MANILA, Philippines — Defense lawyers for former president Rodrigo Duterte on Thursday questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses at the confirmation of charges hearing before the International Criminal Court (ICC), arguing that unreliable testimony, hearsay accounts, and internal inconsistencies in statements failed to meet the evidentiary threshold required to move the case to trial.
As proceedings resumed, defense counsel Nicholas Kaufman told judges that many of the prosecution’s so-called insider witnesses were self-confessed criminals whose cooperation was secured through “limited use” agreements—arrangements that prevent their self-incriminating statements from being used against them in ICC proceedings.
Kaufman said such agreements were intended to help investigators pursue leads or develop additional evidence, but should not serve as the primary basis for establishing criminal liability against a suspect.
He argued that relying heavily on these witnesses, whose testimonies were allegedly uncorroborated by external evidence, undermined the prosecution’s attempt to link Duterte to the 49 incidents cited in the Document Containing the Charges.
According to the defense, several weaknesses recur across the prosecution’s evidence, including statements based on second- or third-hand information, inconsistencies between witness accounts and official police or forensic records, and, in some cases, the inability to identify alleged victims—factors which, Kaufman said, hinder the defense’s ability to conduct its own inquiries.
He also pointed to conflicting testimonies describing the same incidents, noting that discrepancies in key details such as the number of victims, the method of killing, and the timeline of events called into question the reliability of the accounts presented to the court.
In one incident cited by the prosecution, Kaufman said witnesses differed on the year the killing occurred, the number of victims involved, and how alleged authorization for the operation was conveyed—differences he described as affecting the “core factual matrix” of the allegation rather than peripheral details.
The defense further argued that no witness had testified to hearing Duterte issue a direct order to kill, with allegations of authorization often attributed to unnamed superiors or conveyed through intermediaries, raising doubts about the existence of a clear chain of command required to establish indirect perpetration.
Kaufman maintained that when examined individually, the 49 incidents do not cumulatively strengthen the prosecution’s case but instead reveal recurring evidentiary weaknesses that fall below the “substantial grounds” standard under Article 61(7) of the Rome Statute.
While acknowledging that drug-related violence occurred during the period covered by the charges, the defense said the prosecution must still demonstrate that each alleged killing was unlawful and attributable to Duterte under a recognized mode of liability.
Without corroborated testimony or direct linkage to the former president, Kaufman argued, the prosecution’s evidence remained insufficient to support confirmation of charges at this stage of the proceedings.