DEFENSE lawyers for former President Rodrigo Duterte launched a vigorous challenge against International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutors on Thursday, arguing that the case lacks a “smoking gun” linking the former leader to a specific policy of extrajudicial killings.
During a pre-confirmation hearing, lead defense counsel Nicholas Kaufman asserted that the prosecution had failed to provide evidence of a direct order from Duterte to kill any of the 78 alleged victims cited in the case.
Kaufman argued that if the prosecution’s “insider witnesses” truly possessed proof of a state-sanctioned murder plot, those details would have been explicitly reflected in the formal charges.
“If there were a specific order to murder, it would have been clearly stated,” Kaufman told the chamber.
He further contended that the prosecution is attempting to build a narrative based on a “pattern of murder” using outdated public statements that fall outside the legal timeframe of the ICC’s investigation.
Defining ‘Neutralization’
A central point of the defense’s argument focused on the linguistic interpretation of operational terms used by the Philippine National Police (PNP) during the “War on Drugs.”
Kaufman pushed back against the prosecution’s assertion that the term “neutralize” was a coded instruction for execution.
He stressed that the word is a standard tactical term that can mean arrest, surrender, or the legitimate use of force in self-defense, depending on the operational context.
“The term ‘neutralize’ should not automatically be equated to ‘murder,'” Kaufman stated, urging the court to consider the professional and legal definitions of the word rather than a purely “criminal” interpretation.
Procedural Status
The defense’s arguments are part of the pre-confirmation phase, where judges must decide if there is “sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe” that Duterte committed the crimes against humanity alleged by the prosecution.
The ICC proceedings remain ongoing. If the court finds the prosecution’s evidence insufficient or the defense’s arguments on the lack of a “direct order” compelling, the case may fail to proceed to a full trial.
