Marilyn Cahatol

The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee secretary administers the oath of former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte Monday, October 28, 2024 before he begins his testimony before the subcommittee investigating motu proprio the alleged extra-judicial killings during his administration. In his opening statement, Duterte defended his war against illegal drugs, which he said was not about killing people but about protecting the innocent. “My mandate as President of the Republic was to protect the country and the Filipino people. Do not question my policies because I offer no apologies nor excuses. I did what I had to do,” the former chief executive said. “My job as President was never easy... I have tried to do the best I can to address the problem of illegal drugs firmly and without compromises. For all of its successes and shortcomings, I, and I alone take full legal responsibility,” he added. Senate Public Relations and Information Bureau

Article (news)

SENATE PROBE- EJK

Zen Hernandez

ABS-CBN News

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Lead defense counsel Nicholas Kaufman used the third day of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) confirmation of charges hearing to press a single core point: that prosecutors still have not shown a provable link between former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s words or any alleged chain of command that may have directly resulted to the charged incidents.“The defense does not disrespect the soul of any deceased person, nor does it make light of the loss of life,” Kaufman told the judges at the start of his submissions, stressing that the defense’s critique was aimed at “only the prosecution’s document containing the charges.”Kaufman’s presentation repeatedly returned to the same battleground: Duterte’s public speeches.“Journalists and their editors have a tendency to fixate on the salacious elements of a person&#x27;s speeches while ignoring the less interesting parts,” he said, before arguing that the Prosecution’s selection is incomplete and, in some instances, self-defeating.“It has only supplied 20 of these speeches as proof of criminal intent… 10 of these speeches… actually contain an exhortation to the use of lawful self-defense,” he said, adding, “Thereafter we found a further 35 speeches.”For Kaufman, the bigger issue is not the number of speeches, but whether speeches can establish criminal intent at all.“The point we really merely wish to make is that relying on the former prosecutor’s speeches as a means of proving criminal intent is impossible,” he said.He cited instances where, he said, the Prosecution quoted only the incriminating lines and omitted the qualifying lines he considers “exonerating.”In one example, he contrasted a portion read by the Prosecution: “I am ultimately responsible for their deeds,” with what he said came next: “Go out, arrest them if you can, but if there is no peaceful method… and you&#x27;re presented with violent resistance… you shoot.”In a speech where the Prosecution quoted Duterte as saying, “But if you do your duty, do not worry about cases. I’ll protect you… And if there&#x27;s somebody who will go to jail, it’s me,” Kaufman emphasized the next line: “just do it right… you can only kill if your life is in danger.”He also pointed to a third statement he said was explicit: “Do not kill if you are not in danger of losing your life.”Kaufman also attacked the Prosecution’s contextual narrative, particularly the claims of a “widespread” attack against a “civilian population.”He argued that Count 1, as charged, is too narrow to meet the “widespread” requirement.“Count one contains nine incidents of murder in one city, Davao, hardly widespread,” he said.He criticized reliance on broader reporting and datasets for incidents outside the charged counts, saying, “NGO reports, academic statistics and media articles are as a rule considered insufficient,” and that “any factual allegations outside the charged incidents… must be proved to the required standard.”Kaufman also argued that Prosecution maps showing geographic spread do not prove illegality. He said they illustrate “the magnitude and geographical spread of what the prosecution alleges without, of course, proving that they were extrajudicial killings.”On the “civilian population” element, Kaufman said the Prosecution’s theory was overstated.“The prosecution argues that Mr. Duterte launched an attack on the entire population of the Philippines,” he said, then countered: “this so-called attack is directed not against the civilian population at large… but rather against a considerably smaller and nebulous margin of society, namely the alleged criminals themselves.”He called the idea of an “attack on the whole population” “quite bizarre,” and argued that letting “the people who pulled the trigger” decide who belongs to the targeted group leads to “random selection,” which he said undermines the legal requirement for a civilian population with “distinguishing features.”A central defense theme on Day 3 was the need for what Kaufman called a “causal nexus” between Duterte’s actions and specific killings.“The prosecution has to show which one of Duterte’s statements, orders, or commands were given to a specific individual who then went out and pulled the trigger,” he said.“But the prosecution cannot show such a causal link. They’ve never been able to do that,” he added.He repeatedly insisted that none of the charged incidents shows that chain from Duterte to a specific perpetrator in a specific incident.“Not one of the 49 incidents… manifests such a causal link between a speech, an order, and one of the charged incidents,” he said.“There is no smoking gun in this case,” he declared.And he pushed further: “Not one witness relevant to any of the 49 incidents… will testify that he received a direct order from the former president to go out and kill someone.”<div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/2/26/defense-argues-no-direct-order-from-duterte-to-kill-victims-no-direct-line-to-co-perpetrators-1944">Defense argues no direct order from Duterte to kill victims, no direct line to &#x27;co-perpetrators&#x27;</a></div>Kaufman’s other main front was the mode of liability the Prosecution alleges, especially indirect co-perpetration, which requires showing an agreed plan involving a criminal element.“To prove criminal liability through indirect co-perpetration, there is a need to show a common plan… and that common plan must without exception have a criminal element,” he said.He argued that the only plan “in play” was “totally legitimate” and “wildly supported by the Filipino electorate,” and called the existence of a criminal plan “entirely preposterous.”“The prosecution cannot point to any particular point in time where there is direct evidence indicating that even two of their so-called co-perpetrators actually met to agree to such a… scheme,” he said. “As such, the plan cannot be described as common to anyone.”A major thread running across the sessions was the contested meaning of “neutralization.”Kaufman argued that “neutralization itself is of course not defined anywhere in any of these documents as meaning to kill,” and said the defense would show it “can only mean the use of self-defense where officers’ lives are endangered.”He also insisted that across “political, legislative, judicial, and law enforcement contexts,” “neutralization denotes lawful restraint.”Kaufman cited public clarifications he said supported that reading, and he invoked the government’s past position in domestic litigation, saying the Supreme Court of the Philippines “to date has declined” to rule that “neutralize or neutralization means to kill.”He also leaned on what he described as Prosecution witness testimony: “witnesses P1158 and P170 explained that neutralize means to arrest… It did not mean to kill.”<div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/2/26/kaufman-neutralize-in-duterte-drug-war-only-meant-arrest-and-subdue-2006">Kaufman: &#x27;Neutralize&#x27; in Duterte &#x27;drug war&#x27; only meant arrest and subdue</a></div>From there, he made a sweeping claim: “If the prosecution’s case for the common plan in counts two and three is based on command circular number 16 of 2016, we might as well pack up and go home because Mr. Duterte is simply not guilty.”Kaufman acknowledged that Command Memorandum Circular (CMC) No. 16 of 2016 references “Project Double Barrel” and is “modeled after” Davao City’s policing strategy, but argued that the prosecution’s “criminal blueprint” theory is contradicted by the text itself.“The supposed criminal blueprint… is totally negated by the content of the document itself,” he said.Pointing to language he read aloud: “all operations should strictly observe the rights of the accused enshrined in the Philippine Constitution as well as international law and human rights.”Kaufman also challenged the integrity of the Prosecution’s insider witnesses, portraying the case as driven by what he called “a priori targeting of Rodrigo Duterte.”“A prosecutor is… not meant to choose his target in advance and then find the evidence to support a preconceived desire,” he said.He attacked the credibility of what he called “star witnesses,” saying they are “self-confessed murderers,” and criticized “limited use” agreements that, he argued, should be used to develop leads, not become the backbone of a case.“I do not think that I would be alone either in believing that there is something morally repugnant… to shield… a number of murderers from prosecution… just in an attempt to nail Rodrigo Duterte,” he said.<div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/2/26/duterte-lawyer-questions-credibility-of-prosecution-s-self-confessed-witnesses-2322">Duterte lawyer questions credibility of prosecution&#x27;s ‘self-confessed’ witnesses</a></div>He added: “granting immunity to a murder suspect for core international crimes would be seen as undermining the object and purpose of the Rome Statute.”Toward the end of the day, Kaufman urged the judges to treat each charged incident as its own test, especially if the Prosecution’s broader theory rests on scale.“If the contextual case depends on the scale of victims… then establishing the evidentiary integrity of each charged incident is imperative,” he said.He argued the Chamber should not send any incident to trial without finding “substantial grounds” for two things: that each was an unlawful killing and that the alleged criminal linkage to Duterte is established.When the 49 incidents are “disaggregated and examined one by one,” he said, what emerges is “the recurrence of certain symptoms of inherent weakness in the evidence,” which he grouped into categories including reliance on cooperating witnesses, hearsay attribution, unidentified victims in some incidents, documentary contradictions, conflicting witness accounts, and “the repeated absence of any evidence to link the hitmen to our client.”Kaufman’s Day 3 submissions included a private or closed session during Session 2, and another brief closed segment later in the day.The hearing is set to continue with further defense arguments, followed later by closing statements by the Prosecution, then by the legal representatives of victims, and with the defense given the last word.<div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/2/26/icc-prosecution-rejects-claims-of-improper-influence-stresses-independence-1602">ICC prosecution rejects claims of improper influence, stresses independence of Duterte probe</a></div><div> </div><div>RELATED VIDEO:</div><div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xs2Auw_KCVE?si=SxV5Y_xoNx2UWT6l" title="YouTube video player" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div><div style="text-align:center"> </div>

Lead defense counsel Nicholas Kaufman used the third day of the ICC's confirmation of charges hearing to press that prosecutors have not shown a provable link between former President Rodrigo Duterte’s words or any alleged chain of command that may have directly resulted to the killings.

Lead defense counsel Nicholas Kaufman used the third day of the ICC's confirmation of charges hearing to press that prosecutors have not shown a provable link between former President Rodrigo Duterte’s words or any alleged chain of command that may have directly resulted to the killings.

Kaufman to ICC judges: No 'smoking gun,' no 'common plan' nor criminal intent

News

Entertainment

Lifestyle

Sports

Metro.Style

More

Traffic

Manila

Horoscope

Nation

Kaufman to ICC judges: No 'smoking gun,' no 'common plan' nor criminal intent

Zen Hernandez,

ABS-CBN News

Published Feb 27, 2026 07:00 AM PHT

Read More:

Rodrigo Duterte

Nicholas Kaufman

ICC

Pre-Trial Chamber

confirmation of charges

Appeals Chamber

War on Drugs

Crimes Against Humanity

tokhang

EJK

ABS-CBN is the leading media and entertainment company in the Philippines, offering quality content across TV, radio, digital, and film. Committed to public service and promoting Filipino values, ABS-CBN continues to inspire and connect audiences worldwide.

Corporate

Investors

Governance

International Distribution

Corporate

Governance

Investors

International Distribution

NPC Seal of Registration

Privacy Policy

AI Policy

Terms of Service

Advertise with Us

© 2026 ABS-CBN Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

NPC Seal of Registration

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

AI Policy

Advertise with Us

© 2026 ABS-CBN Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

NPC Seal of Registration

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

AI Policy

Advertise with Us

© 2026 ABS-CBN Corporation. All Rights Reserved.