“The confirmation of charges is neither a verdict nor a declaration of criminal responsibility”
The confirmation of charges against former President Rodrigo Duterte at the International Criminal Court on Feb. 23 marks a decisive moment in international justice. Yet it is a legal step widely misunderstood by the public.
Many interpret the phrase as an announcement of guilt or an automatic move toward punishment. In reality, the confirmation of charges is neither a verdict nor a declaration of criminal responsibility.
It is a procedural safeguard within the ICC system meant to ensure that only cases supported by substantial evidence advance to full trial.
The ICC, based in The Hague, was established to prosecute individuals accused of the most serious crimes of international concern: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.
Its procedures are designed to balance accountability with due process, especially when cases involve powerful political figures such as former heads of state. The confirmation of charges hearing is central to this balance.
This hearing occurs during the pre-trial phase.
At this stage, the prosecution presents the evidence it has gathered to demonstrate that there are “substantial grounds to believe” the accused committed the crimes alleged.
In Duterte’s case, ICC prosecutors have alleged crimes against humanity, particularly murder, linked to deaths that occurred during the Philippine government’s anti-drug campaign.
These allegations focus on whether the killings were widespread or systematic and whether they were carried out pursuant to a state policy – key elements required to establish crimes against humanity under international law.
The confirmation of charges hearing is not a full trial.
The judges do not hear witnesses in the same manner, nor do they weigh evidence to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Instead, they examine whether the prosecution’s case is coherent, legally sound, and supported by sufficient evidence to justify moving forward.
The defense plays an equally vital role in this process.
Duterte’s legal team is entitled to challenge the prosecution’s evidence, question the credibility of sources, raise jurisdictional objections, and argue that the alleged acts do not meet the legal threshold for crimes against humanity.
The purpose of this stage is protective as much as it is prosecutorial.
It prevents individuals from being subjected to lengthy and politically consequential trials based on weak, speculative, or incomplete cases.
For this reason, the judges may confirm all charges, confirm only some of them, or decline to confirm any at all.
If charges are not confirmed, the case does not proceed to trial, although prosecutors may, under certain circumstances, revise their case and submit new evidence at a later date.
If the judges do confirm the charges against Duterte, the case advances to the trial phase.
This marks a significant escalation, as the trial involves a far more rigorous examination of evidence, including witness testimony, forensic findings, documentary records, and expert analysis.
The burden of proof also becomes higher: the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Only at the end of this process can the court render a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
The confirmation of charges is therefore best understood as a gateway. Passing through it does not mean the accused has been convicted, but failing to pass through it means the case cannot proceed.
In high-profile cases like Duterte’s, this stage carries immense political and symbolic weight.
It signals that the allegations have met an initial international legal standard, which can influence public opinion, diplomatic relations, and domestic political discourse, even though the legal presumption of innocence remains intact.
For the Philippines, the confirmation of charges has broader implications beyond Duterte as an individual. It raises questions about state accountability, the limits of sovereignty, and the reach of international law.
This legal milestone arrives in the season when we celebrate love—a reminder that justice, at its core, is an expression of love for those who have suffered.
The confirmation of charges is not merely a procedural step; it is a message to the victims and their families that their grief has been heard, that their losses matter in the eyes of the international community.
For thousands who mourn loved ones lost to extrajudicial killings, this moment offers something beyond legal vindication: it offers recognition.
It says that no power, no office, no claim of state necessity can erase the value of those lives.
In a season dedicated to love, the pursuit of accountability becomes an act of remembering—a refusal to let the dead be forgotten or their deaths dismissed as collateral damage.
This is what justice demands: not vengeance, but the acknowledgment that every life lost deserves to be counted, mourned, and honored. Facebook: tonylavs Website: tonylavina.com
