VICE President Sara Duterte has already accepted that the case against her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, will continue at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Duterte is jailed at The Hague for three counts of crimes against humanity due to his war on drugs.
The trial has been raffled off to Trial Chamber III and is expected to begin by October at the earliest.
In an interview with vlogger Alvin & Tourism on Monday after her visit to her father, Duterte said they have accepted that the case will go into trial soon after the jurisdiction was reached.
“We don’t see any way that the ICC will let go of the case of President Duterte since it is only one of two ICC cases. So we don’t think that they will let this go,” the vice president said.
She added that “the best way to move forward” is to prepare for time.
Duterte said her father “looked well and healthy” and does not have any problems, but she suggested to him to go into physiotherapy.
“He refused physiotherapy, so we’ll see tomorrow if we can convince him to do physiotherapy in lieu of his supposed everyday exercise,” Duterte said.
She also thanked the supporters of her father for their “undying love” for him and keeping the faith.
Duterte returned to The Hague for the first time since the confirmation of charges of the former president held last March.
This week, prosecutors and lawyers representing victims at the ICC pressed judges to reject a defense bid to appeal the confirmation of charges against Duterte, arguing the application is legally deficient and risks delaying proceedings.
In separate filings before Pre-Trial Chamber I, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Common Legal Representatives of the Victims (CLRV) said the defense failed to satisfy the cumulative requirements for interlocutory appeal under Article 82(1)(d) of the Rome Statute. Both submissions maintained that the issues raised do not significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the case, nor would immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber materially advance proceedings.
The prosecution, in a 12-page response, said the defense “misrepresents” the chamber’s confirmation decision and merely expresses disagreement with its reasoning.
The filing challenged the defense’s objections to the chamber’s so-called “flexible approach” in defining the scope of the charges and its alleged failure to provide a reasoned evidentiary basis. Prosecutors said the chamber properly delineated the case using temporal and geographic parameters, consistent with Appeals Chamber jurisprudence, including rulings in large-scale cases such as Bosco Ntaganda.
They noted that the chamber had determined a “broad approach... through illustrative examples of relevant incidents may indeed be necessary,” given the scale of the alleged crimes — described as a widespread attack involving numerous killings over an extended period across a large territory.
On the evidentiary issue, prosecutors said the confirmation decision explicitly cited witnesses and supporting material, stressing that the purpose of confirmation proceedings is to determine whether there are “substantial grounds to believe” the accused committed the crimes, not to resolve every evidentiary matter.
“The defense thus expresses its mere disagreement with the Chamber’s approach,” the prosecution said.
The Office of the Prosecutor also took aim at public remarks by Duterte’s counsel, accusing the defense team of attempting to undermine the court’s legitimacy. It cited statements made in multiple media interviews on April 22, 2026 — before the confirmation ruling was issued — in which counsel described the ICC as a “partisan political body” and suggested its judges were motivated by a desire to “generate work for themselves and justify the court’s budget.” Counsel was also quoted as saying that appearing before the court felt like “banging your head against the wall,” and that proceedings were shaped by “political dimensions... beyond your control.” Prosecutors called the remarks “offensive and categorically false,” saying they violate Article 24(1) of the Code of Professional Conduct for Counsel. The filing added that the same defense team had already been reminded twice by the chamber of its professional obligations.
“These comments undermine the legitimacy of the court and contribute to the significant disinformation campaign surrounding this case in the Philippines,” the prosecution said, warning that such statements could discourage witnesses and victims from participating.
In a separate submission dated May 4, 2026, the CLRV echoed the prosecution’s position, describing the defense application as a repetition of arguments already raised and dismissed during confirmation proceedings.
“The defense fails to identify any issue that satisfies the requirements of article 82(1)(d) of the Rome Statute,” the victims’ lawyers said. “Rather than raising a discrete legal question warranting interlocutory review, the request reiterates arguments already fully considered and rejected... and reflects nothing more than the defense’s disagreement.” The defense had filed its request for leave to appeal on April 29, seeking review of two issues: whether the chamber erred in law by adopting a broad or “flexible” approach in defining the charges, and whether it failed to articulate a reasoned evidentiary basis for confirming them.
Victims’ representatives argued that neither issue meets the statutory threshold. On the first, they said the defense “does not identify any error of law,” noting that established jurisprudence recognizes that specificity in charges is “context-dependent,” particularly in cases involving large-scale criminality and indirect liability such as co-perpetration.
The CLRV also said the chamber correctly distinguished between the prompt-notice requirement under Article 67(1)(a) and the delineation of charges for trial under Article 74(2), rejecting the defense’s attempt to conflate the two standards.
On the second issue, the victims’ lawyers said the defense “mischaracterizes both the confirmation decision and the applicable legal standard,” emphasizing that confirmation proceedings involve a holistic assessment rather than an exhaustive accounting of every piece of evidence.
“The defense’s assertion that the chamber was required to link each factual finding to specific items of evidence reflects an incorrect understanding,” the filing stated.
The CLRV further rejected claims that the chamber failed to consider arguments on the absence of a common plan, noting that judges had expressly assessed the contextual and organizational elements of the alleged crimes.
Both the prosecution and victims’ lawyers said the defense failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would affect the fairness or outcome of the trial. They pointed out that mechanisms remain in place — including disclosure obligations and pre-trial and trial briefs — to ensure the defense can fully challenge the case.
They also warned that granting leave to appeal could fragment proceedings and cause unnecessary delay.
“Granting leave to appeal at this stage would... risk fragmenting the proceedings and causing unnecessary delay, contrary to the principle of expeditiousness,” the CLRV said.
Duterte faces charges of crimes against humanity linked to killings carried out during his anti-drug campaign, both as president and earlier as mayor of Davao City. In its confirmation decision, the chamber found substantial grounds to believe he is criminally responsible, as an indirect co-perpetrator, for murders committed under a common plan to “neutralize” individuals suspected of involvement in illegal drugs.
No timeline has been set for the chamber’s ruling on the defense request.
