10 hours ago
1
Chelsea Visto - Philstar.com
March 15, 2025 | 5:31pm
MANILA, Philippines — Former President Rodrigo Duterte has begun his legal battle at the International Criminal Court (ICC), facing a pre-trial proceeding over alleged crimes against humanity.
This hearing marks the start of a long legal battle in The Hague—an era of reckoning for victims of Duterte’s brutal anti-drug campaign and other forms of state-sponsored violence during his regime.
Does bringing the case under the ICC’s jurisdiction make a difference?
Speaking at the UP College of Law’s Colloquium on the International Criminal Court on March 14, retired ICC Judge Raul Pangalangan zeroed in on some of the "unique elements" of the court’s criminal proceedings.
“The real challenge in explaining the ICC in the Philippines is that we tend to make it fit into familiar categories. From the outset, we must recognize that, in many ways, international [criminal] law is a class of itself,” he said.
Due process for the accused
The ICC and local courts follow distinct criminal procedures. While many Filipinos have decried the lack of due process for the former chief executive, international criminal law considers his apprehension fair.
The Philippines had the primary authority to prosecute the crimes charged against Duterte. However, since no such investigation was initiated, the ICC took over his case, which involves offenses within its jurisdiction, including genocide, war crimes, the crime of aggression and crimes against humanity.
This dispels claims that Duterte was arbitrarily surrendered to the Hague-based court after his indictment.
“The wheels of justice will not move forward until the person is within the jurisdiction of the court. The arrest is indispensable to that,” Pangalangan said.
International law takes a different approach to arrests. Philippine courts require a valid criminal charge before issuing a warrant against the accused, while the ICC allows the warrant to precede the confirmation of charges.
History shows that even in the most significant criminal cases before the court, the accused have rarely questioned the legality of their arrest or the manner in which they were brought before the tribunal.
The weight of witness testimonies
Courts typically require the presence of counsel for two main parties—the prosecution and the defense.
In the ICC, witnesses are also afforded legal representation, forming a third indispensable party in international criminal cases. Their testimonies are pivotal in establishing patterns of criminality in widespread and systematic violations against humanity.
Perpetrators themselves can also be witnesses, and their crucial role extends beyond proving the killings. They contribute to the broader goal of unraveling the chain of command, organizational structures, and the reward and incentive systems that drive the criminal machinery.
The political climate surrounding the offense is likewise an important factor in these proceedings, as testified by overview witnesses.
Legal analysts examine all documentation to determine whether it meets the criteria for crimes against humanity.
Considering the possible logistical difficulties, the ICC allows witnesses to testify via video conferencing software. In contrast, local courts generally require them to appear in person before the judge during litigation.
Most importantly, the ICC grants extraordinary protection to witnesses through security arrangements, guarantees of anonymity, and psychological support—recognizing that their testimonies could pose great risks to their families and trigger trauma from a difficult period in their lives.
Duterte is the first former Asian head of state to be indicted by the ICC. His second hearing is set for Sept. 23, 2025, for the confirmation of charges. At this stage, the accused can challenge prosecution evidence and present his own.
