Victims’ legal representatives have joined the International Criminal Court’s prosecution in opposing former President Rodrigo Duterte’s bid to challenge the ruling that confirmed charges against him — a development that adds a second front of resistance to the defense’s appeal attempt.
In a 12-page submission dated May 4, ICC prosecutors urged Pre-Trial Chamber I to reject the defense’s request for leave to appeal the charges confirmation decision, arguing that the defense had failed to raise any legally appealable issue.
“The Prosecution respectfully requests that Pre-Trial Chamber I reject the Defence’s request for leave to appeal the Decision on the confirmation of charges against Mr. Rodrigo Roa Duterte,” the document stated.
The prosecution took direct aim at the defense’s central argument — that the Chamber failed to define the scope of charges and did not adequately identify the underlying facts and circumstances. Prosecutors characterized this as a distortion of the record.
“In fact, the Chamber solicited additional submissions from the parties on this issue, considered arguments in detail, and clearly articulated its findings with respect to the scope of the charges in the Decision,” the prosecution said.
Prosecutors also rejected the defense’s claim that the Chamber lacked a reasoned evidentiary foundation for confirming the charges, noting that the decision consistently referenced witnesses and other evidentiary materials throughout. The prosecution recalled the Chamber’s stated approach of citing only the evidence necessary to show its line of reasoning, which it said was consistent with how recent confirmation proceedings at the court have been conducted.
A separate defense argument — concerning fairness — was also dismissed. Prosecutors said that any evidence and arguments raised by the defense would be fully addressed at the trial stage, leaving no fairness concern at this juncture.
The prosecution went further, questioning the sincerity of the defense’s stated desire to resolve doubts about the decision’s validity. It pointed to public media appearances by defense counsel in which the lawyer described the court as a partisan political body and accused its judges of issuing decisions driven by self-interest and budget justification.
“Defense Counsel has already been reminded—on two occasions—of his obligations under the Code of Conduct by this Chamber. Despite this, he continues to exhibit a pattern of deplorable conduct in relation to the public statements he makes about this case and the Judges of this Court,” the prosecution said.
Prosecutors added that former Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo had amplified the same talking points to Philippine media, and that such statements were contributing to what they described as a disinformation campaign surrounding the case.
“These comments undermine the legitimacy of the Court and contribute to the significant disinformation campaign surrounding this case in the Philippines,” the prosecution said.
The common legal representatives of the victims have separately filed their own objection to Duterte’s appeal request. The Trial Chamber that will hear the case was constituted by the ICC Presidency in April.
