FORMER president Rodrigo Duterte has waived his right to attend the upcoming confirmation of charges hearing against him before the International Criminal Court (ICC), citing poor health, old age and his continued rejection of the court’s jurisdiction.
In a filing made public on Thursday, Duterte’s lead counsel, Nicholas Kaufman, submitted the request to Pre-Trial Chamber I, along with a personal statement from the former president dated Feb. 17.
The hearing to confirm charges against Duterte related to the ICC investigation into his “war on drugs” is scheduled for Feb. 23-27. The first hearing is set for Monday, 5 p.m. Manila time.
The defense filing said that while Duterte had previously indicated his desire to waive attendance, the Chamber required a written request “personally executed” by the suspect himself.
The filing stated that Duterte is “not now capable of ‘personally executing’ anything” due to his medical condition.
The document referenced medical evaluations conducted by experts, including those appointed by the ICC’s own panel of experts, noting that Duterte’s visuospatial skills are “impaired” and that he received a score of “0” for language fluency during neurological tests.
The defense argued that these conditions render him unable to draft the legally reasoned document the Chamber sought.
To satisfy the requirement, the defense said on Feb. 16, Duterte dictated his reasoning to his legal team. The statement was transcribed, read back to him for approval and signed on Feb. 17.
‘I do not recognize the jurisdiction’
In the attached personal statement, Duterte wrote that he understands the consequences of waiving his right to be present and states that he trusts his legal team to challenge the prosecution’s evidence on his behalf.
He added that he does not wish to follow the proceedings remotely.
Duterte used the statement to reiterate his fundamental objection to the proceedings, writing, “I do not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over my person.” He described his transfer to The Hague as a “kidnapping,” alleging he was “forcibly pushed into a jet” in violation of the Philippine Constitution and national sovereignty, facilitated by the current Philippine administration.
He also denied the allegations against him, calling the claim that he oversaw a policy of extrajudicial killings an “outrageous lie” peddled by political opponents.
Citing his frailty, Duterte explained his decision to stay away from the courtroom. “I do not wish to attend legal proceedings that I will forget within minutes. I am old, tired and frail. I wish for this Court to respect my peace inside the cell it has placed me,” the statement said.
The filing included a reproduction of the signed waiver and concludes with a personal message from Duterte to his supporters, asserting his love for and loyalty to the Filipino nation.
Malacañang, meanwhile, brushed off Duterte’s claim that the government enabled his “kidnapping.” Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro, in a press conference, insisted that the former leader’s arrest and turnover to the ICC were all done within the bounds of the law.
“The turnover of former President Duterte to the ICC, or The Hague, was according to law. RA (Republic Act) 9851, Section 17, clearly states that when a case or a complaint is already being heard in a state or international tribunal or court, the government may dispense any investigation and let the investigation continue in the said state or international tribunal. And that is what was done,” she said in Filipino, referring to the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity.
Duterte was apprehended by virtue of an arrest warrant coursed through the International Crime Police Organization (Interpol) on March 11, 2025.
Castro said that while the state agrees that the ICC does not have jurisdiction “right now,” there are “other legal options.”
“So, now, there is a law that is being implemented which is RA 9851, and our obligation is to the Interpol. We may not recognize that the ICC has jurisdiction now, at this time, but the ICC has jurisdiction over actions that occurred when we were still members. And we cannot avoid that because this administration has a residual obligation,” she said.