On 16 September 2026, Trial Chamber III of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held a third status conference in the case of The Prosecutor v. Rodrigo Roa Duterte. Trial Chamber III is composed of Presiding Judge Joanna Korner, Judge Keebong Paek and Judge Nicolas Guillou. ICC-CPI
MANILA — The defense team of former President Rodrigo Duterte has asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to reject the prosecution’s bid to admit the prior recorded testimony and related documents of a key witness without requiring him to testify in court.
In a public redacted filing before the ICC Trial Chamber III, defense lead counsel Peter Haynes argued that the prosecution’s application involving witness P-1100 should not be allowed under Rule 68(3) of the court’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
“This material is not admissible through Rule 68(3) and the Prosecution’s request should be rejected,” the defense said, formally asking the chamber to “reject the prosecution’s application.”
The defense argued that P-1100 does not have direct personal knowledge of the matters in dispute during the period covered by Duterte’s charges, which runs from November 1, 2011 to March 16, 2019.
“The charged period in this case runs between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019… He does not have personal knowledge of the matters which are in dispute in this case,” the defense said.
The filing responds to a September 7 application by the Office of the Prosecutor seeking to admit P-1100’s statements and associated materials under Rule 68(3).
The rule allows the ICC to admit certain previously recorded testimony in lieu of live testimony, subject to the court’s assessment of its admissibility and the rights of the accused. The provision is intended, among other things, to help streamline proceedings and reduce the duration of trials.
Prosecution asks ICC to admit witness statement directly linking Duterte to 'Davao Death Squad'
The defense said it recognizes the provision’s purpose but objected to its use in P-1100’s case.
The defense said it is “not opposed to the reasonable use of Rule 68(3) in the present proceedings, as a means of facilitating an expeditious trial, particularly in light of the obvious constraints which come with arresting a defendant in his eighties who is in poor health.”
LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
The defense argued that P-1100 is being presented as a witness of fact despite allegedly having no direct knowledge of the events relevant to the charges.
“The Prosecution is proposing to call P-1100 not as an expert witness but as a witness of fact, in circumstances where he does not have personal knowledge of the matters which are in dispute in this case,” it said.
According to the defense, the witness’s connection to the charged period is based on events or interactions that took place before the period covered by the case.
The defense also argued that parts of P-1100’s proposed testimony amount to opinion evidence rather than testimony based on his personal knowledge.
“He is not permitted to give opinion evidence. Insofar as the Prosecution relies on his assessments to establish matters beyond that knowledge, it seeks to introduce expert opinion without the requisite qualification or evidentiary foundation,” it said.
The defense cited, among other examples, P-1100’s interpretation of the term “neutralize” and his explanation of how Philippine police officers would allegedly understand the term.
It argued that the witness did not identify an adequate basis in his personal knowledge for that assessment.
The defense also questioned P-1100’s alleged linking of killings in 2009 to killings allegedly committed during Duterte’s presidency beginning in 2016.
The defense likewise challenged several pieces of “associated material” that the prosecution seeks to admit alongside P-1100’s testimony.
It argued that some of the documents lack sufficient indicia of authenticity and were not properly used or explained by the witness in his statements.
“This vague reference does not render this composite document admissible; it was not ‘used and explained’ by P-1100, therefore becoming an integral part of his statement, nor is it in admissible form,” the defense said.
Rodrigo Duterte makes first in-person appearance at ICC
The legal team invoked Article 69(4) of the Rome Statute, which requires the chamber to consider the relevance and probative value of evidence against any prejudice its admission could cause to a fair trial or the fair evaluation of testimony.
ICC says Duterte 'shall continue to be detained'
“Evidence of little or no probative value may, accordingly, be excluded,” the defense said.
Alternatively, it asked the chamber to bar the admission of the contested associated documents as the ICC prepares for the trial proceedings against Duterte.
The ICC has scheduled Duterte’s trial to begin on November 23, 2026.
RELATED VIDEO