The International Criminal Court (ICC) has rejected the plea of former president Rodrigo Duterte’s defense team to tighten the rules on the identity verification of participating drug‑war victims in his trial for crimes against humanity by limiting acceptable identification documents to either a passport or a National ID.

In a 20‑page decision promulgated on 17 April, the ICC Pre‑Trial Chamber (PTC) I said the ICC Registry, which suggested that government‑issued IDs must be accepted as identity requirements, has “provided sufficient information regarding each document that it proposes to accept as proof of identity for victim applicants.”

This includes a birth certificate, senior‑citizen and PWD cards, barangay certificate, driver’s license, NBI clearance, SSS card, GSIS card, passport, and National ID, among others.

“This information, together with the procedure for admission of victims to participate in the proceedings adopted above, already ensures the ‘reliability of the identity verification process and significantly reduces the risk of fraud’,” the decision signed by the three judges of PTC I read.

“In light of these considerations, the Chamber accepts the documents proposed by the Registry as proof of identity for applicants and those acting on their behalf,” it added.

The ruling outright denied Duterte’s camp’s bid to restrict the types of ID that victims or their kin may submit to the court.

Duterte’s lead legal counsel, Nicholas Kaufman, earlier petitioned PTC I to limit identification requirements to passports and National IDs to reduce the risk of fraud.

The British‑Israeli lawyer asserted that a “more stringent approach” could prevent misidentification, double‑counting, and the inclusion of false victims, which may lead to unnecessary and time‑consuming litigation.

A previous court record showed that the Registry allowed the submission of a wide range of IDs for victim applicants, citing the backlog in National ID distribution in the Philippines. But Kaufman opposed it, arguing that a non‑sequential list or using varied and insufficiently verified IDs “unjustifiably” expands the identification process.

Kaufman’s proposal drew flak, particularly from lawyers of drug‑war victims, who called it “anti‑poor” and “ignorant,” noting that most indirect victims — or relatives of the drug‑war casualties — lack the financial means to produce such documents.

ICC assistant to counsel Kristina Conti branded it a clear‑cut attempt to reduce the number of victims participating in Duterte’s trial.

The 80‑year‑old Duterte has been in the ICC’s custody since he was arrested on 11 March in Manila. He faces a single charge of crimes against humanity for 43 extrajudicial killings in the drug war between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019, including those executed by the Davao Death Squad when he was Davao City mayor.

The government logged more than 6,000 deaths related to the anti‑narcotics campaign during his presidency alone. Human‑rights organizations, however, estimate the actual death toll may have exceeded 30,000, affecting predominantly low‑income families and communities.

Aside from the strict ID requirement, Kaufman also asked that drug‑war victims be represented solely by the Office of Public Counsel for Victims, contrary to the Registry’s proposal allowing the victims’ original lawyers to make submissions until common legal counsel is finalized.

Kaufman feared that allowing this would lead to “twice the number of submissions” of evidence to the ICC, which PTC I granted.

“While mindful of the need to protect the interests of victim applicants even before the appointment of (common) legal representatives, the Chamber finds it premature to allow ‘lawyers who were appointed by applicants, in victim application forms for participation or through powers of attorney, to make submissions before the Chamber until common legal representation in the Case has been decided',” the same ruling read.

Meanwhile, PTC I has given the prosecution until 1 July to complete disclosure of the evidence it intends to rely on at the confirmation‑of‑charges hearing set for 23 September, including all witness statements, their translations, and any exculpatory material identified so far.

The Chamber reminded that evidence disclosed should be “of true relevance to the case and capable of supporting a particular factual allegation underlying the requisite legal elements.”

Prosecutor Karim Khan previously informed PTC I that the evidence to be presented includes at least two witnesses, 16 hours of audio and video files, and nearly 9,000 pages of written materials.

Khan noted that these represent only a portion of the evidence, as the prosecution is still reviewing its materials before disclosing the actual volume to PTC I.