The International Criminal Court (ICC) is poised to scrutinize former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte over allegations of crimes against humanity linked to his controversial anti-drug campaign. As the court prepares for a pivotal confirmation hearing in September, incriminating public statements and official directives from Duterte’s tenure are expected to form a cornerstone of the prosecution’s case, shedding light on the scale and intent behind a policy that left thousands dead.
Public Statements as Evidence of Intent
Human rights lawyer Kristina Conti, who represents families of drug war victims through the Rise Up for Life and Rights group, has revealed that videos of Duterte’s own statements will likely be central to the ICC’s evidence. In a recent phone interview with a Philippine news outlet, Conti emphasized the significance of these recordings. “Videos of Duterte making statements will be there because that is evidence of intention” she said. These public remarks, often unapologetic and direct, are expected to be presented as proof of a deliberate policy to target suspected drug users and dealers with lethal force during his presidency from 2016 to 2022. 
The prosecution, led by ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, has already submitted 421 pieces of written evidence, totaling 8,565 pages, for review by Duterte’s defense team. This voluminous collection, drawn from an initial pool of over 168,000 items, includes not only written documents but also photos and audio-visual files. The confirmation hearing, scheduled for September 23 to 26, will determine whether the charges of murder as a crime against humanity against Duterte will proceed to a full trial. Conti noted that the prosecution must focus on “emblematic” evidence that directly implicates Duterte as a key figure behind a systematic campaign, potentially as an “indirect co-perpetrator.”
Project Double Barrel: A National Policy Under Scrutiny
Among the documentary evidence likely to be presented is the Philippine National Police’s Command Memorandum Circular No. 16-2016, issued on July 1, 2016—Duterte’s first day in office. This memo introduced “Project Double Barrel,” a nationwide anti-drug operation modeled on Duterte’s hardline policies as mayor of Davao City, where extrajudicial killings were widely reported. Conti described the circular as critical due to its “national scope,” suggesting it provided a framework for the violence that followed. Human rights groups have long argued that this policy institutionalized a culture of impunity, enabling police and vigilante groups to carry out killings under the guise of law enforcement.
The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) has instructed the prosecution to focus solely on evidence of “true relevance” to the case, capable of supporting specific allegations. In a decision dated April 17, the PTC underscored the need for precision in linking evidence to the elements of the alleged crimes, such as a “widespread and systematic plan to attack.” While the prosecution has gathered substantial material during its investigation, Conti acknowledged the challenge of proving that Duterte personally directed or planned specific killings. Instead, the focus may rest on demonstrating his role in creating and endorsing a policy environment that facilitated such acts on a massive scale.
The Scale of the Drug War and Its Human Cost
Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, launched with promises to eradicate the drug trade within months, quickly became one of the deadliest policies in recent Philippine history. Official figures from the government claim over 6,000 deaths during police operations between 2016 and 2022, but human rights organizations estimate the true toll could be as high as 30,000, including killings by unidentified gunmen often linked to state actors. The campaign disproportionately targeted impoverished communities, with many victims accused of drug involvement without evidence or due process. Families of the slain have described a climate of fear, where mere suspicion could lead to a fatal encounter with law enforcement or vigilantes.
The ICC’s investigation into these killings marks a significant step toward accountability, as domestic efforts to prosecute those responsible have largely stalled. The court’s involvement stems from a formal probe launched in 2021, following years of advocacy by victims’ groups and international observers. The charges against Duterte, if confirmed, could set a precedent for holding high-ranking officials accountable for state-sanctioned violence, though the road to a conviction remains fraught with legal and political obstacles. The Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2019 under Duterte’s administration, but the court maintains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed during the period of membership.
Challenges in Proving Direct Responsibility
Legal experts caution that establishing Duterte’s direct culpability will be no easy task. While his public rhetoric—often laced with calls for violence against drug suspects—provides a damning narrative, it may not suffice to prove he ordered specific killings. Conti herself admitted that the prosecution would struggle to link Duterte to individual acts of violence. Instead, the case may hinge on demonstrating a pattern of behavior and policy decisions that encouraged or condoned extrajudicial killings as part of a broader state strategy. If successful, this approach could redefine how international courts address accountability for leaders who operate through indirect means.
Analysts also point to the political context in which these policies unfolded. Duterte enjoyed widespread domestic support for his tough-on-crime stance, particularly in the early years of his presidency, with many Filipinos viewing the drug war as a necessary, if brutal, response to a pervasive social issue. This popular backing, combined with a loyal network of political allies, shielded him from significant domestic scrutiny during his term. However, as the body count rose and international criticism mounted, cracks began to appear in this narrative, paving the way for the ICC’s intervention.
Reparations and Recognition for Victims
For the survivors and families of those killed, the ICC case offers a glimmer of hope for justice and reparations. Should Duterte be found guilty, victims could seek formal recognition and compensation for their losses. The court has also expanded the criteria for identifying “indirect victims”—those who suffered trauma or harm as a result of the violence—by widening the range of valid identification documents they can submit. This move aims to ensure that more individuals affected by the drug war can participate in the legal process, amplifying their voices in a case that has global implications.
The human stories behind the statistics remain a powerful undercurrent to the legal proceedings. Many families have shared accounts of loved ones gunned down in their homes or on the streets, often without warning or explanation. Community activists in Manila and beyond continue to document these cases, providing crucial support to the ICC’s efforts while facing risks of retaliation. Their persistence underscores the stakes of the upcoming hearing, which could either validate their long struggle or leave them once again without recourse.
Broader Implications for International Justice
The case against Duterte is being closely watched as a test of the ICC’s ability to address systemic human rights abuses in politically charged environments. Critics of the court argue that it often struggles to enforce its rulings, particularly against leaders of non-member states or those with strong domestic power bases. A successful prosecution could bolster the ICC’s credibility, sending a message to other leaders that impunity has limits. Conversely, a failure to secure a conviction might reinforce perceptions of the court as toothless in the face of entrenched political resistance.
In the Philippines, the case has reignited debates over sovereignty and international intervention. Duterte and his supporters have repeatedly framed the ICC probe as an infringement on national autonomy, a sentiment that resonates with segments of the population wary of foreign influence. Current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has maintained an ambiguous stance, neither fully endorsing nor rejecting the ICC’s jurisdiction, which adds another layer of uncertainty to the proceedings. How this tension plays out could influence not only the outcome of Duterte’s case but also future international efforts to address similar abuses in the region.
As the September hearing approaches, the weight of evidence against Rodrigo Duterte continues to mount, yet questions linger over whether it will be enough to hold him accountable for the bloodshed of the drug war. For the families of the fallen and a watching world, the outcome may redefine the boundaries of justice in the face of state violence.
