Duterte defense asks ICC to drop witness against Dela Rosa

MANILA — The defense of former President Rodrigo Duterte has challenged a prosecution witness’ account of Sen. Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa’s alleged role in the drug war, saying the witness had no personal knowledge of how Dela Rosa supposedly relayed Duterte’s instructions.

In a filing at the International Criminal Court (ICC), Duterte’s lawyers asked judges to remove two proposed prosecution witnesses, P-1334 and P-1348, from the witness list. The prosecution is seeking to introduce their prior recorded testimony under Rule 68(2)(b).

The prosecution’s application said P-1334’s testimony concerns Dela Rosa’s alleged role in disseminating Duterte’s instructions to terminate people during the anti-drug campaign. It also addresses target lists of drug personalities and killings allegedly committed during the campaign.

The prosecution argues that P-1334’s testimony could help establish the alleged policy to “neutralize” suspected criminals through violent crimes, the role of state actors in implementing that policy, and Dela Rosa’s alleged contribution to the common plan. 

It says her account also relates to two charged incidents: the 2016 killings of Albuera Mayor Rolando Espinosa and Raul Yap inside a Leyte jail, and Incident 53, details of which remain redacted.

The prosecution’s September 2026 trial brief alleges that Duterte ordered the reinstatement of police officers involved in the Espinosa and Yap killings, and that Dela Rosa said he saw no reason not to follow that instruction. 

The brief says the two men were shot dead in their cells at the Leyte Sub-Provincial Jail in November 2016. Police claimed there had been a shootout; the prosecution’s account says the men were in custody when they were killed.

The defense disputed P-1334’s ability to support the prosecution’s account of Dela Rosa’s role. It said she acknowledged she had no personal knowledge of how instructions from Duterte were allegedly conveyed through Dela Rosa and never saw him do so. Her account, the defense argued, was based on stories she had heard.

They argued that both proposed witnesses were absent for nearly the entire period covered by Counts 2 and 3 and had little direct knowledge of decisions or operations during Duterte’s presidency.

The prosecution said P-1348’s testimony concerned operations before July 2016, alleged target lists, an increase in killings after Duterte became president, and alleged killing quotas and financial rewards. The defense argued that P-1348, too, lacked firsthand knowledge and relies on hearsay, news reports and social media.

The defense asked the Chamber to order the prosecution to remove both witnesses from its list. If the judges allow the testimony, it asked them to exclude passages concerning Duterte’s alleged acts and conduct, including claims about instructions to kill and funds allegedly attributed to him.

The judges have yet to rule on the requests.