Duterte lawyer pushes ICC to tighten ID rules for drug war victims, draws criticism from victims' counsel
Lead defense counsel Nicholas Kaufman said the move would prevent fraud and ensure more reliable identification. If these IDs are unavailable, he proposed a staggered ID system, similar to that used by the Social Security System.
Kaufman warned that accepting varied and loosely verified documents could result in misidentification, duplicate entries, or false victim claims, leading to delays in the proceedings.
The ICC Registry previously allowed other government-issued IDs, citing delays in the national ID rollout. But Duterte's camp argued that this approach was vague and overly broad.
The defense also requested that only the ICC's Office of Public Counsel for Victims represent victims in court, pushing back against a Registry recommendation to allow victims' current lawyers to continue submissions while waiting for a common legal representative to be appointed.
Kaufman argued that multiple submissions would burden the defense and delay the trial, potentially violating Duterte's right to a speedy process.
Human rights lawyer Kristina Conti, who represents drug war victims, called the petition an 'anti-poor' attempt to restrict victim participation. She emphasized that many victims' relatives lack the financial means to secure the proposed identification documents.
'This is an attempt to reduce the number of participating victims,' Conti said. 'Even if there are just ten victims, the case will go on.'
She clarified that participating victims need not testify like prosecution witnesses but can offer personal perspectives, which the court considers vital.
Duterte, 80, is currently detained by the ICC after his arrest in Manila on March 11. He faces a charge of murder related to 43 extrajudicial killings from 2011 to 2019, during his presidency and term as Davao City mayor. More charges could be filed depending on additional evidence expected at the confirmation of charges hearing in September.
Duterte's camp is also seeking his temporary release before trial, a move that victim lawyers plan to oppose.
While government figures list over 6,000 deaths during the drug war, rights groups estimate the real toll could be as high as 30,000, mostly from impoverished communities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Filipino Times
2 days ago
- Filipino Times
Palace: Respect Supreme Court ruling on VP Duterte impeachment
Malacañang urged the public to respect the Supreme Court's decision declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional. Presidential Communications Office Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro said the Palace has not yet fully reviewed the ruling but emphasized the importance of upholding the judiciary's independence. 'The impeachment process is a matter handled by the legislative and judicial branches, and we recognize their independence in carrying out their constitutional mandates,' she added. The Supreme Court earlier ruled unanimously that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte violated the one-year bar rule unde Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution and infringed on her right to due process. The decision, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, stated that the high court could not acquire jurisdiction over the proceedings due to the constitutional prohibition. Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa inhibited from the case, while Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh was on leave. The case stemmed from the consolidated petition filed by Duterte, her counsel Atty. Israelito Torreon, and several others seeking to nullify the impeachment complaint filed by the House of Representatives. Supreme Court spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting clarified that while the high tribunal nullified the complaint, it is not clearing Duterte of the charges but added that 'any subsequent impeachment complaint' may only be filed starting February 6, 2026.
Filipino Times
3 days ago
- Filipino Times
PNP Chief Torre Slams Tokhang as a Flawed Strategy, Distances PNP from Duterte's Drug War
Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Gen. Nicolas Torre III openly criticized the Duterte administration's controversial anti-drug campaign, Oplan Tokhang, calling its fundamental concept flawed. Speaking at a PNP Press Corps event in Camp Crame, Torre questioned the logic behind the method, which involved knocking on suspected drug offenders' doors and pleading with them to stop illegal activities, often without concrete evidence. Torre emphasized the lack of legal grounding in the approach, pointing out that engaging suspects without solid proof undermines due process. 'Tokhang' is derived from the Cebuano words 'toktok' (knock) and 'hangyo' (plead), but the campaign has become globally controversial for its alleged links to widespread extrajudicial killings. Human rights groups estimate the death toll of Duterte's drug war to be between 12,000 and 30,000, mostly from impoverished communities. Torre also condemned efforts to minimize these numbers, particularly criticisms that the case against Duterte was weak because only 43 deaths were mentioned in the ICC arrest warrant. Calling such claims 'fake news in its cruelest form,' Torre said this kind of misinformation disrespects the families of thousands of victims. Without naming him, Torre rebuked Sen. Ronald 'Bato' dela Rosa, the first PNP chief under Duterte and a key figure in the drug war, who once dismissed a child's death during a drug raid with the remark, 'shit happens.' General Torre, who oversaw the execution of Duterte's ICC arrest warrant in March, has consistently tried to separate the current PNP leadership from the legacy of the bloody anti-drug campaign. Now that Duterte is detained at the ICC in The Hague and awaiting his confirmation of charges hearing in September, Torre has reiterated the police force's new direction—focusing on lawful arrests, not incentivized violence. He clarified that while performance-based arrest quotas have returned under his leadership, these are rooted strictly in legal procedure, not the controversial methods of the past.
The National
5 days ago
- The National
In the absence of formal accountability for Gaza atrocities, it's critical to shout the truth loudly
July 17 marked International Criminal Justice Day – commemorating the 1998 adoption of the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). For those of us working in the field of accountability – pursuing war criminals and justice for survivors – it should be a day of reflection and progress. Yet in 2025, it feels like an act of resistance just to believe that justice is possible. The odds are stacked against us. Criminals often walk free, shielded by powerful states. We see images of children in Gaza dying from malnutrition – victims of Israel's starvation policy as found by ICC prosecutors – while our mechanisms to stop it are blocked at every turn. The ICC Office of the Prosecutor has launched an investigation into Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the deliberate targeting of civilians and the use of starvation as a method of warfare. But progress is painfully slow. The Court has no jurisdiction over the US or Israel, and both actively obstruct it. During the 1998 Rome negotiations, the US refused to join, citing fears of 'politically motivated' prosecutions. Israel claims its military operates within the laws of war. Earlier this month, Mr Netanyahu travelled to Washington to meet with US President Donald Trump, defying international pressure. In retaliation for the ICC investigation, the US imposed sanctions on ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan – restricting his travel and freezing assets. The US has also targeted Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur, on the occupied Palestinian territories, who continues to speak out despite pressure. Journalists, investigators and human rights workers must keep the pressure high. It worked in Bosnia. It worked in Kosovo. It can work again While Mr Khan has remained largely silent, Ms Albanese has not. On the same day she was sanctioned, she condemned Italy, France, and Greece — ICC member states — for allowing Mr Netanyahu's aircraft to cross their airspace instead of arresting him. Meanwhile, the UN's top court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has issued orders for Israel to allow humanitarian aid and halt military actions that risk genocide. Yet these rulings rely on enforcement by the Security Council—where the US has repeatedly used its veto to protect Israel from accountability. Still, the evidence grows. Just last week, renowned genocide scholar Omer Bartov, an Israeli Jew and former Israeli soldier, published an op-ed in The New York Times arguing that Israel is committing genocide. It was a watershed moment, not just for the clarity of his language but for where it was published. But even as the case against Israel strengthens, we must confront the painful truth: the very systems designed to deliver justice are being blocked or undermined. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has issued some of the strongest statements I've seen from a UN leader, and his adviser Melissa Fleming continues to condemn Israel's attacks on civilians. Still, several Security Council votes calling for a ceasefire have been vetoed by the US. On July 20, the General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a resolution, drafted by Spain, condemning the use of starvation as a method of warfare. Yet even as that resolution passed, Israeli forces bombed a Catholic church in Gaza and continued killing hundreds daily, many of them women, children and people waiting at feeding stations. In short, it would appear that Mr Netanyahu is mocking international justice. But it is not hopeless – if we accept that justice is a long game. Since the Second World War, alternative pathways for accountability have evolved. This is where civil society must lead. My team at The Reckoning Project focuses on creative approaches to accountability. We combine international courts, third-state prosecutions, UN mechanisms, and civil society pressure. Justice is rarely linear, but it is possible. Everything hinges on political will. Countries such as Spain and Ireland are stepping up. But when the US, UK and Germany actively block legal mechanisms, they become complicit. Britain continues arms transfers to Israel, and recent revelations show it is also sharing battlefield intelligence. This is where advocacy matters. Journalists, investigators and human rights workers must keep the pressure high. It worked in Bosnia. It worked in Kosovo. It can work again. The ICC case can and must be strengthened – with robust documentation, clear evidence chains, and legal submissions under Article 15. We must link Netanyahu directly to command decisions and demonstrate intent. Countries with universal jurisdiction, such as Germany, Belgium, South Africa, and Argentina, can open domestic cases. These can be reinforced by the ICJ's initial findings and ongoing proceedings in the genocide case. Targeted sanctions, such as Magnitsky-style bans – that is, laws providing for governmental sanctions against foreigners who have committed human rights abuses or been involved in corruption – should be imposed by countries such as Norway, Ireland and Spain. But this depends on political will. Which brings me to the most powerful tool we have: the court of public opinion. The truth must be told, clearly and relentlessly. In the case of Gaza, the horror doesn't need exaggeration as the facts speak for themselves. Free press can drive public protest and shift political inertia. The alternative is complicity in what has been described by legal experts as genocide, and as shown in the mounting evidence before the ICJ. I have witnessed three genocides in my lifetime. I cannot remain silent as another unfolds. To look away would be to abandon our shared humanity.
