FORMER president Rodrigo Duterte has asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to require two prosecution witnesses to testify in person so his defense team can cross-examine them on allegations central to the crimes against humanity case against him.
In a filing dated Oct. 26, Duterte’s defense team opposed the prosecution’s request to introduce the previously recorded testimonies of witnesses P-1393 and P-1416 without requiring them to appear in court, arguing that their accounts involve disputed issues and require further examination.
The filing was submitted to ICC Trial Chamber III, composed of Presiding Judge Joanna Korner and Judges Keebong Paek and Nicolas Guillou.
The defense, however, did not object to the admission of the prior recorded testimony of a third witness, P-1370, under Rule 68(2)(b) of the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
The prosecution’s application seeks to introduce the three witnesses’ recorded statements as part of efforts to streamline the trial proceedings.
Duterte’s lawyers argued that allowing the statements of P-1393 and P-1416 without cross-examination could prejudice the former president’s right to a fair trial, particularly because their accounts touch on allegations of a policy to neutralize suspected criminals through violent acts.
The defense said P-1393’s testimony included allegations linking Duterte to payments allegedly made to police officers in connection with killings. It argued that the witness relied on information from third parties rather than personal knowledge of the events and that his account contained inconsistencies and contradictions.
The defense also questioned the reliability of P-1393’s statements, saying the witness did not personally see the death of the relative whose killing he discussed. His account of the incident and the alleged motives behind it was based on information he said he received from other people.
Duterte’s lawyers further objected to the prosecution’s attempt to introduce documents associated with P-1393’s testimony, arguing that the witness had not sufficiently explained their contents during his interview.
The defense likewise sought to question P-1416, whose recorded statement concerns an incident covered by Count 3 of the charges against Duterte.
They said P-1416’s account addressed the circumstances surrounding the victims’ deaths, including his alleged observations of their bodies and bullet wounds and his attribution of the killings to police officers purportedly acting for financial gain.
The defense argued that this testimony raises questions that cannot be adequately resolved without questioning him in court.
It also cited discrepancies between his account and another witness’ testimony concerning the same incident.
Duterte’s lawyers said P-1416 was particularly important because his account contained information that other witnesses identified by the prosecution could not independently provide.
The defense maintained that the prosecution’s reliance on other witnesses to address inconsistencies would not be an adequate substitute for cross-examining P-1416 himself.
Under Rule 68(2)(b), the ICC may allow previously recorded testimony to be admitted in the absence of a witness, subject to specified requirements.
The defense argued that the provision must be applied cautiously, particularly when the evidence concerns matters central to the charges and the accused has no opportunity to challenge the witness’ account.
The filing acknowledged the trial chamber’s interest in limiting hearing hours, especially in view of Duterte’s age and frailty, but maintained that procedural efficiency must not compromise his right to defend himself effectively.
The chamber has yet to rule on the defense’s request.
