Here’s a summary of the confirmation hearing yesterday for those who didn’t watch it.
The proceedings at the International Criminal Court were not a trial, but they were serious and consequential. This stage is about one central question: is there enough evidence to send Rodrigo Duterte to a full trial for crimes against humanity?
The judges are not deciding guilt.
They are deciding whether prosecutors have shown “substantial grounds to believe” that crimes were committed and that Duterte bears criminal responsibility.
The prosecution presented a structured and disciplined case.
Their theory was clear: the killings associated with the drug war were not random excesses by rogue officers, but part of a widespread and systematic attack against civilians.
They described Duterte as “pivotal” and central to the policy environment that allegedly enabled and encouraged the violence.
The argument focused on patterns of operations, public pronouncements, institutional behavior, and the concept of command responsibility.
This was framed as a matter of structure and authority, not just rhetoric.
Victims’ representatives reinforced that argument with emotional force. Families spoke of years of fear and failed domestic accountability. For many, the ICC represents the only realistic venue left to examine what happened.
There was visible disappointment that Duterte chose not to attend in person. Symbolically, it underscored the distance between the accused and those who claim they were harmed.
The defense, led by Nicholas Kaufman, took a sharply political tone. Kaufman characterized the case as politically motivated and accused the prosecution of cherry-picking Duterte’s “bombastic” rhetoric.
He argued that strong language does not equal criminal intent.
However, the defense did NOT present witnesses, documentary counter-evidence, or an alternative factual narrative at this stage. Instead, it focused largely on attacking the prosecution’s framing and motives.
That is legally permissible.
But strategically, it is notable.
When prosecutors are presenting structured claims supported by documentation and patterns, responding primarily with claims of political bias risks sounding more like a press conference than a courtroom rebuttal. Confirmation hearings require judges to assess evidence, not campaign narratives.
And this is where the tone of the defense became particularly striking.
Portions of Kaufman’s opening statement appeared less focused on dismantling the prosecution’s evidentiary claims and more aligned with broader political messaging.
Observers could not ignore how some arguments seemed tailored for domestic consumption, particularly within the Philippine political landscape, rather than strictly for the ICC bench.
The closing impression was unmistakable.
Nicholas Kaufman did not sound like a lawyer singularly focused on dismantling the prosecution’s evidence before the International Criminal Court.
He sounded like someone delivering a political speech for a domestic audience. Instead of aggressively attacking the factual backbone of the case against Rodrigo Duterte, he leaned heavily into claims of political persecution and rhetorical framing.
Huwag na tayong mag-plastikan...
He is reportedly being paid staggering legal fees (150,000,000) pesos per month to defend Duterte in one of the most serious international criminal proceedings possible.
Many even joked that he is becoming the highest paid DDS blogger.
This is not a political rally...
This is not a press briefing..
This is the ICC.
The judges care about evidence, command responsibility, patterns of killings, and documentary records, not campaign messaging.
Yet large portions of his opening statement felt less like a legal strategy to block confirmation of charges and more like narrative rehabilitation for Sara Duterte and the broader Duterte political brand heading into 2028.
It sounded calibrated for political optics, not judicial persuasion.
That is a dangerous miscalculation.
ICC judges are not voters or easily swayed by logically fallacies.
They are not swayed by emotional rhetoric about politics.
They assess whether the prosecution has met a legal threshold.
If your response to structured allegations is mainly “this is political,” without presenting hard counter-evidence, it does not neutralize the case, it simply sidesteps it.
Bluntly put: it looked less like a courtroom defense and more like a campaign stage.
And when your client is facing potential crimes against humanity charges, turning your opening into a political shield instead of a surgical legal rebuttal raises serious questions about priorities.
Now the Chamber deliberates.
If the charges are confirmed, the case moves to full trial, where political messaging will matter far less than evidence under oath.
And I think. Highly likely the case will proceed to trial
However, If they are not, it will reshape the accountability landscape entirely.
However, if the charges are not confirmed, it will fundamentally reshape the accountability landscape—not just for this case, but for future efforts to pursue international justice.
But one thing was crystal clear yesterday: the International Criminal Court operates on real legal thresholds, evidence, standards, and judicial scrutiny, not on DDS troll narratives or online propaganda metrics.
- JLB
