An International Criminal Court (ICC) trial on crimes against humanity charges against former President Rodrigo Duterte, estimated by some to last eight to 10 years, could become a prolonged and divisive issue.

The current debates on the proceedings had former presidential chief legal counsel Salvador Panelo squaring off with retired Supreme Court Senior Associate justice Antonio Carpio.

The defense, Panelo claimed, had effectively countered the prosecution’s evidence.

Panelo attended the proceedings at the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I at The Hague, where lead defense counsel Nicholas Kaufman presented his arguments challenging the prosecution’s case.

“For us, the problem is this court has assumed jurisdiction when there is none,” Panelo said, citing the principle of complementarity under the Rome Statute.

He questioned why the confirmation process continued despite the defense raising jurisdictional concerns and worried that the court may have “prejudged the case.”

Panelo also disputed the prosecution’s reliance on police documents to establish an alleged coordination between Duterte and the Philippine National Police (PNP) in carrying out the anti-drug campaign.

Only arrest, not kill

He specifically addressed the prosecution’s reference to Command Memorandum Circular 16-2016 signed on 1 July 2016 by then PNP chief Ronald dela Rosa, Duterte’s first full day in office.

According to Panelo, the circular itself directed police officers to conduct arrests in accordance with the law, contradicting the prosecution claim that it was a directive to kill.

“The very document presented to show murderous intent and the so-called community or conspiracy between the president and the PNP has been rebutted as well,” he said.

Panelo criticized the prosecution’s testimonial evidence, alleging inconsistencies of witnesses and individual testimonies.

He described portions of the accounts as based on “hearsay, double hearsay, speculations, surmises.”

“The prosecution theory has been shattered to pieces,” Panelo said, summarizing his assessment of the defense’s presentation on the merits.

Asked to characterize the prosecution’s case, he responded: “In short, they fell.”

Panelo maintained that if the ICC’s ruling would be based solely on the evidence presented, the charges against Duterte should be dismissed.

A common term among cops

For its part, the prosecution linked official police directives to Duterte’s anti-drug campaign that resulted in the commission of crimes that fall under the court’s jurisdiction.

Contrary to the argument raised by the defense, “neutralization” is a “common term” among police and military personnel, which inherently means “to kill,” Carpio said Friday.

The legal luminary weighed in on the issue after the term “neutralize” became a point of contention between the ICC prosecutors and the Duterte defense team.