Duterte fit for ICC trial, victims’ lawyer feels relief

ILOILO CITY — A lawyer for victims of the Duterte administration’s drug war expressed relief over the International Criminal Court’s ruling that former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is fit to stand trial for alleged crimes against humanity.

Kristina Conti, assistant to counsel at the ICC, told the ABS-CBN News Channel on Monday that the ruling brought drug war victims “one step closer to justice” and, with it, “truth and accountability.”

“For the victims, one step closer to justice. And with that, truth and accountability. It’s always two things. Duterte is the one who knows the war on drugs the best,” Conti told anchor Karen Davila.

“He is the only one who can say why [the families’ kin] died. For them, he is ready to tell the truth, and second, if he is the most responsible, he should be held accountable,” she added.

She said the prosecution’s case need not rest solely on proving that Duterte or Sen. Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, the first police chief under the Duterte administration, personally ordered each killing.

Conti outlined three possible modes of participation: issuing direct orders through a hierarchy or death squad, inducing killings through rewards or opportunities, and aiding and abetting.

She also referred to the “culture, the atmosphere, the environment” in which killings occurred as relevant to examining a leader’s role.

Her remarks concerned possible arguments in the prosecution’s case and were not findings in the ICC’s ruling on Duterte’s fitness to stand trial.

“Even with that same argument, [Dela Rosa] could say, ‘Well, I did not order specifically the killing of Kian delos Santos,’” she said, referring to the 17-year-old from Caloocan whose 2017 killing became one of the drug war’s best-known cases.

Delos Santos was fatally shot by police during an anti-drug operation in Caloocan on Aug. 16, 2017. Three police officers were convicted of his murder in 2018.

“The argument that, ‘I did not have this [specific] person killed,’ is a defense that Duterte may raise during the trial itself. He can use that as a shield [, like,] ‘I only said to kill those who fought back. If they died, it meant that they fought back,’” she added, referring to the former president’s recurring rhetoric.

While that may be a possible defense, Conti said it may not work, given the nature and concept of crimes against humanity.

But Duterte’s admission that he sought the killing of people because they were alleged drug addicts or drug pushers may be significant.

“Crimes against humanity does not deal with the argument of, ‘You killed [persons] one, two, three, [and] four.’ That’s rare, and that’s not what crimes against humanity looks like. It’s not murder. […] There are no names, or we don’t know a majority of who died, [but] they are part of the civilian part of the population, and there is targeting against them,” she explained.

“The argument here is that the targets are drug addicts, drug pushers, or those who are accused [as such], or [anyone allegedly] part of the drug trade, so anyone who may be depicted or characterized as a drug pusher may be included in the category because they were part of the general target,” she added.

Why the ICC declared Duterte fit for trial

The ICC’s Trial Chamber III rejected the Duterte camp’s argument that he was neither physically nor mentally fit to stand trial, in a decision dated Sept. 28 and publicly released in redacted form on Oct. 8.

Duterte, 81, was arrested in Manila on March 11, 2025, on an ICC warrant and flown to The Hague, where he has been detained since.

He faces charges of murder as a crime against humanity in connection with his anti-drug campaign.

The ruling followed medical examinations by a panel of experts appointed by the chamber on June 12.

The panel submitted its reports on Aug. 21, after which the prosecution, the common legal representatives of victims, and the defense filed observations on the findings.

Duterte’s defense argued in its submission that he suffered from “significant memory impairment that prevents him from retaining recent information and reliably accessing memories.”

It asked the chamber to order additional medical examinations or, alternatively, to allow the parties to question the experts about their findings.

The experts, however, found no evidence that Duterte’s mental state or cognitive abilities had worsened, although they noted inconsistencies in his performance.

They also reported that he remained physically frail and required medical and nursing care.

The panel said Duterte’s general physical health “appears to have been optimised,” with an apparent improvement since its previous report attributed to the “high standard of medical and nursing care, including diagnostic rigor and pharmacological rationalization.”

Although his cognitive test scores indicated significant impairment, the experts expressed reservations about their validity because of inconsistencies and signs of underperformance for which they found no medical explanation.

They also said they could not rule out mild or early-stage cognitive issues but found no reliable evidence from formal testing that reduced memory would prevent him from participating in the trial.

The chamber said the experts unanimously concluded that Duterte could understand the charges, the purpose and consequences of the proceedings, and the evidence, as well as follow the proceedings and instruct counsel in the preparation and conduct of his defense.

The ICC’s standard for determining fitness to stand trial focuses on a defendant’s ability to exercise fair-trial rights, rather than simply on whether a medical condition exists.

“The question of whether an accused is fit to stand trial does not depend, in and of itself, on whether he or she has particular medical conditions, but whether he or she [can] effectively exercise his or her fair trial rights in the proceedings,” the decision stated.

Court rejects further tests, expert questioning

The chamber rejected the defense’s request for additional medical examinations, saying the experts had discretion to decide which tests were necessary to assist the court in determining Duterte’s fitness.

While further testing might clarify some diagnoses, the panel unanimously assessed that Duterte could understand the charges, proceedings, and evidence without additional examinations.

It also rejected the defense’s request to question the experts, noting that the defense had not presented evidence contradicting or undermining their findings.

The chamber further dismissed the argument that Duterte needed to personally review every item of the extensive evidence for his lawyers to obtain meaningful instructions.

The defense had pointed to hundreds of pages of witness interviews and transcripts, hundreds of hours of video footage, and thousands of other items of evidence.

“Processing the wealth of information inherent in trial proceedings is primarily the role of Defence Counsel,” the decision stated.

The chamber also noted that Duterte was represented by highly experienced lawyers who, with their assistance, could help him understand the evidence and instruct them throughout the trial.

Court orders accommodations and health monitoring

Despite declaring Duterte fit for trial, the chamber directed the ICC Registry to arrange accommodations addressing his medical needs.

These include hearing support, care related to food, rest, and exercise, and nursing staff available during breaks to assist with medication and care.

The medical panel also recommended breaks every hour and hearings that begin no earlier than 11 a.m. in The Hague.

The chamber, however, said hearing schedules should be assessed case by case, taking into account the circumstances of individual witnesses, including those testifying by video link from the Philippines.

The court ordered continuous monitoring of Duterte’s health and said the parties could seek a reassessment if his medical condition changed.

Duterte’s trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 30.

The ruling clears the way for proceedings to continue on the basis that he can exercise his fair-trial rights.

The prosecution must still prove the charges against him.