Duterte’s Defense Claims ICC Redactions Distort Fairness

THE HAGUE — The lawyer for former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on Friday accused the International Criminal Court of undermining transparency by redacting portions of its live broadcast of his client’s confirmation of charges hearing, calling the move “unfair” and harmful to the defense’s standing in the public eye.

In closing remarks at the end of the four-day hearing on February 27, 2026, defense counsel Nicholas Kaufman argued that the redactions distorted how proceedings were presented to global viewers following the case online. The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I, however, maintained that the measures were necessary to protect the identities and safety of victims and witnesses.

The hearing centers on three counts of crimes against humanity — including murder and attempted murder — allegedly committed during Duterte’s tenure as mayor of Davao City and later as president, in connection with his administration’s anti-drug campaign.

Defense Cites “Inequality of Arms”

Kaufman used his final address to criticize what he described as a one-sided public portrayal of the proceedings. Portions of the livestream were muted or visually obscured after the defense referenced information that could potentially identify witnesses or victims.

“From this, I submit you can really appreciate the true inequality of arms facing the defense as it attempts to defend the client in the public eye, I stress, in the public eye of the ICC. This inequality of arms in the public eye expresses itself in the way the prosecution controls the narrative,” Kaufman told the chamber.

He added: “I found the redactions unfair and contrary to the spirit of transparency.”

The phrase “equality of arms” refers to a fundamental principle in international criminal law requiring that both prosecution and defense are given a fair opportunity to present their case. Kaufman’s argument suggested that while courtroom procedures may be intact, the edited broadcast skewed public perception — a critical dimension in a case followed closely across the Philippines and abroad.

Judges Defend Protective Measures

Presiding Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc rejected the implication that the redactions compromised fairness, emphasizing that the defense has full access to the unredacted materials.

“Equality of arms is ensured because the defense has access to the redacted information. It just is not available to the public,” Motoc said.

She also reminded the defense that the chamber had previously ruled on the issue and would not reopen it during closing submissions.

“The defense must not make submissions on that point now because it is not appropriate and the decision is already available in the public domain,” Motoc stated.

The chamber opted to redact limited portions of the livestream rather than suspend proceedings into a closed session. The move followed disclosures during the hearing that risked revealing identifying details about protected individuals.

A Case With Global and Domestic Reverberations

The confirmation of charges hearing, which began on February 26 and concluded the following day, marks a pivotal step in determining whether the case will proceed to full trial. In January 2026, the same chamber ruled that Duterte was fit to stand trial and denied his request for an indefinite adjournment.

The ICC’s involvement remains politically sensitive in the Philippines. During Duterte’s presidency, the government formally rejected the court’s jurisdiction over alleged crimes linked to the “war on drugs.” The Philippine House of Representatives and Senate later adopted resolutions declaring non-cooperation with ICC investigations, invoking the principle of complementarity under the Rome Statute.

Nevertheless, the proceedings in The Hague continue to draw attention from victims’ families, human rights organizations, and Duterte supporters across the country. For many observers, the redactions — brief though they were — underscore the tension between two competing imperatives: public transparency and witness protection.

Balancing Transparency and Safety

The ICC operates under provisions of the Rome Statute that require public hearings but allow protective measures for victims and witnesses. Article 68 specifically empowers chambers to take steps safeguarding the well-being of those who may face risk for participating in proceedings.

Human rights advocates argue that redactions are essential in cases involving alleged extrajudicial killings, where witnesses may fear retaliation. Defense lawyers, by contrast, often contend that limited public access can shape perceptions unevenly in high-profile international cases.

While the dispute over redactions does not alter the legal substance of the charges, it highlights the broader political and social stakes surrounding the case. For ordinary Filipinos following developments online, the muted segments serve as a reminder that some aspects of international justice unfold behind carefully drawn curtains.

The judges are expected to deliberate in the coming months on whether the prosecution’s evidence meets the threshold required to confirm the charges and move the case to trial — a decision that will determine the next chapter in one of the most closely watched international proceedings involving a former Philippine head of state.