The International Criminal Court (ICC) on Friday granted former president Rodrigo Duterte’s request to skip his four-day confirmation of charges hearing starting on Monday, 23 February, despite vehement objections from the prosecution and counsel for the victims of his bloody drug war. 

Judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber I invoked Article 61(2)(a) of the Rome Statute, which allows them to hold a pre-trial hearing in the absence of the accused if the latter waived his right to be present.

“This applies to all sessions of the hearing on the confirmation of charges” scheduled from 23, 24, 26, and 27 February, according to the chamber’s decision. 

This waiver, however, is “strictly limited” to Duterte’s attendance on the given dates, and subsequent requests, including skipping the annual hearing on detention, convened on 27 February, shall have separate filings.

The ruling follows a move by ICC prosecutors to shoot down Duterte’s bid to waive his attendance, asserting that he is “not entitled to unilaterally excuse himself,” and such a decision rests solely with the tribunal.

Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang did not buy Duterte’s alibi that he is already “old, tired, and frail” to attend the proceedings, insisting that the 80-year-old ex-leader is “fit, competent, and physically and mentally able to attend the hearing in person.”

“The state of Mr. Duterte’s health has been comprehensively examined and litigated before this chamber...It has done so with the benefit of extensive independent medical evidence and expert opinion,” the prosecution’s submission dated 19 February reads.

“As the panel of experts concluded, unanimously, Mr. Duterte is an unreliable historian in regard to [the] assessment of his health and mental fitness,” it added.

'No compelling reason' to allow Duterte to skip hearing

As a result, Niang firmly rejected Duterte’s claims of being old and sick as “irrelevant,” adding that there is “no compelling reason” that would justify his absence in the courtroom on the confirmation of charges hearing. 

The pre-trial hearing was originally set on 23 September, but hit a major roadblock after Duterte’s lawyers petitioned the court to indefinitely postpone the proceedings on the grounds that he is old and sick, making him unfit to stand trial. 

In previous proceedings, the ICC had allowed prosecutors to present their evidence in the absence of the suspect. 

This was primarily the case of Joseph Kony, commander-in-chief of the Lord’s Resistance Army—a rebel group that allegedly abducted children and women and forcibly recruited them into the group.

In September last year, the ICC authorized the prosecutors to open the evidentiary hearing without Kony, who was only represented by his counsel during the confirmation of charges hearing.

An ICC warrant for Kony was issued as early as 2005, but he has remained at large to date, making him the ICC's longest-standing fugitive. 

He is facing 39 counts of crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, and sexual slavery, among others. Although the charges are already confirmed, a full-blown trial will not roll without Kony’s presence in the court. 

Less than a week before the confirmation of charges hearing, Duterte furnished the court with a letter stating that he would waive his attendance and would not wish to follow the proceedings outside the courtroom, unfazed by the potential legal consequences of his actions. 

His rationale: the ICC has no jurisdiction over his case as early as 2019, following the Philippines withdrawal as a state party to the Rome Statute, the tribunal’s founding treaty. 

Duterte 'kidnapped'

Thus, the Philippines turning him over to the ICC in The Hague, Netherlands, was a “kidnapping,” facilitated by his successor, President Marcos Jr. 

Moreover, Duterte vehemently denied responsibility for the alleged extrajudicial killings tied to his bloody anti-drug campaign, accusing his “political opponents” of long peddling such an “outrageous lie.” 

The prosecution team, however, pointed out that his continued rejection of the ICC’s jurisdiction does not automatically give consent to his non-attendance from the pre-trial hearing. 

“Thus, the fact that he does ‘not wish to attend’ should be given minimal weight in the hamber’s decision on this matter,” Niang averred.

Furthermore, the prosecutor believes that there is a strong need for the chamber to dismiss Duterte’s bid in consideration of the victims of his drug war, who have long cried for justice.

“The Defence itself acknowledged the importance of this principle as recently as 9 January 2026, when it complained again that Mr. Duterte had ‘not been seen in court for ten months.’ Mr. Duterte’s sudden heel-turn on this matter now, days before he is due to face the substantive criminal charges made against him, should be rejected by the chamber,” Niang concluded. 

Duterte is facing three counts of murder for crimes against humanity over the killings recorded between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019, spanning his time as Davao City mayor and as president.

After a five-month delay, Duterte is set face the judges of the PTC-I anew next week, almost a year after his arrest in Manila on 11 March 2025, to determine if the charges brought against him are sufficient to proceed to a full-blown trial.

The prosecution has admitted 1,242 evidentiary items gathered between 11 September 2025 and 29 January this year to bolster its case against Duterte.