The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague is set to take a pivotal step in the case against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, as judges prepare for a crucial pre-trial hearing that could shape the future of international accountability. The hearing, scheduled to run from February 23 to 27, 2026, will determine whether there is sufficient evidence to move forward with a formal trial on charges of crimes against humanity, stemming from Duterte’s infamous “war on drugs.”
Just days before the hearing, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber issued a significant procedural ruling: both the defense and the prosecution would be allowed to expand their evidence lists. According to reporting from TRT World, the chamber granted Duterte’s defense team permission to add 108 new items to its evidence list, while also allowing prosecutors to submit 14 additional pieces of evidence. The chamber justified its decision by citing “the limited extent of the requested additions, the nature of the material concerned and its relevance to the charges.”
This ruling comes at a critical moment for the case, which has drawn international attention since Duterte’s arrest under an ICC warrant in March 2025 and subsequent surrender to the court’s detention facility in The Hague. The former president, who held office from 2016 to 2022 and previously served as mayor of Davao City, faces three counts of the crime against humanity of murder. These charges are directly linked to his administration’s anti-drug campaign—a campaign that, according to rights groups, resulted in thousands of extrajudicial killings of suspected drug users and dealers.
For many observers, the upcoming hearing represents a long-awaited reckoning. Amnesty International, a vocal critic of Duterte’s policies, has described the proceedings as a “crucial opportunity for justice.” In a statement, Secretary General Agnès Callamard said, “Former President Rodrigo Duterte’s long-awaited day in court is a significant step towards delivering justice for victims and survivors of his administration’s deadly so-called ‘war on drugs’.” Callamard added, “It also reminds the international community that nobody is above the law.”
The hearing itself is a procedural requirement under Article 61 of the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty. While confirmation of charges does not equate to a finding of guilt, it is a vital step in assessing whether the prosecutor’s evidence supports the allegations. Judges will hear legal arguments and review the expanded evidence lists from both sides, ultimately deciding if the case should proceed to a full trial. If the Pre-Trial Chamber confirms some or all of the charges within 60 days of the hearing’s conclusion, the case will move to the next phase.
One notable aspect of the upcoming proceedings is that Duterte will not be physically present in the courtroom. The ICC recently agreed to a request from his defense team allowing him to waive his attendance at the confirmation hearing—a move that prosecutors had opposed. Instead, Duterte’s legal team and the prosecution will present their cases in his absence, relying on legal arguments and documentary evidence.
The defense had argued that the 108 new items it sought to introduce were “highly relevant” to the case and that excluding them would cause “significant prejudice” to Duterte. The prosecution, for its part, did not object to the defense’s request and was itself granted permission to add 14 items to its own evidence list. TRT World reported that the chamber’s decision to allow these additions was based on the limited scope of the requests and the material’s relevance to the charges.
The charges against Duterte have their roots in his administration’s aggressive approach to drug-related crime. Beginning as mayor of Davao City and continuing through his presidency, Duterte championed a hardline anti-drug campaign that, according to human rights organizations, led to widespread abuses. Amnesty International and other groups allege that thousands of people were killed in extrajudicial executions, with little regard for due process or the rule of law.
In her statement, Callamard urged the Pre-Trial Chamber to “swiftly confirm the charges and protect witnesses from intimidation,” while also calling on the Philippine government to do its part. “The government’s surrender of Duterte to the ICC does not absolve it of responsibility to deliver domestic accountability for violations in the ‘war on drugs’,” she said. “Alongside the ICC, the government must carry out effective investigations against all others suspected of involvement in extrajudicial executions and hold perpetrators accountable in fair trials.”
The Philippine government’s role in the proceedings has been closely watched, both at home and abroad. While Duterte’s surrender to the ICC marked a significant development, rights advocates stress that true accountability requires more than international prosecution. They argue that domestic investigations and prosecutions are essential to addressing the broader pattern of abuses that occurred during the anti-drug campaign.
As the hearing approaches, legal experts and human rights activists alike are emphasizing the broader implications of the case. Amnesty International has characterized the proceedings as a critical test of international accountability mechanisms, warning that the outcome could set important precedents for how the world responds to alleged crimes by sitting or former heads of state. “This hearing presents a unique, meaningful opportunity to combat impunity and create a lasting impact on broader international criminal law,” the organization stated.
For the ICC, the case against Duterte is one of the most high-profile prosecutions in recent years. The court has faced criticism in the past for its perceived focus on African leaders and its challenges in securing convictions. The Duterte case, involving a former head of state from Southeast Asia, could help shape perceptions of the court’s reach and effectiveness in holding powerful figures to account.
Meanwhile, for families of victims and survivors of the “war on drugs,” the hearing represents a long-overdue chance to see their grievances addressed on the world stage. While the outcome remains uncertain, the proceedings offer a measure of hope that justice—however delayed—may still be possible.
With both sides now armed with expanded evidence lists and the world watching closely, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber faces a weighty decision in the days ahead. The hearing will test not only the strength of the case against Duterte, but also the resolve of the international community to confront allegations of grave human rights abuses wherever they occur.
As the confirmation hearing gets underway, all eyes are on The Hague, where the pursuit of justice for thousands of victims hangs in the balance.