The British barrister newly appointed to lead Rodrigo Duterte’s defense before the International Criminal Court has wasted no time, filing his first submission less than two weeks into the role and calling for a reassessment of the former Philippine president’s capacity to face trial.
Peter Haynes entered his 14-page observation into the record on May 15, ahead of a status conference scheduled by Trial Chamber III later this month. At the center of his argument: the question of whether Duterte, 81, is medically capable of enduring a full criminal trial should not be considered settled.
Haynes drew a sharp distinction between the demands of pre-trial and trial proceedings, arguing that what Duterte was previously assessed for is fundamentally different from what lies ahead.
“Trial proceedings differ fundamentally from pre-trial proceedings in their duration, complexity, and evidentiary scope. A trial requires the accused to follow extensive oral and documentary evidence over a prolonged period, maintain sustained communication with his defence team, provide instructions, and engage continuously with the evolving evidentiary record,” he wrote.
The earlier fitness determination — conducted during the pre-trial phase by an independent panel of medical experts — cleared Duterte to participate in the confirmation hearings held in February. Pre-Trial Chamber I subsequently confirmed the charges, with the case now transferred to the newly constituted Trial Chamber III, which comprises a different set of judges.
Haynes argued that Duterte’s condition has continued to worsen since that assessment and that any new determination must go further than written medical reports.
“Whilst a determination of Mr Duterte’s competence was undertaken during the pre-trial phase on the basis of written reports, his condition continues to deteriorate and will need more fully to be reviewed before any trial may commence,” he wrote, specifying that any such review should be conducted through live, verbal testimony — viva voce evidence — rather than documents alone.
The submission also flagged concerns about cognitive endurance specifically, noting that impairments to memory, concentration, or reasoning would compromise both the defense’s preparation and Duterte’s ability to meaningfully engage with the proceedings.
Beyond the immediate fitness question, Haynes called for a standing mechanism: “should proceedings continue, the Trial Chamber establish a mechanism for periodic review of Mr. Duterte’s fitness throughout the trial phase.”
The defense’s position, as laid out in the filing, is that no trial date should be set until the fitness issue is fully resolved. “In particular, the Defence position is that a commencement is contingent upon a determination by the Trial Chamber of Mr. Duterte’s fitness to stand trial,” Haynes wrote.
