports jurisdiction and forward movement.”
Another defense tactic hinges on the claim that the Philippine justice system is both capable and willing to investigate the killings domestically.
Conti rejected this narrative, pointing to years of impunity, selective justice, and institutional inaction.
“If local remedies worked, the families of victims wouldn’t be seeking justice in The Hague,” she stated. “From the outset, domestic mechanisms were inaccessible.”
Conti also criticized the Philippine government’s earlier request to defer the ICC investigation, calling it superficial and lacking substance.
“The deferral was based solely on claims of ongoing investigations,” she said. “But the court found that the jurisdiction issue was never properly raised, and that’s what matters now.”
She also warned that Duterte’s legal strategy is part of a broader political campaign to frame the ICC’s proceedings as foreign interference in Philippine sovereignty.
“He’s portraying this as an attack on the nation, not an effort to uphold international law,” Conti said. “It’s performative nationalism designed to erode support for accountability.”
This rhetoric, she added, continues to find traction among Duterte’s supporters, complicating public understanding of the ICC’s mandate and process.
Conti confirmed that victims’ representatives plan to submit independent legal arguments before the court, separate from those of the Office of the Prosecutor.
“It’s not just the prosecution versus the defense anymore,” she said. “Victims have a voice, and their stance is clear—the ICC has jurisdiction, and shirking that responsibility would be a betrayal of justice.”