ICC prosecutor urges judges to junk Duterte defense bid to block 8 additional incidents

MANILA — The International Criminal Court’s prosecuting office has pushed back against a defense bid to bar eight additional incidents from the proceedings against former President Rodrigo Duterte, maintaining that the contested events fit neatly within the parameters of already-confirmed charges.

“The Defense once again challenges the Prosecution’s ability to provide notice of ‘additional’ incidents… The eight ‘additional’ incidents of which the Prosecution has given notice fall squarely within the parameters of the confirmed charges,” the prosecution explained in the document.

In a newly made public redacted filing dated September 15, 2026, and signed by Acting Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang, the Office of the Prosecutor urged the Trial Chamber to dismiss the defense motion outright.

“For the reasons previously advanced by the Prosecution, and for the further reasons set out below, these challenges are unfounded and should be dismissed,” the filing stated.

The prosecution argued that the challenges raised by the defense are “unfounded” and largely duplicate a pending Rule 134(1) motion, suggesting that judges handle both matters together in the interest of judicial economy.

“The Defense’s Motion largely duplicates its pending Rule 134(1) Motion. In the interests of judicial economy, the Prosecution respectfully proposes that the Trial Chamber deal with the two motions together,” the prosecution explained.

The core dispute centers on eight specific occurrences, designated as Incidents 50 through 57, which the defense has sought to exclude, arguing they introduce new locations, perpetrators, victims, or dates without proper authorization.

“The Defense is incorrect both in asserting that the Prosecution has ‘effectively sought to amend the charges’… In arguing that Incidents 50 to 57 concern locations, perpetrators, victims and/or dates that are new, the Defense again conflates the scope of the charges,” the prosecution stated in the filing.

The prosecution countered that the defense has repeatedly confused the broad scope of the confirmed charges with the specific evidence and individual incidents used to prove them.

“The Defense again conflates the scope of the charges as set out in Counts 2 and 3 with the notice of specific incidents the Prosecution had given notice during the confirmation stage.”

According to the filing, the formal charges against Duterte are already “concretely and sufficiently defined by clear geographic, temporal, and material parameters” established by the Pre-Trial Chamber.

Addressing specific concerns raised by the defense regarding location and timeline, the filing pointed out that sites such as the one listed under Incident 53 fall squarely within the geographic scope of Count 3, which covers “locations across the Philippines.”

“Incident 53 concerns a murder alleged in [REDACTED], which is not, as the Defense claims, a ‘new’ location, and falls plainly within the geographic scope of Count 3 as confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber: locations across the Philippines.”

Similarly, the prosecution maintained that temporal parameters, such as the timing of Incident 57, were mischaracterized by the defense because it ignored the Chamber’s deliberate use of the word “around” when framing the operational timeframe.

“The Defense takes issue with Incident 57 occurring two weeks after [REDACTED] 2017, ignoring the Chamber’s express incorporation of the word ‘around’ and therefore misinterpreting [REDACTED] 2017 as a fixed endpoint,” the prosecution explained in its submissions.

The prosecution also emphasized that notice of these additional incidents was provided well in advance of trial and in full compliance with the Trial Chamber’s August 31, 2026 deadline.

It argued that any questions regarding the sufficiency of notice for particular incidents or victims under Article 67(1)(a) of the Rome Statute are “a matter for trial” and that determining them now is entirely premature.

“The legal adequacy of the charges under article 74(2) of the Rome Statute and notice under article 67(1)(a) are distinct issues, with notice being a matter for trial… Any question concerning the sufficiency of notice of particular incidents or victims falling with those charges, under article 67(1)(a), is a question for the end of trial and therefore premature at this stage.”

Rejecting defense assertions that the prosecution has “effectively sought to amend the charges” or requires further permission to introduce the material, the filing concluded that the charges remain unchanged and that no basis exists for the relief the defense is seeking.

“Consequently, the Defense is incorrect both in asserting that the Prosecution has “effectively sought to amend the charges” and in suggesting that there is any need for the Trial Chamber’s further permission to bring evidence of these additional incidents. To the contrary, as previously stated, the charges remain the same… There is no basis for the relief sought by the Defense.”