By Benjamin Cuaresma
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The legal battle surrounding former President Rodrigo Duterte’s International Criminal Court trial has intensified after his defense team challenged eight new incidents inserted by prosecutors into their trial brief, arguing that the additions went beyond the charges previously confirmed by the court.
Defense lawyer Peter Haynes asked ICC Trial Chamber III to make a judicial determination on Incidents 50 to 57, which were not included in the original Document Containing the Charges (DCC).
The DCC identified 49 incidents involving the three counts of crimes against humanity confirmed against Duterte. The prosecution’s 143-page Trial Brief, however, now refers to 57 incidents.
Haynes is asking the chamber either to authorize the additional incidents or direct prosecutors to amend their trial brief and remove them.
The defense argues that prosecutors cannot introduce new material facts into the case without prior judicial authorization, particularly when the alleged incidents involve new victims, locations, dates and individual criminal acts.
Duterte’s lawyers have also questioned the provenance and authenticity of documents supporting the eight additional incidents.
The defense claims the documentary evidence, including purported internal Philippine National Police records, was linked to former senator Antonio Trillanes IV, a longtime political critic of Duterte.
According to Haynes, Trillanes allegedly produced the PNP Incident Record Forms used to underpin the new incidents despite, the defense argues, having no known legitimate means of obtaining internal police documentation.
The defense also pointed to the absence of signatures and official certification on the documents, raising questions over whether they are authentic copies of original records.
Several of the newly cited incidents allegedly occurred in the National Capital Region and Region IV-A in 2016. Some involved individuals identified as illegal-drug personalities or people whose names allegedly appeared on drug watchlists.
But Duterte’s lawyers maintain that the eight cases are not merely additional details or further specifications of the existing charges.
Instead, they argue that the prosecution is attempting to introduce new material facts based on fresh evidence, effectively expanding the case beyond the scope of the charges confirmed during the pre-trial proceedings.
Haynes cited previous ICC proceedings in arguing that judicial oversight is required when prosecutors seek to introduce new criminal acts that were not contained in the original charging document.
The defense also questioned why the eight incidents were disclosed only around three months before Duterte’s scheduled trial on November 30.
Haynes argued that the timing is significant because the defense must now examine and challenge evidence concerning allegations that were not part of the original charging document.
The prosecution has maintained that the additional incidents fall within the factual scope of the confirmed charges, but the defense disputes that interpretation and is asking the Trial Chamber to settle the issue before trial.
The ICC Trial Chamber III is scheduled to hold a status conference, where the dispute could potentially be addressed.
As of the latest available information, the Office of the Prosecutor had not publicly responded to the defense submission specifically challenging the eight additional incidents.
ia/xf
