THERE is no proven link between the “uniquely colorful and crusty” speeches of former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte and the murders he is accused of, his defense lawyer told the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Thursday. On the third day of a hearing to decide whether Duterte should face trial on crimes against humanity charges over his “war on drugs,” lawyer Nicholas Kaufman said the prosecution had failed to show his client had directly ordered any murders. “There is no smoking gun in this case,” Kaufman told the three-judge panel at the ICC. “Not one witness relevant to any of the 49 incidents with which Mr. Rodrigo Duterte is charged will testify that he received a direct order from the former president to go out and kill someone,” added the lawyer. Duterte has not attended proceedings, waiving his right to appear. Kaufman says the 80-year-old is not mentally fit to follow the hearing. The lack of evidence of a “causal nexus” between Duterte’s words and alleged crimes “should be sufficient to convince any reasonable bystander... that Rodrigo Duterte is innocent of these charges leveled at him,” said Kaufman. Earlier in the week, the prosecution laid out their case: that Duterte played a “pivotal” role in a campaign of extrajudicial killings that saw thousands murdered. Duterte personally drew up death lists, incited murders and then boasted about them afterward, prosecutors said. They showed multiple videos of the former president threatening to murder alleged drug users and joking about his skills in extrajudicial killing. But Kaufman said the prosecution had “cherry-picked” speeches, ignoring what he said were dozens of examples of Duterte stressing the need to act within the law. “Do not kill if you are not in danger of losing your life,” Kaufman cited Duterte as saying in one speech. Following the weeklong “confirmation of charges” hearing, the three-judge panel has 60 days to decide whether to proceed to a full trial. A lawyer representing the victims told the ICC on Tuesday that the court was the “last refuge” for loved-ones in their search for justice. Kaufman stressed: “The defense does not disrespect the soul of any deceased person, nor does it make light of the loss of life.” Speculative, contradictory The defense team on Thursday said the prosecution’s case is speculative, internally contradictory, and fails to provide a direct link between Duterte’s statements and the alleged killings during the country’s antidrug campaign. Kaufman said the prosecution’s attempt to interpret Duterte’s rhetoric as simultaneously encouraging unlawful violence while offering legal caveats rested on conjecture rather than demonstrable proof of criminal intent. He cited multiple examples in which Duterte instructed law enforcement officers to resort to lethal force only in situations where their lives were at risk. In one speech, Duterte told police to carry out arrests peacefully but to shoot only if confronted with violent resistance. In another, he assured officers he would assume legal responsibility for actions taken in the performance of duty, while stressing that deadly force should only be used when necessary for self-defense. The defense also presented speeches not cited by the prosecution, including early remarks from Duterte’s presidency warning law enforcers not to kill suspects unless their lives were threatened. “The prosecution’s argument that he said one thing but meant another is pure supposition,” Kaufman told the judges. He emphasized that the defense’s submissions were focused solely on the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence at the confirmation stage, not on the suffering of victims’ families. No proof of systematic attack Kaufman also challenged the prosecution’s claim that the alleged killings constituted a “widespread or systematic” attack against a civilian population, a key element for crimes against humanity. WITH AFP “Count 1 cites only nine incidents of murder in Davao City,” he said, calling the number “hardly widespread.” He further questioned prosecution claims of mass graves and bodies allegedly dumped at sea, noting that investigations by Philippine authorities had produced no concrete evidence. The defense also criticized the use of statistics from antidrug operations between 2016 and 2019, saying the figures alone fail to show that the deaths were unlawful or part of a systematic campaign. Kaufman argued that alleged “suspected criminals” and drug offenders cannot constitute an objectively identifiable civilian population, as their classification is based on subjective discretion. The defense described the prosecution’s case as overly convoluted, relying on circumstantial evidence, press reports, hearsay and Duterte’s public statements because it lacked direct evidence linking him to the 49 alleged killings. “The prosecution has alleged not one, but a plethora of theories as to the means of perpetration,” Kaufman said, calling the approach indicative of “prosecutorial uncertainty.” He noted that some of the alleged modes of liability even contradict each other logically. Kaufman criticized the prosecution’s “pyramid” model of responsibility, which placed Duterte at the top, followed by co-perpetrators and alleged hitmen, saying it fails to show how any instruction from Duterte reached individuals who committed the killings. He also questioned the timing of the ICC investigation, noting it took nearly four years to open an inquiry after the Philippines withdrew from the court, despite available witnesses from Duterte’s Davao City mayoral tenure. Command Circular 16 A major focus of the defense was the prosecution’s claim that Command Circular 16 of 2016 — issued by then-new Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Ronald Dela Rosa to launch Project Double Barrel — constituted a blueprint for extrajudicial killings. Kaufman said the prosecution misinterpreted the document, which explicitly mandates adherence to human rights and legal procedures. While the prosecution highlighted terms like “neutralization” as evidence of a criminal plan, the defense argued that in context it referred to lawful operations against illegal drug personalities. He quoted Dela Rosa explaining that “instilling fear” meant ensuring suspects understood police actions were lawful and conducted with human rights protections. The defense also cited PNP Investigative Directive 12 of 2016, which reaffirmed the legal framework for Double Barrel operations. “The supposed criminal blueprint set out in Command Circular 16 of 2016 is totally negated by the content of the document itself,” Kaufman said. “The prosecution’s focus on selected phrases to suggest a criminal plan is misleading.”