By Jodesz Gavilan in Manila

The confirmation of charges hearings at the International Criminal Court (ICC) kicked off on Monday this week setting the stage for four days of high-stakes arguments over former President Rodrigo Duterte’s deadly drug war.

The team of prosecutors, victims’ representatives, and the defence are laying out their cases aiming to prove — or challenge — whether Duterte’s actions warrant trial.

After this pre-trial hearing, the ICC judges may decide whether there is enough evidence to move forward to a full trial, a process that could define Duterte’s legacy and signal accountability.

The past few days have been tense, with prosecutors presenting the systematic anti-illegal drug campaign that led to the thousands of deaths under Duterte, while victims’ representatives described the human toll in stark terms.

The defence team, so far, has painted a portrait of a president who was tough, outspoken, and misunderstood, but whose actions, they argued, were within the law.

Rappler has highlighted some of the most striking statements from the sessions. This will be updated as the confirmation of charges progresses and ends tomorrow.

Day 1 — February 23, 2026

Read the highlights from Day 1 at Rappler

“Mr Duterte’s criminal plan and his intent were no secret. He not only shared them with his co-perpetrators and members of the [Davao Death Squad], but also made them abundantly clear to the general public in the numerous public statements that he made time and again.

“His intent and knowledge are shown by the multiple statements that he made throughout his mayoral and presidential tenure promising to reduce crimes by killing alleged criminals, promoting the common plan, and urging the police and even members of the public to kill alleged criminals.”

— Deputy ICC prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang on how Duterte’s public speeches demonstrate his intent and knowledge in promoting drug war killings

“The arrest and detention of Mr Duterte has not stopped impunity in the Philippines. The virus of impunity that he spread all over the country has become a cancer that has metastasised, infecting millions of Filipinos. Mr. Duterte has created clones of himself. He converted millions of peace-loving citizens into bloodthirsty disciples who have become converts to the belief that violence and killings are valid solutions to societal problems.

“The killings masterminded by Mr Duterte continue to have consequences for the victims, even to this day, because of his clones. These mini-Dutertes harass, threaten, or commit outright violence against the victims and their families.”

— Lawyer Joel Butuyan, ICC-appointed common legal representative for victims, on the culture of impunity in the Philippines and the continuing threats faced by families of drug war victims

“If the charges are not confirmed in this case, one of the gravest concerns of the victims is that Mr Duterte will return to the Philippines as a conquering hero. He will resume preaching his gospel of impunity. In fact, if Mr Duterte could threaten to slap the judges of this court — which he did while he was president — this chamber should imagine the kind of terror-filled threats and the violent actions that can easily be used against the victims if the suspect walks free from this court.”

— Lawyer Joel Butuyan, ICC-appointed common legal representative for victims, on the potential risks if Duterte is not tried in court and punished.

“Rodrigo Duterte was, and will always remain, a unique phenomenon. His style of statesmanship was novel and unpalatable to many. His expletives and hyperbole grated, while his honesty and wild popularity irritated. He spoke openly from the heart, sincerely and truthfully. And what a contrast between him and his successor in Malacañang. For [Duterte], his word was his word, and the people knew it. For President Bongbong, his was for the wind and the people will not forget it.”

— Lead defence counsel Nicholas Kaufman on Duterte’s style of leadership and his contrast with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

“[Duterte]’s rhetoric was calculated to arouse fear and obedience, to instill fear in their hearts, and to inculcate a respect for the law in their minds. Nothing more, nothing less. That was his intent, and it was not criminal.”

— Lead defence counsel Nicholas Kaufman on Duterte’s use of rhetoric to enforce law and order.

“The reality is that Mr Duterte’s message was clear, and it was understood by the perpetrators, and it was followed. That message was: commit murder at my direction, and I will protect you, I will pay you, I will promote you. That’s what happened.

“And I’ll say this as well, your Honours, for purposes of this confirmation hearing, disregard every speech ever made by Mr Duterte. Throw them all out. There is still ample evidence of substantial grounds based on the other evidence which we have put on our list of evidence. And the evidence as a whole, when you weigh it together, will show that what [Nicholas Kaufman] said is not correct, that Mr Duterte intended for his subordinates to follow the law and that he was interested and that his speeches were simply bluster.”

— Senior trial lawyer Julian Nicholls of the ICC prosecution team, on why evidence beyond his public speeches demonstrates intent to commit killings.

Day 2 — February 24, 2026

Read the highlights from Day 2 at Rappler

“Mr Duterte goes on to comment on extrajudicial killings. And as he does so, your Honours will note the nonchalant, casual manner in which he draws his finger across his throat . . .  And in this opulent, gilded presentation room, the officials laugh along with their president while he boasts about his skills in extrajudicial killing. Outside, on the streets of the Philippines, the bodies pile up.”

— Lawyer Edward Jeremy of the ICC prosecution team, on the behaviour of Duterte during public speeches that were shown in the confirmation of charges hearing

“And in the face of this public outcry, Mr Duterte was forced to temporarily withdraw police from drug operations . . .  And this led to a reduction in the frequency of killings. In announcing this temporary withdrawal, Mr Duterte sarcastically stated that he hoped that this would satisfy ‘bleeding hearts and the media’. And, in this way, he publicly communicated that this was not a genuine effort to prevent crime, but rather a temporary attempt to placate public criticism. And less than two months later, Mr Duterte decided to once again scale up operations.”

— Lawyer Edward Jeremy of the ICC prosecution team, on Duterte’s response following the killing of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos

“From everything you have heard over the past two days, there can be no doubt about Mr Duterte’s knowledge and intent. He intended that the crimes would be committed and he was aware that they would be committed as a result of implementing the common plan . . .  Mr Duterte knew because he himself established the DDS to kill people. He repeatedly broadcast his intention to implement the common plan nationally if elected president. He made it clear that this would involve killing.

“Once he was president, he moved his trusted co-perpetrators from Davao into key national positions. And as the number of killings rose, Mr Duterte persisted with the common plan. He praised the 32 killings in a one-time big-time operation in Bulacan. He publicly named so-called high-value targets. He promised to protect police and as your Honours have heard, Mr Duterte has admitted to many of these things.”

— Lawyer Robynne Croft of the ICC prosecution team, on the deliberate orchestration of drug war killings and the role of the Davao Death Squad and national officials in executing the common plan.

“We speak for families who cannot be here, mothers who buried their sons, children who lost their parents, the spouses who now raise families alone, and communities that have lived for years under fear and silence and that continue to bear the consequences of violence that swept through their neighborhoods like a storm. These victims appear today before you not as mere statistics or distant figures or images in reports . . . but as human beings whose rights under the Rome Statute have been violated in the most profound ways.”

— Paolina Massida, principal counsel of the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV), on what the families of drug war victims had to go — and are going — through.

“The shooting could happen immediately, behind closed doors or in the street, or the victims would be taken away by the gunmen, only for shots to be heard minutes later and the body to be discovered by local residents. At times, bodies were dumped elsewhere, sometimes with hands tied or heads wrapped in plastic. Relatives typically found them after being alerted by policemen or by the neighbors.”

— Paolina Massida, OPCV principal counsel, on the pattern of killings during Duterte’s drug war.

“In other cases, victims tried to seek justice. They went to the police, to local officials, to government agencies. They filed reports, they asked for investigation, they begged for answers. Their pleas were ignored, their complaints were dismissed, their testimonies were doubted. In some cases, the very people they approached for help were the same ones involved in the violence. They were left with no path forward. No institution was willing to hear them, no authority was willing to protect them, no system was willing to acknowledge what was happening.”

— Paolina Massida, OPCV principal counsel, on the systemic failure in the Philippines to provide justice or protection for drug war victims.

“The victims have waited years for this moment. They have been silenced, stigmatized, and denied justice in their own country. Today, they stand before you with the hope that justice long denied may finally be within reach. This [ICC] is their last refuge. And today, on their behalf, we ask this chamber to affirm that their suffering matters, that their rights matter, and that the rule of law extends even to the most powerful by confirming all the charges against Mr Duterte and committing him to trial.”

— Paolina Massida, OPCV principal counsel, on the appeal of victims for accountability.

“Mr Duterte’s drug war campaign targeted the very humanity of the victims, of their families, and of their communities. In Filipino, the indirect victims expressed this in one sentence: ‘Inalisan kami ng dangal.’ We were stripped of our dignity.”

— Lawyer Gilbert Andres, ICC-appointed common legal representative for victims, on their dehumanisation and targeting during Duterte’s drug war.

Republished from Rappler with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Gyeonggi Provincial Government’s Sudden Cancellation Raises Concerns of Bias and Violation of Rights

An administrative decision by a South Korean government agency sparked international controversy, raising concerns about religious freedom.

On November 27, religious leaders and opinion leaders delivered a joint protest statement to the Government of the Republic of Korea condemning the cancellation of the venue rental on October 29th as an act of biased religious oppression through public power.

Signed by 402 organizations, 758 religious representatives, and 977 individuals across the globe, totalling 1,735 signatories, the statement emphasized the psychological and financial damage caused to the international participants and highlighted the need for accountability.

On October 30 the “Religious Leaders Forum and Graduation Ceremony,” a joint initiative by two prominent religious organizations, was set to take place in Paju, South Korea. The event was expected to draw over 30,000 participants from 78 countries, including 1,000 religious leaders representing Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism.

However, the Gyeonggi Tourism Organization (GTO), a public entity under Gyeonggi Province, abruptly canceled the venue rental at 11am on the morning of the event, when preparations were already underway.

This decision, made without prior notice, has resulted in significant financial damage to the international event and its organizers. As the first clause of Article 20 of the South Korean Constitution states: “All citizens shall enjoy freedom of religion”, they argue that the cancellation constitutes an unconstitutional act of discrimination against a specific religion, violating religious freedom, human rights, and due process of law and an act that divides the people and divides the country into two.

The Joint Protest Statement demands accountability for this situation and calls for an official apology from the Gyeonggi Provincial Government and the Gyeonggi Tourism Organization to both domestic and international religious organizations and the global community.

It also requires the government to take appropriate disciplinary actions against the officials responsible for handling this matter and to strengthen fair and transparent venue reservation procedures and preliminary consultation systems.

Over 88 global leaders including international law experts, religious leaders, education experts, heads of organizations, journalists from around the world sent official documents and protest letters to the Republic of Korea upon hearing the news of the cancellation of the event, expressing shock and disappointment at this administrative action and demanding prompt and appropriate measures.

In particular, international law experts from around the world, including those with experience as prime ministers, vice ministers of justice, chief justices of the Supreme Court, presidents of the Constitutional Court, lawyers, and professors of international law, pointed out that the cancellation of the event on this day was an act that violated the Constitution, and religious leaders expressed concern that it was a biased decision and an anti-peaceful act that infringed on religious freedom.

Since November 15, religious leaders and members of Shincheonji Church of Jesus have held rallies outside the Gyeonggi Provincial Office and Gyeonggi Tourism Organization, condemning the biased cancellation urging the government to address the issue and take measures to prevent recurrence.

Timeline of Events Leading to the Cancellation
● July 22: Notification of approval for the rental from 29th to 31st October by GTO.
● October 2: Full payment of the rental fee.
● October 16: A working-level meeting held to discuss the event’s size, arrangements,
safety plans, and special effects. The GTO reviewed all details and completed a
safety inspection. While Paju City was designated a danger zone due to potential
North Korean provocations, officials assured organizers that this designation would
not impact the event.
● October 23 & 28: Officials confirmed twice that ‘there are no plans to cancel the
rental’.
● October 28: A rally was hosted by ‘SUGICHONG’, a Christian council of capital area
of Korea urging the cancellation of a venue rental.
● October 29: At 11 o’clock on the day of the rental while the event was being set up,
the Gyeonggi Province Governor Kim Dong-yeon unilaterally notified the
cancellation, citing security concerns related to recent North Korean actions and
activities by a North Korean defector group. Organizers allege that pressure from
opposing groups, including vested religious interests, influenced the decision.
● October 19-20, November 4: Notably, other events in the same area proceeded
without disruption.

See Also:

• Joint_Statement_of_Protest_to_the_Gyeonggi_Provincial_Governent part 1
• NewZealand.shincheonji.org/
• Facebook.com/nz.shincheonji/

Some Fiji government ministers are “held on a tight leash” and afraid to make open ended statements in public, claims former health minister Dr Neil Sharma.

He said this during a live video interview on Sashi Singh’s Talking Point page on Facebook.

Dr Sharma claimed that the perception of the public that this country was governed by a “one man rule” was true.

“A lot of government ministers are fearful of making open ended statements to the public,” Dr Sharma said.

“They will read from prepared statements and speeches and those speeches go through the government’s communications unit.”

He said government ministers feared being reprimanded for sharing their personal or ministerial views.

“Let me put it this way, they are on a tight leash,” he said.

Dr Sharma also alleged that the perception by the public that government ministers were “just mere puppets” in Parliament was true.

Questions sent to the Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama remained unanswered.

Pekai Kotoisuva is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz