Former presidential chief legal counsel Salvador Panelo reiterated the defense’s objection to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction over the case against former president Rodrigo Duterte, claiming the prosecution’s evidence had been effectively countered during the confirmation of charges hearing.

Panelo, part of Duterte’s local defense team, attended proceedings before ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I in The Hague, where lead counsel Nicholas Kaufman presented 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 jurisdictional objections from the defense and expressed concern that the court may have “prejudged the case.”

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

He specifically addressed Command Memorandum Circular No. 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 directs police officers to conduct arrests according to the law, contradicting claims that it served as a directive to kill.

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

Panelo further criticized the prosecution’s testimonial evidence, alleging inconsistencies among witnesses and within 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.

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

Panelo maintained that if the ICC’s ruling is based solely on the evidence presented, the charges against Duterte should be dismissed. The prosecution, meanwhile, argued that Duterte’s anti-drug campaign was linked to official police directives and involved crimes under the court’s jurisdiction.