The International Criminal Court (ICC) has rejected an attempt by former President Rodrigo Duterte’s legal team to impose stricter rules on how the supposed “victims” of his drug war can prove their identity.
Critics of the defense team’s petition said it was apparently aimed at narrowing the pool of those allowed to testify in Duterte’s crimes against humanity trial.
In a 20-page ruling promulgated on 17 April, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I flatly denied Duterte’s request to limit acceptable IDs to just passports and National IDs.
The court affirmed the broader guidelines proposed by its Registry, which include a range of government-issued documents such as birth certificates, barangay and senior citizen IDs, driver’s licenses, NBI clearances, and social security cards, among others.
The judges said the Registry had “provided sufficient information regarding each document that it proposes to accept as proof of identity for victim applicants,” adding that the existing procedure already ensures “the reliability of the identity verification process and significantly reduces the risk of fraud.”
“In light of these considerations, the Chamber accepts the documents proposed by the Registry as proof of identity for applicants and those acting on their behalf,” the decision read.
The rejection undercuts Duterte’s defense strategy to restrict participation by “victim-survivors” and their families, many of whom come from impoverished communities and may lack formal documentation.
Duterte’s lead counsel, British-Israeli lawyer Nicholas Kaufman, had petitioned the court to enforce a “more stringent approach” by limiting IDs to only passports and National IDs.
He argued that tighter controls would help avoid misidentification, double-counting, or the inclusion of so-called “false victims,” which he said could result in unnecessary and time-consuming litigation.
But the ICC emphasized that in light of systemic delays in the distribution of the Philippine National ID, such restrictions would be unfair and impractical.
Previous court records showed the Registry had acknowledged the bottlenecks in issuing the National ID and thus allowed for a wider range of identification documents.
Kaufman’s proposal drew sharp criticism from the legal representatives of drug war victims. They said the ID limitation was not only discriminatory, but also detached from the realities of the victims’ socioeconomic status.
Many indirect victims — relatives of those supposedly killed — lack the resources to obtain high-level identification documents like passports.
Kristina Conti, assistant to counsel at the ICC and a longtime advocate for drug war victims, described the defense motion as a transparent attempt to diminish the number of victims who could participate in the proceedings. She called it “anti-poor” and “ignorant.”
Duterte, 80, has been under the ICC’s custody since his arrest on 11 March in Manila. He faces a single count of crimes against humanity in connection with 43 extrajudicial killings committed between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019, spanning his time as mayor of Davao City and his presidency.
While government data lists just over 6,000 drug-related deaths under Duterte’s presidency, rights watchdogs estimate that the real figure could exceed 30,000 — most of them from low-income communities.
Kaufman had also asked the court to limit victim representation to the ICC’s Office of Public Counsel for Victims. He opposed a Registry proposal that would allow private lawyers — who had long represented victims — to continue making submissions to the court until a common legal representative is officially appointed.
Allowing both parties to make submissions, he argued, could result in “twice the number of submissions” and complicate the court’s work.
The Pre-Trial Chamber partly sided with the defense on this point.
While it acknowledged the importance of protecting the interests of victims even before common legal representation is appointed, it ruled that it was premature to allow individual victim-appointed lawyers to submit materials to the court at this stage.
“While mindful of the need to protect the interests of victim applicants even before the appointment of [common] legal representatives, the Chamber finds it premature to allow ‘lawyers who were appointed by applicants, in victim application forms for participation or through powers of attorney, to make submissions before the Chamber until common legal representation in the Case has been decided,’” the ruling read.
In the same decision, the court gave the ICC prosecution until 1 July to complete the disclosure of its evidence ahead of the confirmation of charges hearing scheduled for 23 September. This includes the witness statements, their translations, and any exculpatory material uncovered so far.
The court emphasized that only evidence “of true relevance to the case and capable of supporting a particular factual allegation underlying the requisite legal elements” should be disclosed.
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan previously told the chamber that the prosecution’s evidence includes at least two witnesses, 16 hours of audio and video recordings, and almost 9,000 pages of documents.
He clarified that these are only part of a larger trove of materials still being reviewed.