The International Criminal Court in The Hague will hold a confirmation of charges hearing for former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte beginning Feb. 23, 2026, before Pre‑Trial Chamber I to decide whether the case should proceed to trial.

The hearing will take place in Courtroom I with sessions scheduled on Feb. 23, 24, 26 and 27. The chamber consists of Presiding Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc and Judges Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini‑Gansou and María del Socorro Flores Liera. Oral submissions will be heard from the Office of the Prosecutor, the Defence and the Legal Representatives of Victims. The court set time limits for oral presentations: the Prosecution has 30 minutes for opening, 2 hours 30 minutes for submissions on the merits, and 30 minutes for closing; the common Legal Representatives of the Victims have 30 minutes for opening, 1 hour 30 minutes for submissions on the merits, and 30 minutes for closing; and the Defence has 30 minutes for opening, 3 hours 30 minutes for submissions on the merits, and 30 minutes for closing. The hearings will be streamed publicly with a 30‑minute delay on the ICC website, Facebook and YouTube, and transcripts will follow.

The confirmation hearing will determine whether there are “substantial grounds to believe” that crimes against humanity were committed and that Duterte bears criminal responsibility. The Office of the Prosecutor seeks confirmation of three counts of the crime against humanity of murder based on 49 specified incidents that resulted in 78 deaths and describes those incidents as examples within a broader alleged pattern of summary killings associated with a nationwide campaign against drugs. The ICC investigation covers alleged crimes committed in the Philippines from Nov. 1, 2011, through March 16, 2019. The prosecution alleges killings in Davao City during Duterte’s time as mayor and in multiple locations nationwide during his presidency; it has said it may present additional incidents and victims if charges are confirmed. The arrest warrant and charges initially referenced additional counts of torture and rape, but the pretrial chamber did not include those charges in the arrest warrant, finding insufficient linkage to a broader attack on a civilian population.

Duterte was arrested in Manila on an ICC arrest warrant, transferred to ICC custody and is detained at the ICC Detention Centre in Scheveningen, The Hague. He has requested interim release; the court denied interim release requests and continues periodic reviews of detention. The Defence has raised medical and fitness‑to‑participate issues: defence lawyers argued Duterte suffered cognitive impairments and sought adjournments and other accommodations. A panel of three independent medical experts provided an assessment; the pretrial chamber found Duterte fit to participate in pre‑trial proceedings and ordered accommodations for the confirmation hearing, including shorter daily sessions and frequent breaks. The Defence has notified the court that Duterte does not wish to attend the confirmation hearing in person or by videolink and has submitted a written waiver; pretrial judges must satisfy themselves that a waiver is informed and may decide whether to require his appearance. Defence counsel Nicholas Kaufman said Duterte will not take part by video and described prior appearances as affected by medication; the Defence has also argued incapacity to personally execute legal documents. Duterte and his lawyers have described his transfer as unlawful and, in some statements, as a “forced rendition” involving a specially chartered plane and assistance by the incumbent Philippine presidency; the Philippine government and presidential communications officials have said the transfer was lawful under domestic law, that the ICC retains jurisdiction over acts that occurred while the Philippines was a party to the Rome Statute, and that victims sought the ICC because they believed domestic remedies were unavailable. The Philippine government has also noted domestic legal provisions permitting surrender to international tribunals under applicable treaties. The Senate minority bloc filed a resolution seeking protection for Filipinos from extraordinary rendition or surrender to foreign courts. These opposing characterizations of the transfer and of the ICC’s jurisdiction are assertions made by the respective parties.

Victim participation is authorized: 539 victims have been approved to participate and three legal representatives were appointed to present victims’ views and concerns. The Victims and Witnesses Unit and judicial measures are available to protect participants, including identity protection, closed sessions and relocation where necessary. Victims’ lawyers have expressed anxiety about the delayed hearings and have traveled to The Hague for the proceedings.

Domestic accountability in the Philippines has produced a small number of convictions of police officers; multiple domestic review processes were found by ICC judges to be insufficient to justify deferral of the ICC investigation. The ICC’s jurisdiction in the Philippines case rests in part on the prosecutor’s preliminary examination having begun before the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute; the pretrial chamber upheld jurisdiction while noting there are dissenting opinions that remain subject to appeal.

If the pretrial chamber confirms one or more charges, the case will be sent to a Trial Chamber for trial. If charges are not confirmed, the Prosecution may seek to submit additional evidence or revise its charges. The court will issue a written decision within the prescribed period after the confirmation hearing. Recommendations made in related public commentary urge the Philippine authorities to end drug‑focused campaigns, to investigate officials implicated by the allegations, to support victims’ families and to consider re‑entry to the Rome Statute; these are proposals and not court findings.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (philippines) (icc) (manila) (philippine) (davao) (murder) (trial) (detention) (relocation) (prosecution) (torture) (rape) (recommendations) (appeal) (evidence) (accountability) (impunity) (justice) (atrocities) (authoritarianism) (dictator) (evil) (scandal) (outrage) (shocking) (unbelievable) (entitlement) (polarizing) (viral) (controversial) (clickbait) (breaking) (exclusive)

Summary judgment of usefulness

Actionable information: The article does not give direct, practical steps an ordinary reader can use right away. It reports on an ICC confirmation of charges hearing and outlines legal issues, timelines, and numbers, but it does not provide instructions for what a reader should do, where to go for help, or how to participate. The references to victim participation, protective measures, and detention reviews are descriptive rather than procedural: they explain that these options exist in the ICC process but do not tell a person how to apply them or access them. Where it cites statistics and institutional outcomes, it does not translate those into concrete actions for affected individuals, families, or concerned citizens. In short, the article informs but does not empower with clear next steps.

Educational depth: The piece gives a reasonable high-level description of the ICC process at the pretrial stage, the legal standard to be met (“substantial grounds to believe”), the scope and time frame of the investigation, and differences between charges the prosecutor sought and the counts the judges included. However, it stays at a descriptive level and generally does not explain the legal reasoning behind those standards in depth, the evidentiary thresholds or how evidence is evaluated in practice, the precise legal definitions of modes of responsibility (ordering, instigating, aiding and abetting, control), or how appeals and jurisdictional disputes procedurally work. The statistics cited (government count of deaths, UN/domestic higher estimates) are presented without methodological explanation, uncertainty ranges, or sources that a reader could consult to judge reliability. That makes the article moderately informative for context but shallow if a reader wants to understand mechanisms, evidence standards, or how counts and estimates are derived.

Personal relevance: For most readers the article is of limited immediate relevance. It is highly relevant to a narrow group: victims, families involved in the case, legal practitioners, human rights organizations, and people in the Philippines following accountability for the drug campaign. For the general public it is primarily a report on an international judicial proceeding rather than information that affects safety, finances, or everyday decisions. It does, however, have broader civic relevance: it shows how international justice mechanisms function and what kinds of evidence and processes are involved. But that relevance is indirect and largely informational.

Public service function: The article provides civic information about an important international legal event, which is valuable in the sense of public interest reporting. It does not, however, include practical public service elements such as safety guidance, resources for victims or witnesses on how to seek help, contact details for legal aid or human rights groups, or steps for people concerned about their own legal exposure or those of family members. It is not an emergency or safety advisory and does not give instructions on what to do in urgent situations.

Practical advice: There is little to no practical advice an ordinary reader can follow. Mentions of victim participation and protective measures are factual but not operational: there are no instructions on how a victim would apply to participate, what documentation is required, or which organizations can help. Requests for interim release being denied and detention review schedules are noted, but do not tell stakeholders how to engage with those processes. Any guidance in the piece would be too abstract for a reader who wanted to act.

Long-term impact: The report describes potential long-term consequences if charges are confirmed (a trial, possible convictions) and mentions recommendations for the Philippine government that could change policy and accountability in the future. However, it does not provide readers with ways to plan, prepare, or influence those outcomes. It does not explain how citizens or victims might pursue domestic remedies, advocacy strategies, or support mechanisms that could have lasting impact.

Emotional and psychological impact: The article may provoke distress or concern, especially for people directly affected, because it reports on allegations of large-scale killings and an international arrest and trial process. It does little to provide context that would reduce anxiety for general readers, such as information on protections for witnesses, support services for victims, or how to seek counseling. The tone is factual and not sensational, which mitigates unnecessary alarm, but it does not offer constructive coping or resources.

Clickbait or sensationalism: The article reads as sober reporting about a high-profile legal matter. It does not appear to use sensationalist language or exaggeration. The inclusion of specific institutional details and procedural information suggests a straightforward report rather than click-driven sensational content.

Missed opportunities to teach or guide: The article could have better served readers by explaining how the ICC confirmation hearing differs from a trial in practical terms, outlining the standard of proof at each stage, listing how victims or witnesses can apply for participation and protection, summarizing what evidence types commonly matter in such hearings, or pointing to reputable organizations that assist victims or monitor proceedings. It could also have given more context about the differing death tallies and how monitoring groups and governments count or verify fatalities. None of these operational or explanatory elements were provided.

Practical, general guidance the article omitted

If you are a person potentially affected by events described in international proceedings, seek basic legal and safety advice from recognized, local or international human rights organizations before taking action. Document and preserve any relevant records and evidence you already have—dates, locations, names, photos, medical records, witness contacts—stored safely and backed up in more than one secure place, because accounts and documents can be useful for legal or advocacy processes. If you are considering contacting international or domestic authorities, prepare a clear, concise summary of your concern and the documentation you can provide, and ask organizations about confidentiality and protection measures before sharing sensitive details. When evaluating reported statistics or claims, compare multiple independent sources, note differences in definitions and time frames, and treat single figures as estimates unless methodology is explained; asking how counts were made and who collected them helps assess reliability. For emotional strain after exposure to reports of large-scale violence, reach out to local counseling services, trusted community or faith leaders, or victim-support NGOs that can offer psychosocial support; such help is practical and widely available even if it varies by location. If you are a journalist, researcher, or concerned citizen wanting to follow the process use official court channels for primary documents and transcripts, verify secondary reporting against those sources, and be cautious about sharing unverified allegations on social platforms because that can endanger witnesses and distort public understanding. Finally, when deciding whether to take part in advocacy or legal steps, weigh personal safety and risk, seek advice from experienced groups about protective measures, and prioritize actions that are sustainable: focused documentation, measured public statements, and collaboration with established organizations are typically safer and more effective than ad hoc activism.

"the prosecution describes the incidents as examples within a broader pattern and may present additional incidents and victims if charges are confirmed."

This wording frames the incidents as part of a larger pattern before the hearing decides that. It helps the prosecution’s narrative by suggesting systemic conduct. It hides uncertainty by using "describes" and "may present" to make the pattern sound likely without firm proof. It favors the view that the acts are widespread rather than isolated. It guides readers to expect more evidence, shaping impressions ahead of the court’s decision.

"Allegations focus on thousands of summary killings associated with a nationwide campaign against drugs, with reported police killings and additional deaths attributed to unidentified assailants believed by monitors to act with the knowledge or support of local officials."

The sentence uses strong, large-number language ("thousands") and passive phrasing ("attributed," "believed by monitors") that distances the text from direct claims of who did the killings. It makes the scale and official complicity sound large while not naming direct sources or certainty. That softens responsibility language and leans toward a view of state-linked violence without firm attribution. It helps the claim seem broad and serious while preserving deniability.

"Official Philippine government data cited 6,252 deaths during police anti-drug operations from July 1, 2016, to May 31, 2022, while United Nations and domestic estimates place higher totals; monitoring reported further killings after 2022."

Putting the government's lower figure first and then saying other estimates are higher creates a contrast that can make official numbers look understated. The structure nudges readers to trust non-government figures more by presenting them as corrections to the official count. It frames the government as minimizing harm without evaluating the methods behind each estimate. That ordering favors skeptical views of official data.

"The pretrial chamber must assess whether the prosecution has presented 'substantial grounds to believe' that the alleged crimes were committed and that Duterte bears criminal responsibility either through control of or support to security forces, by ordering or instigating attacks, or by aiding and abetting."

Quoting the legal standard centers the prosecution’s burden but the sentence lists many forms of responsibility in one sweep. That bundling can make culpability seem more certain by offering multiple paths to blame without separating evidence for each. It compresses complex legal distinctions into a simple list, which can lead readers to assume proof exists for all modes of responsibility. It steers perception toward guilt through enumerating options.

"The warrants initially sought additional counts of torture and rape, but the chamber did not include those charges in the arrest warrant, citing insufficient linkage to a broader attack on a civilian population."

This phrase emphasizes the chamber's exclusion of some charges and gives its reason, "insufficient linkage," which frames the court as cautious and methodical. That can create trust in the court’s selectivity, possibly boosting its legitimacy. At the same time it downplays the original scope of allegations by focusing on procedural narrowing rather than substance. It subtly shifts emphasis from alleged acts to legal thresholds.

"Defence counsel may challenge the charges and evidence at the confirmation hearing. The pretrial chamber previously postponed proceedings when defence lawyers argued that Duterte suffered cognitive impairments, but an independent medical panel and the chamber later found him fit to participate. The court ordered accommodations for the hearing, including shorter daily sessions and frequent breaks."

This passage presents the defense claim (cognitive impairment) and then quickly reports its rejection by an "independent medical panel," which favors the view that the defense argument lacked merit. The order puts the panel’s finding immediately after the defense claim, reducing weight given to the defence. It frames the court as fair by noting accommodations, which can soften impressions of detainee disadvantage while highlighting the court's authority. The sequence privileges the court’s determinations over defense concerns.

"Requests by Duterte for interim release have been denied, and periodic reviews of detention are ongoing."

This short sentence states denials without giving reasons or defense context. It presents detention decisions as routine and unquestioned, which can normalize the outcome and reduce sympathy or doubt. The passive "have been denied" hides who denied them and why, making the process feel administratively settled. That wording makes the custody outcome seem final and uncontroversial.

"Victim participation is authorized in the proceedings, with 539 victims approved to participate and three legal representatives appointed to present victims’ views and concerns."

Reporting the exact number of approved victims and the appointment of representatives emphasizes victim participation and gives a sense of scale. That choice highlights the weight of victim voices in the process and can increase the perceived legitimacy of the case. It foregrounds victims rather than defense perspectives, which influences readers to view the proceedings as victim-centered.

"The confirmation hearing is not a trial and will be streamed with a 30-minute delay on the ICC’s platforms, with transcripts to follow."

Calling the hearing "not a trial" while noting public streaming frames the event as preliminary but highly visible. That contrast can lead readers to conflate public exposure with substantive adjudication. The streaming detail makes the process seem transparent, which can bolster trust in the institution even though it is not the full trial. It shapes perception that openness equals thoroughness.

"The ICC’s jurisdiction in the Philippines case rests on the prosecutor’s preliminary examination having begun before the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute, a point the pretrial chamber upheld while noting dissenting opinions on jurisdiction that are subject to appeal."

This sentence asserts the legal basis for ICC jurisdiction and notes dissenting opinions exist, but the structure privileges the chamber's upholding first, then mentions dissent as secondary. That ordering favors the court’s majority view and downplays the significance of dissent. It frames jurisdiction as settled while acknowledging dispute, shifting weight toward acceptance.

"Domestic accountability in the Philippines has resulted in a small number of convictions for police officers, while multiple domestic review processes were found by ICC judges insufficient to justify deferral of the ICC investigation."

Using "a small number" emphasizes scarcity and frames domestic efforts as inadequate. The phrase "were found by ICC judges insufficient" presents an external judgment as decisive, which delegitimizes domestic processes. That selection of facts favors the need for international action and paints domestic mechanisms as failing. It highlights international critique over domestic explanations.

"Recommendations for the current Philippine administration include formally ending the drug-focused campaign, ordering investigations into implicated officials, supporting victims’ families, and pursuing re-entry to the Rome Statute to signal commitment to international justice."

Listing recommendations as if they are neutral policy steps implies these are obvious remedies. The final item, "to signal commitment to international justice," interprets re-entry as a political signal rather than a legal choice, which frames rejoining the Rome Statute as primarily symbolic. That language nudges readers to see certain policy moves as moral indicators, favoring one set of political actions.

The text conveys a range of emotions, mostly through factual description that nonetheless carries strong moral and human overtones. Foremost is concern or worry, expressed in the repeated focus on alleged killings, large numbers of deaths, and ongoing investigations. Phrases such as “thousands of summary killings,” “police killings,” “additional deaths,” and precise figures like “6,252 deaths” are emotionally loaded; they evoke seriousness and alarm. The strength of this worry is high because the numbers and repeated references to violence create a sense of scale and urgency. This worry guides the reader to view the situation as grave and to expect scrutiny and possible accountability, shaping a mindset that these are matters needing legal and moral response. Closely connected is sadness or grief, implied rather than narrated, visible where victims and families are mentioned and where monitoring reports and victim participation are noted. Words about victims, families, and deaths carry moderate to strong sadness because they point to real human loss; this sadness invites sympathy and humanizes the abstract legal process, encouraging readers to feel empathy for those affected.

Anger or moral outrage appears implicitly in the terms describing alleged misconduct and the prosecution’s framing of actions as crimes against humanity. The use of legal charge words—“crime against humanity,” “murder,” “summary killings,” and “bearing criminal responsibility”—conveys condemnation and moral judgment. The strength of this anger is moderate: the text stays formal and legal, but the labels and accusations push readers toward a critical view of the alleged conduct. This anger drives readers to consider wrongdoing and the need for justice. A sense of accountability and determination is present in the emphasis on investigations, arrest warrants, custody, hearings, and possible trials. Language about the court assessing “substantial grounds,” issuing arrest warrants, and victims’ participation communicates institutional resolve; the strength of this determination is moderate to strong because repeated references to legal steps and procedural safeguards underline an active effort to pursue the case. That determination steers the reader to trust the justice process and to see the matter as being addressed methodically.

Fear or caution is also present, especially in references to detention reviews, medical fitness concerns, protective measures for witnesses, and streamed hearings with delayed broadcasts. Words such as “detained,” “protected,” “closed sessions,” and “relocation” signal potential danger to participants and the sensitive nature of the proceedings. The strength of fear is moderate: the text emphasizes procedural protections, which both acknowledge risks and aim to reassure. This balance causes readers to be alert to safety risks while also trusting that steps are taken to mitigate them. Neutrality and formality function as a restrained emotional tone throughout the piece. The repeated legal terminology, procedural descriptions, and carefully cited timeframes reduce overt emotional language and maintain credibility. The strength of this neutrality is strong in tone; it serves to build trust in the factual reporting and to present the matter as a serious legal process rather than sensational news. This restraint guides readers toward analytical engagement instead of purely emotional reaction.

Implicit frustration or disappointment toward domestic accountability efforts is present when the text notes that “domestic accountability in the Philippines has resulted in a small number of convictions” and that review processes “were found... insufficient to justify deferral of the ICC investigation.” The words “small number” and “insufficient” convey dissatisfaction at limited domestic remedies. The strength of this frustration is moderate and it nudges the reader to see international action as necessary because national measures fell short. A sense of procedural impartiality and hope for justice is conveyed by detailing legal standards, victim participation, and options for appeal or additional evidence. This mixes moderate hope with sober caution; it aims to persuade the reader that the system is careful, fair, and open to further development, thereby encouraging confidence in due process.

The writer uses several rhetorical techniques to increase emotional impact while keeping formal language. Specific numbers and dates are repeated to emphasize scale and timeline, which makes the allegations feel concrete and urgent rather than vague. Naming legal charges and formal actions (arrest warrant, custody, confirmation hearing) repeats the theme of accountability and amplifies moral seriousness. Mentioning victims by their participation and legal representation personalizes the story without providing individual narratives; this human detail increases sympathy while preserving formality. Contrasts are used implicitly, for example by comparing official government figures with higher United Nations and domestic estimates; this contrast highlights uncertainty and suggests that harm may be greater than official counts admit, prompting concern and skepticism. The text also balances alarming content with procedural safeguards—medical panels, protection measures, streaming delays—to temper fear and build trust. These tools—specificity, repetition of legal steps, personalization through victim participation, and contrasts between data sources—direct the reader’s attention toward both the severity of alleged crimes and the seriousness of the legal response, steering emotions from shock and sympathy toward support for investigation and confidence in a deliberate judicial process.