The International Criminal Court (ICC) has granted both the prosecution and the defense’s bid to admit additional pieces of evidence, just a little over a week before the confirmation of charges hearing of former president Rodrigo Duterte’s crimes against humanity tied to his notorious bloody anti-drug campaign. 

Duterte’s lawyer, Nicholas Kaufman, sought the court’s permission to submit 78 additional pieces of evidence deemed “highly relevant” and would strengthen their defense against the murder charges brought by the prosecution. 

The prosecution reviewed and did not object to the defense’s request to admit additional evidence, but with the condition that they would also file two additional pieces of evidence. 

This would be added to the prosecution’s 1,242 in the evidentiary items that would bolster its case against Duterte, gathered between 11 September 2025 and 29 January of this year. 

Of the total items, 376 could be material for Duterte’s camp to build their defense, while nine are deemed “potentially exculpatory,” which is also an advantage to the former president in proving his innocence.

Judges of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I (PTC-I), tasked to determine whether Duterte is innocent or guilty of the crimes charged, granted the requests of both the defense and the prosecution for additional evidence, citing the lack of objection by the legal counsel of drug war victims. 

“Noting the limited extent of the requested additions, the nature of the material concerned and its relevance to the charges brought against the suspect, as well as the absence of objection from the parties and participants to both the defence’s and prosecution’s requests, the chamber considers that there is good cause to grant such requests without causing undue prejudice to either party,” the four-page decision dated 10 February reads. 

As a result, the defence and the prosecution would be given until 13 February to update the list of their respective evidence.

Duterte is set to face the judges of the PTC-I anew on 23 February, almost one year after his arrest in Manila, to determine whether the charges brought against him are sufficient enough to proceed with a full-blown trial.

Defense seeks disqualification of victims’ counsels

In the latest round of filings ahead of the pre-trial hearing, the defense petitioned the court to disqualify three legal counsels for the victims of Duterte’s drug war, citing “conflict of interest.”

Kaufman argued that ICC-appointed lawyers Joel Butuyan and Gilbert Andres approved the inclusion of Nicolene Arcaina to be part of the victim’s legal team as case manager, despite having a previous professional connection with her, which could affect the fairness of the proceedings. 

The submission alleged that Arcainia worked alongside Butuyan and Andres from March 2019 to December 2023, as a fellow and staff lawyer at CenterLaw Philippines. 

The law firm, co-founded by lawyer Harry Roque—now allied with Duterte, who also served as his spokesperson—might have previously worked with ICC prosecutors during their investigation in the Philippines involving the drug war, Kaufman said. 

Furthermore, he pointed out that as the victims’ case manager, Arcania might have gained access to sensitive information from the prosecution, in violation of Article 12 of the ICC Code of Professional Conduct for Counsel. 

The provision prohibits counsels from taking on cases that are substantially related to another case in which they or their associates represent or formerly represented, especially if they have opposing interests.

“Even if the Pre-Trial Chamber should be persuaded that there exists no impediment to representation arising out of the appointment of the three external legal representatives, a conflict of interest arises with respect to Nicolene Arcaina’s current role as a victim’s case manager and [redacted],” Kaufman argued. 

“These roles are structurally incompatible… The practical effect of [redacted] is that [redacted] may access and retain potentially exculpatory evidence or information material to the defence outside the disclosure regime, which, as shown above, is indeed the case. This clearly undermines the fairness of the proceedings,” the submission dated 11 February further reads.