The International Criminal Court in The Hague is holding a confirmation-of-charges hearing to decide whether former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte should be sent to trial on charges of crimes against humanity linked to his anti-drugs campaign.

Prosecutors allege Duterte is responsible for large-scale extrajudicial killings carried out during his time as mayor of Davao City and later as president. They have charged him with three counts of crimes against humanity and say the charges cover at least 76 specific murders alleged to have occurred between 2013 and 2018, or in other accounts between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019. The prosecution’s allegations include that Duterte acted as a co-perpetrator in: 19 murders in Davao City while mayor (2013–2016 in some accounts), 14 killings of so-called “high-value targets” after he became president (2016–2017 in some accounts), and 43 killings during barangay “clearance” operations targeting lower-level suspects (2016–2018 in some accounts). Prosecutors also say he selected some targets, authorised killings, promised immunity to perpetrators, and provided financial support to those who carried out the operations.

The prosecution describes a nationwide network of law enforcement officers, non-police actors and hired killers used to implement a policy sometimes referred to as Operation Double Barrel. Prosecutors presented evidence including video recordings of Duterte making threats to kill people, and they described killings that in some accounts included children. Human rights groups and victims’ lawyers say the wider campaign’s death toll may be as high as 30,000; prosecutors cited estimates ranging from about 12,000 to 30,000. Philippine police figures cited in some summaries report more than 6,000 deaths or describe many killings as claimed self-defence. Those differing death-toll estimates are presented here as reported.

Duterte has denied the allegations, does not recognise the ICC’s authority, and has publicly defended his record. His lawyers have argued that his public statements were rhetorical and should not be read as literal orders, that examples cited by prosecutors are misrepresented or taken out of context, and that he is unwell; they have also argued he was targeted by political opponents. The defence has contested the court’s jurisdiction, pointing to the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute in March 2019; the ICC has ruled it retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in the Philippines from 2011 to 2019, and that ruling is the subject of an appeal that remained pending in some accounts.

Duterte waived his right to be physically present at the hearing; the court has ruled he is fit to participate despite defence claims about his health. An arrest warrant for Duterte was issued under seal on 7 March 2025, reclassified four days later, and he was surrendered to the Court on 12 March 2025. He was detained in the ICC detention unit in Scheveningen, Netherlands, following his transfer from Manila; some summaries note his surrender and detention were widely documented on social media and followed a political falling out and subsequent detention and deportation at Manila airport after the collapse of an earlier political alliance between the Duterte and Marcos families. Duterte’s arrest, transfer and detention have domestic political implications in the Philippines, where members of the Duterte family continue to hold prominent local and national offices and where demonstrations both supporting Duterte and supporting victims took place.

The confirmation hearing is scheduled to run over several days (described variously as four days or a week), after which judges have up to 60 days to issue a written decision on whether there are substantial grounds to believe the alleged crimes were committed and whether to confirm some or all charges and commit the case to trial, to decline to confirm charges and end proceedings, or to adjourn and request additional evidence or amendments. Legal representatives for hundreds of victims — one figure given is 539 — have been granted participation to present their views and evidence. The hearing does not determine guilt or innocence; it assesses whether the Office of the Prosecutor has met the burden required to proceed to a full trial.

The case is being monitored internationally as a test of the ICC’s ability to prosecute a former head of state and has prompted demonstrations, public statements from victims’ families and human rights groups seeking accountability, and political reactions in the Philippines. Judges’ forthcoming written decision will determine whether the matter proceeds to trial.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (davao) (manila) (marcos) (deportation)

Actionable information: The article is a news summary of an ICC confirmation-of-charges hearing about Rodrigo Duterte. It contains no practical steps, checklists, or instructions a reader can act on. It reports what prosecutors allege, the legal posture (Duterte denies court’s authority and waived presence), the alleged death toll estimates, and procedural details (four-day hearing, judges have up to 60 days to decide). None of that supplies a reader with clear choices they can use “soon” (for example, how to participate in a civic process, how to contact officials, or how to protect themselves). If a reader hoped for guidance on what to do next—whether to lobby, contribute evidence, seek legal counsel, or change personal behavior—the article provides no prescriptions. In short: no actionable steps are given.

Educational depth: The piece conveys basic facts about the case, names the alleged policy (Operation Double Barrel), notes conflicting death toll estimates, and mentions the Rome Statute withdrawal. However it remains at the level of surface reporting. It does not explain the ICC’s legal standards for confirmation hearings, how crimes against humanity are defined and proved, how jurisdiction is determined after a state’s withdrawal, or how evidence is evaluated in pre-trial stages. Numbers such as the human rights groups’ estimate “up to 30,000” and “at least 76 murders” attributed to Duterte are reported without explaining their sources, methodology, or margin of uncertainty. Therefore the article does not teach the underlying legal or evidentiary systems or the reasoning necessary to understand the significance or limits of the facts presented.

Personal relevance: For most readers the story is informational rather than personally consequential. It may be directly relevant to victims, relatives, or Philippine citizens concerned about accountability, or to people working in international law and human rights. For the general public, particularly outside the Philippines, it does not affect safety, finances, health, or daily responsibilities. The political connections described (Duterte–Marcos fallout, family positions) are of national political interest but don’t translate into actionable decisions for most individuals. So personal relevance is limited and concentrated to specific groups.

Public service function: The article informs that a major international legal proceeding is underway and that alleged extrajudicial killings are at issue. That has public-interest value. But it does not provide practical public-service content such as warnings, victim resources, helplines, guidance on reporting abuses, or legal options for affected people. It is primarily reportage without constructive guidance, so its direct public-service utility is limited.

Practical advice: There is none. The article doesn’t offer steps a reader could realistically follow—no instructions on how to verify the claims, how witnesses might provide evidence, how citizens could engage with international mechanisms, or how those at risk might improve safety. Any reader looking for ways to act or respond will find no realistic guidance here.

Long-term impact: The story covers an event with potential long-term consequences for international justice norms and accountability, but the article does not help a reader plan ahead. It doesn’t discuss implications for future prosecutions, possible policy changes, or how similar cases might be affected. It focuses on the immediate hearing rather than providing frameworks or lessons that would help someone prepare or adapt over time.

Emotional and psychological impact: The article includes disturbing allegations—killings including children and very large death-toll estimates—which can provoke distress. Because it offers no pathway for readers to help, respond, or learn more constructively, the piece risks leaving readers feeling shocked or helpless rather than informed and empowered.

Clickbait or sensationalism: The piece reports high-impact claims and uses strong terms (crimes against humanity, extrajudicial killings, up to 30,000 dead). That language is appropriate for the subject, but the article leans on dramatic facts without deeper context. It doesn’t appear to use attention-grabbing falsehoods, but its emphasis on shocking numbers without methodological explanation can inflate emotional response more than understanding.

Missed opportunities to teach or guide: The article misses many chances. It could have explained how the ICC confirmation-of-charges stage works, what legal standards are applied, how jurisdiction claims operate when a state withdraws from the Rome Statute, or how independent death-toll estimates are compiled and verified. It could have directed victims or witnesses to organizations that assist with documentation, or outlined how ordinary citizens can follow proceedings responsibly (for example, accessing official court documents, watching public hearings, or contacting representatives). None of these are provided.

Practical, general guidance the article omitted

If you want to evaluate similar international legal reporting, first check whether the report identifies the legal stage (investigation, confirmation hearing, trial, appeal) because different stages have different standards for evidence and outcomes. When numbers are cited, ask who produced them and whether they are estimates or confirmed counts; large ranges often reflect different methodologies or incomplete data. For readers trying to follow a case, look for official court filings and press releases from the tribunal’s website rather than relying only on secondary summaries; primary documents state charges, legal bases, and schedules. If you are concerned about safety or potential local implications, avoid assuming immediate personal risk from distant trials; instead, monitor credible local sources and official advisories. For anyone dealing with or affected by alleged abuses, prioritize contacting established human-rights organizations and legal aid providers who can advise on documentation, psychosocial support, and legal pathways. If you want to responsibly discuss such cases, focus on verified facts, clearly mark uncertainties, and avoid amplifying raw allegations as settled conclusions. Finally, when trying to form a reasoned view, compare independent accounts from multiple reputable outlets and look for explanations of legal procedures and evidence standards to understand how a reported development fits into the larger process.

"The International Criminal Court is holding a hearing to decide whether former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte should face trial for alleged crimes against humanity linked to his anti-drugs campaign." This frames the matter as a legal process about "alleged" crimes, which signals caution and avoids stating guilt. It helps protect Duterte from being presented as convicted. It hides no claim of guilt but also softens the seriousness by emphasizing procedure over alleged acts.

"Prosecutors say the campaign, begun when Duterte served as mayor and continued during his presidency, involved extrajudicial killings of alleged drug dealers, users and others, and that Duterte was involved in at least 76 murders and charged with three counts of crimes against humanity." Using "Prosecutors say" and "alleged" distances the text from the factual claim and places responsibility for the accusation on prosecutors. This helps the defense side by emphasizing accusation rather than established fact. It makes the reader treat the figures and charges as claims, not proven events.

"Duterte has denied the allegations and does not recognise the court’s authority." Stating the denial and non-recognition gives Duterte's stance equal, simple space, which can create a tone of balance. The phrasing may also normalize refusal to accept international law, which helps present his position without critique. It does not weigh the denial against evidence.

"Court lawyers argued about his fitness to participate, and Duterte waived his right to be present at the hearing." "Argued about his fitness" lacks detail on who claimed what and why, which hides power dynamics or medical/legal grounds. Saying he "waived his right" presents a legal choice as a simple fact and could suggest cooperation, which may soften perception of resistance; the text does not explain motivation.

"Prosecutors described killings, including of children, and said police officers and hired hitmen were used to carry out a policy known as Operation Double Barrel." Mentioning "including of children" uses an emotionally strong example to increase outrage and support the prosecution's moral claim. Naming "police officers and hired hitmen" assigns responsibility to both state and non-state actors; the phrasing links state forces to extrajudicial acts, which supports the prosecution’s narrative.

"Human rights groups estimate the campaign’s death toll at up to 30,000 people, while police maintain many killings were claimed as self-defence." Presenting the large human-rights estimate alongside the police claim creates a contrast but gives both claims equal weight without assessing evidence. The phrase "claimed as self-defence" places a subtle qualifier on police statements that suggests skepticism, which helps the human-rights narrative more than the police defense.

"Duterte served as president for a single six-year term after being elected on a promise to tackle illegal drugs, and previously built a strongman reputation as mayor of Davao." Calling him a "strongman" is a loaded label that evokes authoritarianism and toughness. This word choice pushes a negative political image and helps the view that his style enabled abuses. It is not neutral descriptive language.

"He is known for provocative rhetoric and has remained unapologetic about the campaign." "Provocative rhetoric" and "remained unapologetic" are evaluative phrases that highlight his demeanor and suggest moral hardness. These words push a negative portrayal of character and support the idea he accepted or defended harsh measures.

"The Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in March 2019, and Duterte’s lawyers point to that withdrawal in contesting the court’s jurisdiction." Framing the withdrawal as something "Duterte’s lawyers point to" makes it look like a legal argument rather than a sovereign act, which subtly underplays the state's decision. The phrasing shifts focus from national policy to a defense tactic, helping the ICC side by portraying the withdrawal as contestable.

"Duterte’s arrest and transfer to The Hague followed a political falling out between the Duterte and Marcos families, after which Philippine authorities detained him at Manila airport and deported him to the ICC." Saying the arrest "followed a political falling out" suggests causation from politics without showing proof, which may cast the arrest as politically motivated. This frames the transfer as possibly partisan and helps the defense narrative that the prosecution is politically driven.

"The deportation and transfer were widely documented on social media by Duterte and family members." Pointing out social media documentation emphasizes transparency by Duterte's side and may help the view that the transfer was public and theatrical. It foregrounds evidence from supporters rather than neutral sources, which can humanize Duterte and downplay secrecy.

"The case has political ramifications inside the Philippines, where the Duterte and Marcos families previously formed an electoral alliance that later collapsed, and where members of the Duterte family continue to hold prominent local and national offices." Highlighting family alliances and ongoing political power connects the legal case to domestic politics and implies influence networks. This wording helps explain stakes but also suggests partisan motives and protects the idea that political clout may affect outcomes.

"The confirmation-of-charges hearing will run over four days, after which judges have up to 60 days to issue a written decision on whether the case should proceed to trial." This sentence focuses on procedure and timing, which frames the story as legal process rather than moral judgment. It helps a neutral, institutional view and steers attention away from substantive allegations.

"The hearing represents the first time a former Asian head of state has been indicted by the International Criminal Court." Framing it as a "first" emphasizes novelty and significance, which can amplify perceived gravity and historic importance. The choice stresses symbolic impact and supports narratives about the ICC's reach.

The text expresses several emotions, each contributing to a complex tone that guides the reader’s reaction. Foremost is outrage and moral condemnation, conveyed by phrases such as “extrajudicial killings,” “children” being killed, and human rights groups’ estimate of “up to 30,000 people.” These words carry strong negative emotion, signaling severe wrongdoing and cruelty; their intensity is high because they name death, systematic violence, and vulnerable victims, and they serve to alarm the reader and provoke moral disapproval. Closely tied to outrage is fear and alarm: references to a broad “anti-drugs campaign,” “police officers and hired hitmen,” and a policy called “Operation Double Barrel” create a sense of danger and lawlessness. The fear communicated is moderate to high, aimed at making the situation feel urgent and threatening to public safety and rule of law. The text also carries indignation and accountability-seeking emotion in how it details the legal process—“holding a hearing,” “charged with three counts of crimes against humanity,” and “confirmation-of-charges hearing.” This legal framing projects seriousness and a desire for justice; the emotion is controlled but firm, encouraging the reader to regard the allegations as weighty matters requiring formal adjudication. A countervailing note of defiance or dismissal appears in descriptions of Duterte’s stance—he “denied the allegations,” “does not recognise the court’s authority,” and “waived his right to be present”—which express stubbornness and noncooperation; these are moderate emotions that portray resistance and attempt to undermine the court’s moral authority, likely prompting readers to perceive a clash between power and accountability. Political tension and betrayal are implied through the passage recounting the “political falling out between the Duterte and Marcos families,” the documented “deportation and transfer,” and the mention that their “electoral alliance … later collapsed.” These phrases evoke a sense of intrigue and schism, with moderate emotional weight that frames the legal action as also politically consequential, guiding readers to see broader implications beyond individual guilt. The narrative also contains elements of disbelief and controversy in noting the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute and Duterte’s lawyers’ contesting of jurisdiction; this creates a skeptical, contested mood that tempers certainty and signals legal and diplomatic complexity. Finally, a subtle note of shock and historic significance emerges in stating that this is “the first time a former Asian head of state has been indicted by the International Criminal Court,” an emotion of historical gravity that is moderate in intensity and meant to impress the reader with the case’s uniqueness and importance. Together, these emotions steer the reader toward seeing the story as a serious, alarming, and contentious event with legal, moral, and political stakes. The writer uses emotionally charged nouns and verbs (for example, “extrajudicial killings,” “waived,” “deported”) instead of neutral alternatives to heighten impact and focus attention on harm and conflict. Specific, vivid details—numbers like “76 murders” and “up to 30,000 people,” the naming of “Operation Double Barrel,” and the personal image of social media documentation—function as amplifiers that make the claims feel concrete and urgent; repetition of themes of denial, jurisdictional dispute, and documented transfers reinforces the conflict between accusation and resistance. Comparisons are implied rather than explicit, as when describing police claims of “self-defence” against human rights estimates of mass death, which frames two sides in stark opposition and increases perceived contrast. These techniques raise emotional stakes, guide readers toward concern and judgment, and emphasize the seriousness and contested nature of the case, shaping opinion by making violations appear extensive and the legal battle both consequential and fraught.