“Rejecting Duterte’s petition is not just a procedural necessity– it’s a safeguard for justice, accountability, and the protection of victims and witnesses”
On Sept. 22, the International Criminal Court released the summary and details of the charges filed against former President Rodrigo Duterte.
In the public redacted version of “Document Containing the Charges,” the prosecution held Duterte criminally liable for:
Murder as a crime against humanity in Davao City from 2013 to 2016 during Duterte’s time as Davao City mayor, citing nine incidents which resulted in 19 victims;
Murder of “high-value targets” in locations across the Philippines during his term as president, between 2016 and 2017, as a crime against humanity, citing five incidents which resulted in 14 victims; and
Murder and attempted murder as crimes against humanity in barangay clearing operations in locations across the Philippines during his term as president, between 2016 and 2018, citing 35 incidents which resulted in 45 victims, of which 43 were killed.
The prosecution noted the actual scale of victimization during the charged period “was significantly greater due to its widespread nature.”
They added that Duterte was individually criminally responsible for indirect co-perpetration, ordering and/or inducing, as well as aiding and abetting crimes against humanity.
The details of the charges against Duterte come after the confirmation of charges hearing, originally set for Sept, 23, was postponed indefinitely.
Meanwhile, his legal team has requested his interim release due to deteriorating health, citing unconscious episodes and impaired memory.
Should the ICC accede to this request?
We don’t think so.
The ICC has compelling legal and factual grounds to reject Rodrigo Duterte’s petition for interim release.
The ICC prosecution panel argues that Duterte’s continued detention is necessary to guarantee his presence at trial.
His past statements rejecting the legitimacy of the ICC and his petition before our Supreme Court to block cooperation with the Court suggest a risk of non-compliance.
The prosecution also cites concerns that Duterte’s release could endanger witnesses, obstruct investigations, or undermine the integrity of the proceedings.
His defenders, including Vice President Sara Duterte, have publicly questioned the ICC’s authority and legitimacy.
Despite his defense claiming otherwise, Duterte retains significant political influence and international contacts.
His family and supporters have described his arrest as “kidnapping,” and vowed to return him to the Philippines, raising doubts about his willingness to remain under ICC jurisdiction if released.
Duterte’s legal team claimed the Philippine government does not object to his release.
However, Malacañang has clarified that this is a misrepresentation, and emphasized that the Marcos administration is not involved in the case and will respect whatever decision the ICC makes.
The prosecution also cited video evidence of Duterte’s partner assaulting an officer during his arrest, suggesting a hostile environment that could recur if he were released.
Then there’s unclear health claims by his defense team, who argue that he suffers from cognitive impairment and cite humanitarian grounds.
But these claims remain unverified and may be strategic rather than substantive. The ICC has not confirmed any medical findings that would justify release.
The gravity of the charges against Duterte does not justify his interim release.
He faces three counts of murder as crimes against humanity, linked to at least 78 killings during his drug war. The scale and seriousness of these allegations demand strict judicial oversight and continued detention.
The prosecution has also raised the risk of continued criminal conduct by Duterte if he is freed from detention. Releasing Duterte could allow him to continue committing crimes or influencing others to do so, especially given his history of extrajudicial tactics.
Sara Duterte claims her father has been subjected to inhumane detention conditions.
She has publicly lashed out at the ICC for failing to provide adequate medical care and lacking in transparency regarding Duterte’s condition.
She claims the detention is unjust and amounts to punishment without conviction. But these allegations appear to be totally unfounded, and we expect the ICC to pursue the case against her father as soon as possible.
Rejecting Duterte’s petition is not just a procedural necessity—it’s a safeguard for justice, accountability, and the protection of victims and witnesses. (Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)
