Legal analysis from the perspective of international criminal defense

Dr. Alan Aldana
Lawyer accredited to the International Criminal Court
Managing Partner, VENFORT® Lawyers
March 2026 | Updated March 24, 2026
Madrid · Caracas · Brussels · Geneva

Executive summary

On February 27, 2026, the International Criminal Court's Pre-Trial Chamber I concluded the confirmation of charges hearing in the case against Rodrigo Duterte, former President of the Philippines. The hearing was held before judges Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Presiding), Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou, and María del Socorro Flores Liera.

This article examines, from the perspective of international criminal defense, what a confirmation of charges hearing is, how it developed in this case, what has been decided to date, what remains pending, and what procedural options are available from now on.

It is fundamental to understand that the audience has concluded, but the Chamber has not yet rendered its decision. We are not facing a conviction or an acquittal. We are in the midst of ongoing deliberations. The Chamber has until April 28, 2026, to issue its ruling.

What is an arraignment and what is it for?

The confirmation of charges is the procedural filter that separates the investigative phase from the trial phase in the International Criminal Court. Its function is simple to state, though complex to execute: the Chamber must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the assertion that well-founded reasons (substantial grounds) to believe that the suspect committed each of the charges the prosecution has brought against him.

The procedure is regulated in Article 61 of the Rome Statute and has three characteristics that any observer must keep in mind.

First: it's not a premature judgment

The Court itself has recalled in its case management orders that the confirmation of charges has a limited scope and should not become a mini-trial, however much the volume of evidence and documentation disclosed is considerable. As the presiding magistrate stated at the beginning of the hearing, the Chamber will not make any decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused during this hearing.

Second: the evidentiary standard is intermediate

The Rome Statute establishes a tiered system of evidentiary standards. To issue an arrest warrant, Article 58 requires reasonable grounds (reasonable groundsTo confirm charges, section 61(7) requires well-founded reasons (substantial groundsa higher threshold than arrest but lower than trial, where conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Third: there are only three possible outcomes

Following the hearing, the Chamber must adopt one of three decisions: confirm the charges and refer the case to trial; not confirm the charges and close the proceedings with respect to them; or postpone the decision and request the Prosecution to provide additional evidence or amend the charges. There are no in-between options.

The «Normative Triangle»: Rome Statute, Rules of Procedure, and Regulations of the Court

The confirmation of charges relies on three bodies of law that operate jointly.

The Rome Statute it establishes the basis. Article 58 regulates the arrest warrant. Article 60 regulates the initial appearance, the right to seek bail, and periodic detention reviews. And Article 61 regulates the purpose, dynamics, and outcomes of charge confirmation, including the possibility of holding the hearing in absentia when the defendant waives their presence.

The Rules of Procedure and Evidence They develop the procedure. Rule 121 governs preparatory actions, setting of dates, and disclosure of evidence. Rules 124 to 126 govern waiver of appearance, the decision to hold the hearing in absentia, and the regime applicable when this occurs.

The Court Rules complete the framework. Its Regulation 53 establishes the most relevant procedural fact at this time: the Chamber has a maximum period of sixty calendar days from the conclusion of the hearing to issue its written decision. The hearing concluded on February 27, 2026, so the deadline is around April 28, 2026.

How the case has developed: full timeline and key resolutions

The facts investigated

The charges pertain to events that occurred in the territory of the Philippines between November 1, 2011, and March 16, 2019—one day before the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute became effective. The Philippines, a State Party since November 1, 2011, deposited its written notification of withdrawal on March 17, 2018, and that withdrawal became effective on March 17, 2019, in accordance with Article 127 of the Statute.

Procedural timeline

February 10, 2025. The Prosecutor's Office requests an arrest warrant against Duterte for the crimes against humanity of murder, torture, and rape.

March 7, 2025. Pre-Trial Chamber I issues the arrest warrant, initially classified as secret.

March 11, 2025. The arrest warrant is reclassified as public. The accused is arrested by Philippine authorities in Manila, upon his arrival from Hong Kong, and is transferred to The Hague the same day.

March 12, 2025. The accused is formally handed over to the custody of the ICC.

March 14, 2025. The initial appearance is being held by video conference from the Scheveningen detention center.

June 12, 2025. The defense files a motion for provisional release, citing, among other reasons, the defendant's advanced age.

August 19, 2025. The defense presents an updated bail application.

September 8, 2025. The Court postpones the confirmation hearing, initially scheduled for September 23, 2025, to address the defense's request for a postponement, which alleged that the defendant was not in a condition to participate in the proceedings due to cognitive impairment.

October 10, 2025. The Chamber denies the request for provisional release. The decision is subsequently confirmed on appeal.

October 23, 2025. The Chamber rejects the challenge to jurisdiction raised by the defense. However, an appeal on this issue remains pending before the Appeals Chamber as of the date of this article.

December 5, 2025. A panel of three independent medical experts, appointed by the Chamber, presents the conclusions of their medical examination of the accused.

January 26, 2026. The Chamber declares the accused fit to participate in the preliminary proceedings, rejecting the defense's arguments, and sets the confirmation hearing for February 23, 2026. On the same date, the Chamber conducts the first periodic review of detention and concludes that no new circumstances warrant release.

February 23 to 27, 2026. The confirmation of charges hearing is being held. The defendant was present at the hearing. Since his arrest, he has changed his defense team on several occasions. The Prosecution, the legal representation for the victims, and the defense presented their oral arguments and conclusions. The Court adopted special measures recommended by the medical panel, such as limiting sessions to three hours daily with breaks every hour and a maximum of four hearing days per week.

March 6, 2026. The Appeals Chamber, composed of Judge Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza (presiding), Judges Tomoko Akane and Solomy Balungi Bossa, and Judges Gocha Lordkipanidze and Erdenebalsuren Damdin, issues its judgment rejecting Duterte's appeal against the decision to review his detention, thus confirming that the accused remains in detention.

The intervening parties

Four procedural actors are involved in the confirmation phase. The ICC Prosecutor's Office, represented by Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang and the lead counsel for the prosecution team, who holds the charges and presents the evidence. The defense, The company's legal counsel, who challenges the jurisdiction, questions the sufficiency of the evidence and promotes favorable decisions. The common legal representation of victims, acting on behalf of the 539 victims authorized to participate in the proceedings, represented by Joel Butuyan, Gilbert Andres, and Paolina Massidda (from the Public Counsel for Victims' Office of the Court), and making observations on the confirmation and participation interests under rule 68(3) of the Rules. And the Preliminary Questions Room I, who directs the proceedings, resolves the incidents, and will issue the final decision.

Core decision-making of key resolutions

As a lawyer accredited before the International Criminal Court, I am interested in isolating the ratio decidendi of the resolutions that have marked the development of the case.

Postponement Decision (September 8, 2025)

The Court vacated and postponed the hearing date until further notice, pursuant to Rule 121(7), suspending the related deadlines. The core of this decision is procedural management: preserving the integrity and order of the proceedings while underlying issues, including the defendant's fitness to proceed, were resolved. The defense had alleged cognitive impairment of the defendant across multiple domains.

Fitness decision (January 26, 2026)

Upon receiving the report from the panel of three independent medical experts, the Chamber concluded that the accused is capable of effectively exercising his procedural rights and, therefore, is fit to participate in the preliminary proceeding. The Chamber nonetheless adopted special measures to facilitate his participation, including limiting daily sessions to three hours and providing breaks every hour.

Jurisdictional Decision (October 23, 2025)

The Chamber rejected the defense's challenge and held that the Court can exercise jurisdiction despite the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute. The reasoning is based on Article 127(2), which states that withdrawal does not affect matters that were already under consideration before it becomes effective. The Chamber emphasized that the right of withdrawal cannot be used as a mechanism to shield individuals from justice for acts already brought to the Court's attention.

This decision is particularly relevant because it sets a precedent on the limits of the right of withdrawal: leaving the treaty does not operate as a retroactive shield. However, it should be noted that, as of the date of this article, an appeal on the jurisdictional issue remains pending before the Court of Appeals.

Denial of provisional release (October 10, 2025, confirmed on appeal)

The Chamber denied the request for provisional release filed by the defense in June 2025 and updated in August 2025. The decision was confirmed on appeal. Subsequently, in the periodic review of January 26, 2026, the Chamber concluded that there were no new circumstances justifying a modification of its previous decision.

Appeals Panel Decision on Detention (March 6, 2026)

The Court of Appeals rejected Duterte's appeal against the January 26, 2026, detention review decision. The Court of Appeals found, among other things, that the report presented by the defense did not contain new medical information, as the two professionals selected by the defense had not conducted a new medical examination of the accused. The Court of Appeals thus confirmed the decision of the Preliminary Matters Chamber, and the accused remains detained.

The charges: what the Prosecutor's Office alleges and how it is building its case

centerpiece of any confirmation hearing is the Document Containing the Charges (DCC), the document that defines the legal and factual perimeter within which it is discussed whether there is sufficient evidence. The redacted public version of the DCC, dated February 13, 2026, also lists eight other individuals as co-perpetrators of the crimes alongside Duterte, although no other arrest warrants have been made public to date.

The Prosecution brings three counts of crimes against humanity of murder and attempted murder, pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute, allegedly committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population in the context of the so-called «war on drugs» campaign, with a factual period from November 1, 2011 to March 16, 2019.

First cargo: murders committed in Daváo and the surrounding area during the municipal period, attributed to the so-called Davao Death Squad (DDS). The Prosecutor's Office describes 19 murders committed between 2013 and 2016 while the accused was mayor of the city.

Second trip: assassinations of targets classified as high-value targets (High-Value Targets) during the presidential term, including incidents in Manila and other parts of the country.

Charge three: murders and attempted murders in neighborhood cleanup operationsbarangay clearance) during the presidential term.

Overall, the Prosecution presented the three charges on the basis of 49 incidents involving 78 victims, including minors, expressly stating that these figures represent only a fraction of the total number of victims.

The Prosecution attributes individual responsibility to the accused under three modalities: as an indirect co-perpetrator, pursuant to Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute; as a person who ordered or induced the commission of the crimes, in accordance with Article 25(3)(b); and as a person who aided or abetted, pursuant to Article 25(3)(c).

The theory of the case is built upon the existence of a common plan aimed at neutralizing alleged criminals through violence, executed through a dual structure: the DDS in the municipal period and a national network in the presidential period, with the participation of state actors, including members of the Philippine National Police.

Regarding the evidence: documentary and «summarized»

The Rome Statute expressly provides that, at the confirmation stage, the Prosecution may rely on documentary or summary evidence and is not obligated to call witnesses who will testify at trial. The Prosecution has disclosed thousands of pieces of evidence to the defense, including witness statements, documentary material, audiovisual material, and forensic and contextual evidence. This is a crucial difference from the trial stage and shapes the entire defense strategy.

What has been decided and what remains pending?

As of March 24, 2026, the procedural situation requires a precise distinction between what has already been resolved and what has not yet been resolved.

What is decided

There is a warrant of arrest issued on March 7, 2025, and the accused was surrendered to the Court on March 12, 2025. The Chamber found the accused fit to participate in the proceedings on January 26, 2026. The Chamber rejected the challenge to jurisdiction, although an appeal on this issue remains pending before the Appeals Chamber. The request for provisional release was denied, and the denial has been upheld on appeal, on periodic review, and in the Appeals Chamber’s judgment of March 6, 2026. The confirmation hearing was held from February 23 to 27, 2026, with the accused present.

What is not yet decided

The decision to confirm the charges has not yet been issued. This is the determinative decision. It is the one that establishes whether the case is referred to a Trial Chamber for trial, whether the proceeding is halted due to insufficient evidence or whether a continuance is ordered to complete the evidence or modify the charges. The Chamber has until approximately April 28, 2026 to issue this resolution.

We are not facing a conviction. We are not facing an acquittal. We are in the midst of an ongoing deliberation, the outcome of which will determine the procedural future of the case.

A procedural nuance that often goes unnoticed: the confirmation decision is not directly appealable. Both the prosecution and the defense must apply for leave (leave to appeal) to the Chamber itself. This is consistent with the interlocutory appeal system of the ICC, where not every decision can be challenged as a matter of law.

The three possible scenarios and their consequences

Scenario one: full confirmation of charges

If the Panel upholds all charges, the case is referred to a Trial Panel, and the trial phase begins. The suspect then becomes the accused. For the defense, the strategy pivots towards the exclusion and challenge of evidence, the preparation of cross-examination, and the construction of an alternative theory of the case. Detentions and protective measure reviews are intensified.

Second scenario: partial confirmation

If the Chamber upholds some charges and rejects others, only the upheld charges proceed to trial. This necessitates a tactical reevaluation: concentrating the defense on the remaining charges and monitoring any attempts by the Prosecution to rebuild the case through subsequent requests for additional evidence.

Third scenario: no confirmation

If the Chamber does not confirm any of the charges, the proceedings are stayed. Pre-trial detention loses its instrumental basis with respect to the case, which immediately opens a discussion about the accused's liberty status. However, Article 61(8) of the Statute allows the Prosecution to request a new confirmation if it provides additional evidence. As the ICC itself states in its public documentation, the non-confirmation of charges does not mean that the proceedings have definitively concluded.

Additional scenario: postponement

The Chamber can also postpone the decision and ask the Prosecutor's Office to complete the investigation or modify the charges. This scenario prolongs the procedure and generates a reinforced discussion about detention and delays.

Defense options at this procedural stage

Without prejudging the outcome of the deliberation, the reasonable lines of defense at this procedural stage are the following.

Attack the internal consistency of the charges. Question the causal links and, especially, the logical leap between the general context—the existence of a widespread and systematic attack—and the individual responsibility of the accused under the modalities of indirect co-perpetration, incitement, or assistance.

Preserve objections of jurisdiction for future stages. The Chamber rejected the main challenge, but an appeal on this matter remains pending. The defense must keep these objections alive, especially if the factual configuration of the case changes or if new lines of imputation are attempted.

To challenge the detention and request provisional release. Despite the above denials, the Rome Statute recognizes the right to periodic review of detention. The health conditions of the accused, as attested to by the panel of experts, and his advanced age remain arguments that the defense can invoke in the face of any change of circumstances.

Demand equal footing in discovery. The Court itself has emphasized that massive and unselective disclosure can prevent the effective exercise of the right to defense, and that the prosecution must disclose only relevant evidence that is suitable for supporting specific factual allegations.

Why does this case matter?

The Duterte case is not just an issue of international criminal law. It is a watershed moment in the practice of the International Criminal Court that affects any person or entity with exposure to the ICC's jurisdiction.

The decision on jurisdiction states that a State's withdrawal from the Rome Statute does not shield individuals investigated for acts committed before their effective withdrawal. The confirmation hearing, held with special measures adapted to the accused's health condition, sets precedents on the scope of due process guarantees in exceptional circumstances. And the upcoming confirmation decision will define the burden of proof required by the Chamber to refer a case to trial in a matter of this complexity.

For heads of state, high-ranking officials, corporate executives, and anyone who may find themselves within the ICC's ambit, this case holds practical lessons that warrant careful study.

About the author

Dr. Alan Aldana is an attorney accredited by the International Criminal Court, with over twenty years of practice in international criminal law., Extradition procedures, fight before INTERPOL and Cross-Border Economic Defense. He is a managing partner at VENFORT® Abogados, with offices in Madrid and Caracas, and leads the firm's international criminal defense practice alongside Professor Ludovic Hennebel, a member of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and counsel at Doughty Street Chambers (London).

Confidential consultation

If your organization or its executives face exposure before the International Criminal Court, universal jurisdiction proceedings, INTERPOL alerts, or any form of international criminal risk, VENFORT offers a confidential, no-obligation initial consultation.

Dr. Alan Aldana  — Request a call back at www.venfort.com/contact.
All communications are protected by attorney-client privilege.

Primary sources consulted

• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998). Official text: treaties.un.org.
• ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Official text: legal-tools.org.
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Official Text: legal-tools.org.
• Official page of the Duterte case at the ICC: icc-cpi.int/philippines/duterte.
• ICC Press Release: «Duterte Case: Confirmation of Charges Hearing to Open on February 23, 2026,» icc-cpi.int.
• Press Release from the ICC: «ICC confirms charges against Duterte,» February 27, 2026, icc-cpi.int.
• Press Release from the ICC: «ICC Appeals Chamber confirms Decision on the review of Mr. Duterte’s detention,» March 6, 2026, icc-cpi.int.
• Official ICC Q&A on the Duterte Case, February 2026: icc-cpi.int.
• Case Information Sheet, ICC, February 2026: icc-cpi.int.
• Document Containing the Charges (DCC), redacted public version. legal-tools.org/doc/1r7mk638.
• Prosecutor's Pre-Confirmation Brief.
• Decision on Jurisdiction, October 23, 2025. legal-tools.org/doc/4kajrkt2.
• Postponement Decision, September 8, 2025. legal-tools.org/doc/tfza48r7.
• Process Driving Order. legal-tools.org/doc/5epubxtz.
• Human Rights Watch: «Philippines: ICC Hearing to Confirm Duterte Charges,» February 16, 2026.
• Amnesty International: «Philippines: Duterte confirmation of charges hearing a crucial opportunity for justice», February 2026.
• UN News: «ICC judges assess case against Duterte over Philippines ‘war on drugs’ killings,» February 23, 2026.

This article is published for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis is based exclusively on publicly accessible primary sources from the International Criminal Court's case file, official ICC communications, reports from international human rights organizations, and applicable law. The opinions expressed reflect the author's professional perspective and do not represent the position of any party to the proceedings. Last verified: March 24, 2026.

© 2026 VENFORT® Attorneys. All rights reserved.