Duterte counsel wants victims’ Filipino lawyers disqualified

February 13, 2026 | 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines —  The defense counsel of former president Rodrigo Duterte has sought the disqualification of Filipino lawyers Joel Butuyan and Gilbert Andres as common legal representative of the victims (CLRVs) in the ongoing proceedings at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In an 11-page request dated Feb. 11, defense lawyer Nicholas Kaufman claimed that the lawyers must be disqualified on the grounds of an “impediment to representation” and on the basis of “conflict of interest.”

He also sought the disqualification of lawyer Nicolene Arcaina, who was supposedly selected by Butuyan and Andres as their case manager.

The details supporting Kaufman’s claims were redacted.

But in his request, he noted a supposed conflict as the prosecution and the legal representatives for victims “operate under distinct mandates and obligations.”

“Whereas the Prosecution is a minister of justice tasked with a truth-seeking function and disclosure duties, victims’ counsel are partisan representatives owing duties only to their clients and are not subject to comparable disclosure obligations,” he wrote.

“The court’s statutory framework presupposes institutional separation and independence between the Prosecution and CLRVs in order to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings,” he added.

The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I earlier designated Butuyan and Andres, both ICC-accredited lawyers, as common legal representatives of the victims.

Their role, which is to act on behalf of the collective interests of the victims, is different from the ICC prosecutor, which is in charge of prosecuting the charges filed against the accused.

Both of them are with the Center for International Law, which represents some victims of the Duterte administration’s deadly campaign against illegal drugs.

Additional evidence

Meanwhile, in a separate development, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I granted the request of both the prosecution and the defense to add items in their respective lists of evidence.

The judges allowed the addition of 78 items in the list of evidence of the defense, and another two for the prosecution.

“Noting the limited extent of the requested additions, the nature of the material concerned and its relevance to the charges brought against the suspect, as well as the absence of objection from the parties and participants to both the Defense’s and Prosecution’s Requests, the Chamber considers that there is good cause to grant such requests without causing undue prejudice to either party,” read the Feb. 10 decision.

The two parties were given until Friday to submit their updated lists. These will be used in the upcoming confirmation of charges hearing on Feb. 23.