MANILA: The International Criminal Court has rejected an appeal by former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who sought to reverse a previous decision declaring him fit to take part in pre-trial proceedings on his crime against humanity case.
The pre-trial chamber publicized its decision in an 11-page ruling issued on Friday (Feb 13), arguing that Duterte’s camp failed to raise appealable issues on the court’s January decision that rejected an indefinite adjournment of the former president’s case.
Citing the court’s “long-established jurisprudence,” the Chamber recalled the exceptional character of the remedy of interlocutory appeals, saying that the following requirements must be met in order for leave to appeal to be granted:
- A decision must involve an issue that would significantly affect (i) both the ‘fair’ and ‘expeditious’ conduct of the proceedings; or the outcome of the trial;
- In the view of the Pre-Trial Chamber, an immediate resolution of the issue by the Appeals Chamber is warranted as it may materially advance the proceeding
The pre-trial chamber then noted that an appealable ‘issue’ is an identifiable subject or topic requiring a decision for its resolution, not merely a question over which there is disagreement or conflicting opinion.
“It must emanate from the relevant decision itself and cannot represent a hypothetical concern or abstract legal question,” the decision states.
First proposed issue
The defense earlier submitted that firstly, the Chamber erred in fact by ruling on Duterte’s fitness without holistically taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case.
But the chamber said it considered that the first proposed issue “misrepresented the relevant findings made on Jan 26, 2026.
“Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the first proposed issue does not constitute an appealable issue within the meaning of article 82(1)(d) of the Statute. Having found that the first criterion for granting leave to appeal in respect of the first proposed issue has not been fulfilled, there is no need for the chamber to address the remainder of the applicable criteria,” the decision states.
Second proposed issue
The defence submitted that the chamber erred in law by rejecting twice their request to hold a hearing to examine the members of the panel. They also argued that Duterte “was entitled to a forensic hearing on the issue of his fitness” considering that “forensic examination in fitness litigation is the absolute norm at first instance before the international courts and tribunals.”
The chamber, however, pointed out that the second proposed issue was addressed in the Jan 26, 2026 Decision.
“Firstly, the defence’s argument that the Chamber disregarded the divergent clinical opinions, and that it did not provide any reasoning as to the necessity to further probe the Panel’s understanding of the proceedings, relies on a selective choice of excerpts from the Jan 26, 2026 Decision and does not faithfully represent the Chamber’s findings therein,” the decision read.
“Indeed, the Chamber addressed the issues regarding contradictions between the reports raised by the defence at paragraphs 39 to 44 of the Jan 26, 2026 decision, rejected them and explicitly found ‘the conclusions of the Panel to be reliable,” it added.
Third proposed issue
The defence likewise submitted that the chamber erred in law by failing to articulate coherently its reasoning as to why it believed Duterte is fit to participate in the confirmation proceedings.
In particular, the defense argued that the chamber “failed to demonstrate how, or why, the panel’s findings displaced those proffered by the defence” and that, by adopting the panel’s findings wholesale and without reasoned analysis, the chamber allowed the panel to replace it in determining the issue of fitness.
But the pre-trial chamber explained that, once again, the defence misrepresented the Jan 26, 2026 decision.
“As developed above, 10 the chamber decided to consider solely the panel’s conclusions to ensure the fairness of the proceedings, which integrated the defence’s medical reports in their assessment. In that context, and contrary to the defence’s assertion, it was not necessary for the chamber to explain how, or why, the Panel’s findings displaced those proffered by the defense,” the decision stated.
Fourth proposed issue
Lastly, the defense submitted that the chamber erred in law in confining its assessment of Duterte’s fitness to the pre-trial phase and in failing to consider the impact of its findings on the former president’s ability to stand trial.
They then claimed that the chamber failed to address how Duterte is expected, in practical terms, to exercise his procedural rights in future proceedings in light of a memory impairment recognised by all the experts.
Addressing this, the chamber noted that the fourth proposed issue concerns the chamber’s application, at the pre-trial stage, of the law relating to fitness to stand trial, which was fundamental in shaping its instructions to the panel and its assessment of Duterte’s fitness.
“Regarding the alleged impact of the fourth proposed issue on the fairness and expeditiousness of the proceedings, the Chamber notes that the defense contends that the chamber failed to consider the impact of Duterte’s health situation on a possible future trial and argues, without further substantiation, that this omission affects the fairness of the current proceedings,” the decision read.
“In this regard, the Chamber recalls that the litigation regarding Duterte’s fitness originates from a Defence request submitted in the context of and in connection with the confirmation proceedings, a stage at which the holding of a trial remains hypothetical, as it is not yet known whether the charges will be confirmed or not,” it elaborated.
In light of the above, the chamber considered that the fourth proposed issue, insofar as it relies on a hypothetical scenario of Duterte’s health condition deteriorating during trial – which was also not mentioned in the Panel’s Reports – is speculative in nature.
In a separate decision likewise issued on February 13, the ICC also authorized 500 additional applicants to participate as victims, bringing the total number of victims participating at the confirmation stage to 539 victims.
The chamber said Joel Butuyan and Gilbert Andres, as well as Paolina Massidda of the Court’s Office of Public Counsel for Victims, were appointed as common legal representatives for the authorised victims. - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
