THE DEFENSE counsel for former President Rodrigo Duterte formally asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to reject a specific prosecution report submitted as evidence under a rule allowing prior-recorded witness statements.
In a public redacted filing dated Nov. 2, lead counsel Peter Haynes, KC, submitted the response to ICC Trial Chamber III in the case of The Prosecutor v. Rodrigo Roa Duterte.
The ICC Prosecution had filed a motion under Rule 68(2)(b) seeking to introduce the previously recorded testimony of three witnesses—identified as P-0024, P-1357, and P-1359—along with associated materials, without requiring them to testify in person.
While the defense took no stance on admitting the written statements of the three witnesses directly through the expedited procedure, it raised strong objections to the admission of associated report PHL-OTP-0003-0886, linked to witness P-1357.
The defense argued that witness P-1357’s testimony is peripheral because she does not substantively address the report’s underlying research, allegations, or findings. Furthermore, the filing noted that other prosecution witnesses are expected to testify on alleged killings in Davao.
Central to the defense’s argument is that merely referring to a document does not constitute a valid legal foundation for admitting it as evidence.
The filing stressed that a witness must meaningfully discuss a document’s contents for it to be admitted alongside a prior statement under Rule 68(2)(b).
The defense indicated it does not intend to cross-examine witnesses P-0024 or P-1357, while maintaining its objections to the documentary evidence attached.
The filing did not specify whether the defense plans to cross-examine P-1359.
Highlighting Duterte’s health, the defense noted that while it supports measures to expedite proceedings, “particularly in light of Mr. Duterte’s age and frailty,” procedural efficiency must not compromise his right to a fair defense.
“Procedural efficiency must not come at the expense of his fundamental right to defend himself effectively,” Haynes wrote, requesting that Trial Chamber III judges reject the admission of the report under Rule 68(2)(b).
