A prosecution witness who described killings in Davao as far back as 2009 cannot connect them to deaths recorded after Rodrigo Duterte became president using only what he personally knows, the former leader’s lawyers told the International Criminal Court (ICC).
That argument is central to a defense filing dated September 22, 2026, which seeks to block the prior recorded testimony of the witness, identified in court records only as P-1100. The defense cited passages in his statement that tie killings in 2009 to others allegedly carried out in 2016. It also questioned whether he can show how events before the charged period, which covers November 1, 2011, to March 16, 2019, relate to killings during Duterte’s presidency.
Prosecutors plan to present P-1100 as a fact witness. Duterte’s lawyers countered that the witness has no firsthand knowledge of much of what is contested at trial, which leaves him unable to give direct evidence on a number of issues.
The prosecution has broad reasons for wanting the statement on record. According to prosecutors, P-1100 can shed light on an alleged policy to “neutralise” suspected criminals through violent means, including murder, and on how the so-called Davao Death Squad (DDS) supposedly operated. They added that his account bears on Duterte’s own criminal responsibility, including what he knew and what he intended.
The defense disputed that the witness’s account supports any conclusions about how the DDS was organized, whether its structure, its operations, its hierarchy, or who commanded it.
Duterte was arrested in Pasay City on March 11, 2025, and flown on a chartered plane to The Hague. He faces charges of crimes against humanity over the drug crackdown he led as Davao City mayor and later as president, and his trial is set to open on November 30, 2026.
The lawyers set out their main request to the Trial Chamber in the filing.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Defence respectfully requests that the Trial Chamber REJECT the Prosecution’s Application on the basis that P-1100’s proposed evidence is not sufficiently relevant or probative of the matters in dispute in this case,” it said.
If the chamber does not throw out the application entirely, the defense wants four exhibits kept out. It asked the court to “REJECT the request for admission of PHL-OTP-00001799, PHL-OTP-00001796, PHL-OTP-00001794, and PHL-OTP-00001795 under Rule 68(3).”
Those exhibits are among the “associated material” prosecutors want admitted together with P-1100’s testimony. According to the defense, a witness’s mere reference to a document does not show that he “used and explained” it well enough for it to become an integral part of his account.
