The proceedings before the International Criminal Court (ICC) involving former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (FPRRD) continue to unfold with the deliberate rhythm of international criminal litigation. While passions remain high at home, in The Hague the language is not political theater but pleadings, motions and jurisdictional thresholds.

On the side of FPRRD, his legal team has included seasoned international defense counsel, among them British-Israeli barrister Nicholas Kaufman, known for handling complex ICC matters. The Office of the Prosecutor, currently headed by Karim Khan, leads the case for the prosecution, supported by career litigators trained in international humanitarian and criminal law. These names matter not for celebrity, since ICC litigation is a specialized craft. It is technical, documentary and exacting.

At this stage, the hearings are preliminary in character. The prosecution must establish reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity were committed and that FPRRD bears criminal responsibility under the modes recognized by the Rome Statute. The defense is expected to press the issues of jurisdiction and admissibility, particularly the Philippines’ withdrawal from the treaty and the principle of complementarity, which asks whether domestic mechanisms were available and genuine.

Overlaying these legal arguments is a development that deserves careful scrutiny. Eighteen former Marines have reportedly surfaced, claiming that the accommodations of ICC investigators during their work in the Philippines were funded by businessman and former congressman Zaldy Co. If true, such an arrangement raises uncomfortable questions. The ICC, by design, must not only be independent — like Caesar’s wife, it must be seen to be independent beyond reproach and beyond suspicion.

Perception, in judicial proceedings, is oxygen. Courts draw authority not from force but from legitimacy. Any suggestion that private interests, particularly those with political affiliations, underwrote logistical support for investigators risks eroding that fragile legitimacy. Even if no direct influence was exerted, the mere optics invite skepticism.

It bears stressing that allegations are not proof. The ICC has established protocols on funding, field missions and cooperation with local actors. Whether these claims withstand evidentiary scrutiny remains to be seen. But if substantiated, they will likely be weaponized by the defense to question impartiality, possibly through motions challenging prosecutorial conduct or seeking disclosure of funding arrangements.

The road ahead is long and slow. Should the Pre-Trial Chamber confirm the charges, a full trial would follow, marked by witness testimony, documentary evidence and cross-examination.

For observers, the temptation is to reduce the matter to loyalty or condemnation, which would be an error. Questions abound: Can the ICC demonstrate procedural integrity under intense political pressure? Can the defense ventilate its arguments fully? And can Filipinos separate legal standards from political narratives?

The Hague proceedings move slowly, but they move with everything on record. In that record will lie not only the fate of FPRRD, but a chapter on whether accountability, sovereignty and politics dare to intersect in the modern-day Philippines.

For comments, email him at darren.dejesus@gmail.com.