Duterte case at ICC tackled in second status conference

MANILA, Philippines — The International Criminal Court (ICC) Trial Chamber III on Tuesday held the second status conference on the crimes against humanity case against former President Rodrigo Duterte ahead of his trial.

The chamber tackled the deadlines for filing observations on the expert panel reports, the adoption of a protocol on handling confidential information, and the page limit of the prosecution’s trial brief.

READ: ICC sets 2nd pretrial hearing of Rodrigo Duterte case

The chamber would also decide the dates for the next status conferences after the judicial recess, as well as public statements made by Duterte’s counsel.

“The status conference will be public. However, in order to avoid disclosure of sensitive information regarding witness protection and security issues, the Chamber may order the use of private sessions,” the trial chamber said.

Only Duterte’s counsel present

Similar to the first conference on May 27, as well as all other proceedings before it, Duterte waived his right to attend the hearing. It means he will once again be represented solely by his counsel.

While still subject to change after the conclusion of today’s conference, the next status conference is set for July 14, 2026, based on the initial schedule.

The trial will open on Nov. 30, 2026.

READ: No formal ICC warrant notice received for Bong Go, 2 others — DILG

Duterte is facing three counts of crimes against humanity over his administration’s war on drugs, which killed at least 6,000 people based on government records and over 30,000 based on human rights records, including children as young as 3 years old.

READ: Bato dela Rosa now on ICC’s list of ‘at large’ defendants

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Read Next

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.