MANILA, Philippines — The common legal representatives for victims (CLRVs) in the case against former president Rodrigo Duterte have called on Pre-Trial Chamber I to reject the defense’s application for leave to appeal a decision that denied the disqualification of two external lawyers, describing the request as "hasty" and legally deficient.
In a response filed on March 13, 2026, lawyers Joel Butuyan and Gilbert Andres urged the Chamber to deny the defense request, arguing that it failed to meet the stringent requirements for an interlocutory appeal under Article 82(1)(d) of the Rome Statute.
The dispute stemmed from a defense motion filed on Feb. 11, 2026, seeking the disqualification of Butuyan and Andres, who were appointed by the Registry as external CLRVs in the case.
On Feb. 20, 2026, the Chamber rejected that disqualification request. The defense filed its request for leave to appeal that rejection just hours later on the same day.
In their response, Butuyan and Andres argued that the defense has not identified an appealable "issue" arising from the Impugned Decision.
They noted the Chamber’s own established jurisprudence, which defines an appealable issue as one that requires a decision for its resolution, not merely a question of disagreement.
"The bulk of the defense's arguments focus on its disagreements with the submissions of Mr. Butuyan and Mr. Andres," the filing stated. "Given this stark lack of reference to the actual, relevant parts of the impugned decision, the defense merely expresses its disagreement with the outcome of the Chamber's deliberation."
The victims’ lawyers further contend that the defense's continued challenges to the victims' choice of counsel are dilatory and unfair to the victims, who have a right to expeditious access to justice.
They noted that the confirmation of charges hearing has already been delayed for five months.
"Without having gone through the substance of the pre-trial proceedings... defense counsel has revealed a penchant, or perhaps more fittingly a strategy, for tactics that simply delay and dramatize the proceedings, before they even occur," the response reads.
The filing specifically takes issue with the defense's argument regarding potential conflicts of interest involving a team member of the external CLRVs.
The victims’ lawyers maintain that the defense has not substantiated any actual conflict under the relevant provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct for counsel.
"The defense does not substantiate how the distinction between case manager and associate of counsel... is 'artificial' based on any illustrative facets of the working roles," the document stated.
Butuyan and Andres also criticized the defense for referencing Article 64 of the Statute, which pertains to the functions of a Trial Chamber, rather than Article 57, which applies to the Pre-Trial Chamber.
They argued this indicated the defense was attempting to adjudicate trial-specific issues that have not yet arisen.
The external CLRVs also invoked Article 27 of the Code of Professional Conduct, beseeching the defense to "act in good faith, acknowledge when the decisions made by the Chamber are definitive and comprehensive, and refrain from further wasting the time and resources of the Court in adjudicating non-issues."