BY ALEX ALAGON
THE LEAD defense counsel for former President Rodrigo Duterte accused the Marcos administration of covertly orchestrating his client’s “unconstitutional” arrest.
Addressing the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I on Tuesday, Kaufman alleged the existence of a covertly recorded telephone call that proves a “scheme” to funnel witnesses to The Hague while providing President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. with “plausible deniability.”
Kaufman claimed the defense recently received a transcript—disclosed by the prosecution as “exonerating evidence”—detailing a conversation between four unidentified parties.
According to Kaufman, one party boasted of being a “silent partner” to President Marcos Jr., managing the delivery of witnesses to the ICC despite the President’s public “cast-iron undertaking” that the Philippine government would not assist the court.
“President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. set out to neutralize Rodrigo Duterte and his legacy,” Kaufman told the court, pointedly using the prosecution’s own terminology.
‘Cherry-picked’ rhetoric
The defense dismissed the prosecution’s case as being built on “political demagoguery” and “spicy gossip” rather than forensic reality. Kaufman argued that Duterte’s infamous “tough tongue” was a tool for law and order, not a mandate for murder.
The defense presented its own “speech counter,” claiming that for every one speech the prosecution uses to prove incitement, there are 3.5 speeches where Duterte explicitly ordered police to operate within the bounds of law and self-defense.
“Abuse your authority, and there will be hell to pay,” Kaufman quoted from a 2016 Duterte speech, arguing this was the “exonerating evidence” the prosecution intentionally ignored.
Attack on the investigation’s integrity
Kaufman further alleged that the entire investigation was “contaminated” from the start. He targeted ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan—who has since been disqualified from the case—accusing him of a “one-track crusade” and failing to disclose prior ties to witnesses as a private lawyer in 2018.
The defense painted a picture of Davao City’s transformation from a “communist outpost” to a global safety standard as the true legacy of the Duterte administration. Kaufman argued that the “Davao Model” was not a code for violence, but a blueprint for the “Selfless Public Service” that led to Duterte’s landslide 2016 victory.
As the four-day confirmation of charges hearing continues, the defense maintains that without Duterte’s “bombastic rhetoric,” there would be no case.
AS THE International Criminal Court (ICC) began its hearing to confirm charges against former President Rodrigo Duterte on Feb. 23, a veteran Davao journalist stepped forward to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of a key piece of video evidence.
The hearing aims to determine if “substantial grounds” exist to try the 80-year-old former leader for crimes against humanity. Central to the prosecution’s opening was a 2013 video involving the killing of three alleged thieves at the Agdao Public Market in Davao City.
Context vs. contention
ICC prosecutors alleged that the footage shows Duterte “gloating” over the killings, suggesting the perpetrators—purported members of the “Davao Death Squad” (DDS)—acted with impunity under his orders.
However, veteran Davao journalist Ben Tesiorna, posting under his Facebook name Aeson Anroiset, contested this narrative.
Tesiorna, who was present at the time of the original recording, clarified that the context of the video had nothing to do with endorsing extrajudicial killings.
“I took that video myself and nowhere in the video was FPRRD [Duterte] gloating about the killing,” Tesiorna stated in a comment on a national media outlet’s report. “He was very proud of the high-tech CCTVs installed that can zoom into several meters—that was more than a decade ago.”
Tesiorna’s claim suggests that Duterte’s recorded reaction was directed at the city’s technological capabilities rather than the violence itself.
This development aligns with the strategy of Duterte’s lead defense counsel, Atty Nick Kaufman, who accused the prosecution of “cherry-picking” rhetoric to fit a narrative of state-sponsored violence. The defense is expected to use Tesiorna’s statement to argue that the prosecution is building its case on “contextual misrepresentations.”
Deputy prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang continues to maintain that Duterte oversaw a “common plan” to neutralize alleged criminals.
The prosecution argues that the lack of resolution in cases like the Agdao killings is proof of a systematic shield of protection for the DDS.
Status of the hearing
Duterte remains in custody at the ICC Detention Center in Scheveningen. While he waived his right to attend the four-day proceedings in person, his legal team remains active in challenging the court’s jurisdiction and the validity of the evidence.
Presiding Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc is expected to conclude the confirmation of charges hearing on Feb. 27.
The three-judge panel of the Pre-Trial Chamber I will then have 60 days to confirm the charges for a full trial, decline the charges, effectively halting the case, or request additional evidence.
