As victims await specific instructions to participate in Duterte case – Issue of jurisdiction should not delay proceedings on the merits
Initial victims’ applications, and consequently the appointment of common legal representative/s, are expected to occur within one to two months before the target of August 3, 2025. In the meantime, victims’ views and concerns will be carried by the Office of the Public Counsel for Victims.
May 16, 2025
The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers is a nationwide voluntary association of human rights lawyers in the Philippines, committed to the defense, protection, and promotion of human rights, especially of the poor and the oppressed.

Any delay in the proceedings against Rodrigo Duterte in the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity adds to the anguish and anxiety of victims of his “war on drugs”. Duterte’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the court is well within his rights, but is an urgent one and must be decided before the scheduled confirmation of charges hearing on September 23, 2025.

The Defence call to excuse or disqualify judges from deciding on the challenge, however, poses potential interruption to the proceedings. On May 1, 2025, they “invited” two of the three judges of Pre-Trial Chamber I, Judges María del Socorro Flores Liera and Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou, to excuse themselves from adjudicating on the challenge. The Pre-Trial Chamber I declined the invitation to excuse the judges, who had been originally assigned to the case since 2021, for lack of basis.

Aggrieved, the Defence on May 12, 2025 requested the Presidency to disqualify the same two judges. The Presidency, which deals with the proper administration of the court, is composed of a president and two vice-presidents. One of the judges sought to be disqualified in the Duterte case, Judge Alapini-Gansou, is also part of the Presidency as Second Vice-President and is also being sought to be disqualified from deciding on her disqualification.

Amidst the convolution of issues, victims urge the public to remember the core of this case: whether or not Duterte is liable for crimes against humanity, in the acts of murder, rape, torture, imprisonment, and other inhumane acts. We are confident that the preliminary issues will be considered with appropriate time, thought, and caution, in time for the September 2025 confirmation hearing. As regards the disqualification, the Presidency has ordered its members and the prosecutor to comment within a week, by May 22, 2025, and will convene a plenary session on the matter soon. As regards the challenge to jurisdiction, the Pre-Trial Chamber I will receive written observation until June 9, 2025.

Thankfully, other things are still on track. The Office of the Prosecutor is set to complete its submission for exchange of evidence by July 1, 2025. The document containing the charges (or the prosecution’s draft of the Information, as we refer to it in Philippine law) is due to be released by July 4, 2025.

Initial victims’ applications, and consequently the appointment of common legal representative/s, are expected to occur within one to two months before the target of August 3, 2025. In the meantime, victims’ views and concerns will be carried by the Office of the Public Counsel for Victims.

The ICC case is just but one flank in the struggle for justice for all victims. It is sorely limited because the temporal scope does not cover the first two decades of the Davao Death Squad operations and the second three years of Duterte’s term as president. It is incomplete at present because other co-perpetrators have not been indicted. Despite the insensitivity and the ignorance of some rabid cliques, we will continue to look into avenues of redress for victims of human rights violations wherever they may open and however long they may take.

References:
Atty. Neri Javier Colmenares
Counsel for victims with Rise Up for Life and for Rights; National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers
+639178350459

Atty. Maria Kristina Conti
Assisting counsel from NUPL for Rise Up
Registered as assistant to counsel at the ICC
+639298207000 | nupl2007@gmail.com

Read more

Four UST students appeal sanctions over PAF exhibit: NUPL and PILC ask Rector to stay penalties and reverse OSA resolutions

Four UST students appeal sanctions over PAF exhibit: NUPL and PILC ask Rector to stay penalties and reverse OSA resolutions

Raven Kristine Racelis, Ralph Christian Manuel, Mecaella Sean Carl Capalar, and Dex Anderson Frogoso, represented by the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC), asked the Office of the Rector to reverse and set aside the separate resolutions issued by the UST Office for Student Affairs on October 2. They also sought an urgent stay of their suspensions and all related sanctions while the appeal is pending.

NUPL seeks to keep Gorgonio amparo case in Manila

NUPL seeks to keep Gorgonio amparo case in Manila

NUPL President Atty. Ephraim Cortez speaks outside the Court of Appeals on September 29, 2026, following the filing of a motion seeking reconsideration of the transfer to Cebu of the amparo and habeas data proceedings involving NUPL–Negros Chairperson Atty. Rey Gorgonio and three development workers of the Paghida-et sa Kauswagan Development Group (PDG).

US sanctions against the ICC: Imperial power in the service of impunity

US sanctions against the ICC: Imperial power in the service of impunity

Under Trump’s Executive Order No. 14203, the designation subjects the ICC to US financial sanctions that threaten to restrict its access to American banks, technology, and other essential services. Given the United States’ influence over the global financial system, these restrictions could disrupt the Court’s operations, including investigations, witness protection, and even the delivery of assistance and reparations to victims.

PAF’s Thin Skin Is No Ground for Punishing Student Dissent

PAF’s Thin Skin Is No Ground for Punishing Student Dissent

The Philippine Air Force has no problem displaying weapons on a university campus, yet apparently cannot stomach sharp questions protests from students about military operations and civilian casualties. Even the University of Santo Tomas (UST) disciplinary resolution notes that PAF personnel themselves considered the students’ questions valid. What offended them, it seems, was the students’ supposedly rude manner.

Share This