The camp of drug war victims has strongly opposed a bid by former president Rodrigo Duterte’s defense to appeal the confirmed charges of crimes against humanity of murder against him by the International Criminal Court Pre-Trial Chamber I, asserting that it would only cause “unnecessary delay” to the proceedings already nearing the trial stage.

In a 12-page submission dated 4 May, the common legal representatives of the victims (CLRV) argued that there is no need for immediate intervention by the Appeals Chamber as sought by the defense, as the legal issues raised can be addressed during the course of the trial proceedings “without the need for interlocutory review.”

“Even where some degree of ambiguity is assumed, this would not warrant immediate appellate intervention. Any such matters can be effectively managed at the trial stage through established procedural mechanisms, including trial management, decisions, disclosure obligations, and the submission of briefs,” read the filing signed by lawyers Paolina Massidda, Gilbert Andres, and Joel Butuyan.

Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang raised the same concern, claiming that the defense’s bid merely indicates its “disagreement” with the decision, thereby failing to meet the cumulative criteria for leave to appeal under the rules of the Rome Statute.

Under the ICC’s rules, not all decisions are automatically appealable; some require parties to first seek the court's permission.

The twin petitions follow a request by Duterte’s lead counsel, Nicholas Kaufman, seeking the ICC’s permission to allow them to appeal the 23 April ruling by the PTC I, which paved the way for Duterte’s prosecution for crimes against humanity tied to his deadly drug war. 

Kaufman cited two grounds in contesting the unanimous decision, one of which is that the chamber “erred in law” by accepting the prosecution’s evidence “at face value” without closely examining the defense’s submissions that would substantiate claims that there was no “common plan” behind the alleged crimes.

ICC records showed that Duterte and his co-perpetrators executed a “common plan” to “neutralize” criminals in the Philippines during his stint as Davao mayor and later as president. The victims, including those perceived or alleged to be associated with drug use, sale, or production. The scheme involves systematic killings, torture, murder, and other crimes.

Kaufman asserted that the so-called “errors” undermine the very function of the confirmation of charges procedure and directly affect the fairness and expeditious conduct of the proceedings, thus warranting an immediate resolution from the Appeals Chamber or the court of last resort. 

In response, the CLRV countered that the defense failed to demonstrate that the alleged errors are capable of significantly affecting the impartiality or the outcome of the trial. Nevertheless, they said Duterte’s lawyers could contest the prosecution’s case, including the alleged lack of existence of a common plan, at a later stage or when the trial commences. 

“Granting leave to appeal at this stage would, on the contrary, risk fragmenting the proceedings and causing unnecessary delay, contrary to the principle of expeditiousness,” the CLRV argued.

In confirming all three murder charges against the ex-leader, the PTC I ruled that there are “substantial grounds” to believe that Duterte is criminally responsible for the alleged extrajudicial killings linked to his notorious drug war.

This includes the killings of 78 individuals, including six children, allegedly suspected of drug dealings from 2013 to 2018, spanning his tenure as Davao mayor and as president.

It also covered the killings by the so-called Davao Death Squad, which was founded and headed by Duterte, as alleged by prosecutors.

Duterte, 81, has been detained in the ICC custody since 11 March last year over his role as an “indirect co-perpetrator” for the said killings.

Last week, the ICC formed a new panel of judges to constitute Trial Chamber III, which will hear the case of the former president at the trial phase and determine whether he is guilty of crimes against humanity.