ICC “Confirmation of Charges” in the Duterte Case: FAQs at the Crossroads of Law, Politics, and Philippine Sovereignty

By:  Arnedo S. Valera , Esquire

As the International Criminal Court (ICC) moves toward the confirmation of charges hearing against former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (PRRD), the Filipino nation watches closely. This case is not merely about one man—it goes beyond PRRD. At stake is nothing less than the sovereignty of the Philippine Republic and the dignity of its people within the international order.

This is both a legal contest and a political confrontation. It is a test of whether the Philippines will allow an external tribunal to dictate accountability for domestic policy decisions, or whether it will defend its constitutional independence and sovereignty. To shed light on the process and its implications, here is a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) guide, grounded in international criminal law scholarship and the chronological developments leading up to the current stage.

1. Where do things stand in the ICC proceedings against PRRD?

On 10 February 2025, the ICC Prosecutor filed a public-redacted application for a warrant of arrest under Article 58 of the Rome Statute, alleging crimes against humanity connected to the “war on drugs.”

On 12 March 2025, records show that Mr. Duterte was surrendered to the ICC and taken into custody in The Hague. This surrender—engineered by the PBBM Administration and its cohorts—remains widely condemned as a betrayal of Philippine sovereignty.

By 22 August 2025, the defense had already filed observations on the organization of the hearing, setting the stage for the confirmation of charges proceedings now scheduled.

Bottom line: The case is in the pre-trial phase, specifically the Article 61 confirmation hearing.

2. What is a “confirmation of charges” hearing?

Under Article 61 of the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor must convince the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) that there are “substantial grounds to believe” the accused committed each alleged crime.

This is not a trial on guilt or innocence. It is a screening step to determine if the case should proceed to trial. If charges are not confirmed, the accused must be released.

3. How does the standard of proof work at this stage?

The ICC operates with graduated levels of proof:

“Reasonable grounds to believe” (Art. 58) → threshold for an arrest warrant.

“Substantial grounds to believe” (Art. 61(7)) → threshold at confirmation.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” (Art. 66(3)) → required for conviction at trial.

Precedents like Lubanga, Bemba, Katanga, and Mbarushimana illustrate how Pre-Trial Chambers have applied these standards.

4. How will the confirmation process unfold?

1. Disclosure of evidence. The Prosecutor files the Document Containing the Charges; the defense files its responses and counter-evidence.

2. The hearing. Conducted before the PTC, where the Prosecutor presents evidence, the defense challenges its sufficiency, and victims’ representatives may present limited concerns. PRRD, being in custody, is expected to attend in person.

3. PTC’s decision. The Chamber may:

Confirm some or all charges;

Decline to confirm (leading to release);

Adjourn and request further investigation or amendments.

5. Can the ICC dismiss the charges at this stage?

Yes. The PTC may decline to confirm charges if the Prosecutor’s showing is insufficient.

In Mbarushimana (2011), all charges were dismissed at confirmation, and the suspect was released.

In Katanga and Ngudjolo, only some charges survived.

In Bemba, charges were confirmed but the eventual conviction was overturned on appeal.

These precedents prove that dismissal is possible and legally viable at this stage.

6. What outcomes are possible in PRRD’s case?

1. Full confirmation → case proceeds to trial.

2. Partial confirmation → some counts proceed, others fall.

3. Adjournment → Prosecutor told to gather more evidence.

4. Non-confirmation (dismissal) → PRRD must be released.

The defense team of PRRD, backed by Filipino legal scholars and practitioners, is fully prepared to demonstrate that the Prosecutor’s case lacks the evidentiary strength required.

7. Why is this hearing a sovereignty issue for the Philippines?

While the ICC frames this as a matter of accountability, Filipinos see it as an erosion of national sovereignty.

The PBBM Administration’s surrender of PRRD to The Hague was a political decision, not a legal necessity. By legitimizing this surrender, the Marcos government undermined the Philippines’ constitutional independence and exposed its own people to external jurisdiction.

Thus, the Filipino nation stands united in condemning this betrayal, calling on the ICC to respect the Philippines’ sovereignty and recognize that accountability for domestic policies lies within Philippine institutions—not foreign tribunals.

8. How should Filipinos and the international community view this case?

As a legal test of the ICC’s threshold standards.

As a political issue of sovereignty, where the Marcos administration has capitulated to foreign pressure.

As a national cause, where Filipinos rally to support PRRD’s defense, not just for him personally, but for the principle of independence and self-determination.

9. What is the role of the Filipino people at this stage?

Filipinos are urged to:

Support PRRD’s legal team in presenting the strongest legal strategies for dismissal;

Condemn the political maneuvering of the PBBM administration;

Uphold the call for Philippine sovereignty to be respected by the ICC.

The ICC’s confirmation of charges hearing is not the end, but the beginning of a larger battle—one fought in both legal chambers and in the hearts of the Filipino nation.

Whether the charges are dismissed, confirmed, or adjourned, the principle at stake is far greater than PRRD’s fate: it is the sovereignty of the Philippine Republic itself.

As history has shown in other ICC cases, dismissal is possible. The defense of PRRD must therefore be robust, grounded in law, and fortified by the political will of the Filipino people.#

 

Atty. Arnedo S. Valera is  a Co- Executive Director / Founder of the Global Migrant Heritage Foundation and Managing Attorney of Valera & Associates, a U.S. immigration and anti-discrimination law firm he has led for more than 32 years. He is a Bew York and Philippine Attorney.  He is a Ford Foundation and Asia Foundation Scholar, holding a master’s degree in International Affairs and International Law and Human Rights from Columbia University, New York, with further training at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. He earned his Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo de Manila University and his AB in Philosophy from the University of Santo Tomas. A committed educator, he serves as a professor at the San Beda Graduate School of Law (LLM Program), teaching International Security and Alliances. He is also a columnist writer for Inquirer.net and a pro-bono attorney for several nonprofit organizations in the United States.