MANILA(October 22) — The International Criminal Court (ICC) has barred prosecutors from including an alleged drug-related killing in the crimes against humanity case against former president Rodrigo Duterte, ruling that the incident occurred outside the period covered by the confirmed charges and that prosecutors cannot expand that time frame to accommodate it.
In an October 9 decision, Trial Chamber III found that Incident 57, involving the alleged murder of a high-value drug target, occurred about two weeks beyond the period covered by Count 2, which concerns alleged murders of high-value drug targets across the Philippines between July 2016 and July 2017.
“The Prosecution cannot now be permitted to broaden the temporal scope of the confirmed charges beyond the defined period the Prosecution itself established,” the chamber said.
The prosecution subsequently removed Incident 57 from its updated trial brief filed on October 20, complying with the ruling.
The decision highlights a legal boundary in the case: prosecutors must pursue allegations within the scope of the charges confirmed by the court and cannot extend the period covered simply to accommodate an additional incident.
Related evidence retained
Although Incident 57 was removed, the prosecution retained its existing lists of witnesses and evidence, saying material related to the incident could still help establish the contextual elements of crimes against humanity and Duterte’s individual criminal responsibility when considered alongside other evidence.
Part of the prosecution’s explanation was redacted in the public filing, leaving details of how the material would support its case undisclosed.
Incident 57 was one of eight additional incidents the prosecution sought to include in its trial brief. The chamber excluded it but allowed seven others, numbered 50 to 56, to remain.
The ruling leaves 56 incidents in the prosecution’s trial brief, up from the 49 incidents covered when the charges were confirmed in April.
Exclusion does not clear Duterte
The ruling does not establish that the alleged killing did not occur or that Duterte was cleared of responsibility. It addresses whether the incident could be included under the confirmed charges as framed.
For communities seeking accountability for alleged killings linked to the drug war, the distinction is important: excluding one incident on procedural grounds does not resolve the underlying allegation, nor does it determine the outcome of the broader case.
The prosecution must still establish its allegations within the charges authorized by the chamber, while the court must assess the evidence under the applicable legal standards.
The ruling therefore narrows the incidents included in this part of the prosecution’s case without deciding Duterte’s criminal responsibility for the alleged killing.
