HUMAN rights lawyer Kristina Conti has strongly refuted what she described as an "unethical and unfair" statement made by Nicholas Kaufman, lead counsel for former president Rodrigo Duterte, at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Kaufman had alleged that Conti and fellow human rights lawyer Joel Butuyan were not authorized to represent victims in the ICC's investigation into Duterte's controversial drug war.

In an interview, Conti said that neither she nor Butuyan, one of only five Filipino attorneys accredited by the international tribunal, had applied to be part of the legal representative team — simply because the court has not opened the formal registration process for victims.

"We haven't even applied yet to be a legal representative team. That's because our clients — the victims — haven't even been invited yet to qualify," said Conti, legal representative for the families of drug war victims. "In other words, the registration isn't open yet."

The process of victim participation at the ICC involves an initial registration phase, after which the court appoints a common legal representative.

Conti said she and her team had already submitted communications to the court ahead of the registration phase, allowing their clients to be recognized once the application window officially opens.

Despite not being formally designated by the court at this stage, Conti said their long-standing role as counsel for many victims of extrajudicial killings should not be downplayed.

"You can't just erase over eight years of work we've done helping these victims," she said. "We represent them in other capacities and in other proceedings. In fact, broadly speaking, we continue to represent their interests."

Conti also questioned the credibility of Kaufman's statement, noting his relatively recent entry into the case.

"I found it really unethical and unfair for Attorney Kaufman to make that claim — considering he's only been on this case for two months," she said. "We are the lawyers of the victims."

In a separate interview, Butuyan said the Office of the Ombudsman may face significant limitations in its investigation into the high-profile arrest of Duterte last March as it lacks the jurisdiction to challenge the ICC over the matter.

The investigation was spurred by a complaint filed by Sen. Imee Marcos, who accused several high-ranking government officials of usurpation of judicial functions, arbitrary detention and providing false testimony in connection with Duterte's arrest. Marcos claims that the arrest lacked proper legal justification and that the officials involved overstepped their authority.

However, Butuyan pointed out that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the ICC retains jurisdiction over actions that occurred while the Philippines was still a member, even though the country withdrew from the international body.

"The Ombudsman doesn't really have much discretion here," he said. "There's already a ruling from our own Supreme Court acknowledging that the ICC has jurisdiction over matters like Duterte's arrest, even though we've already withdrawn from it."

Despite the Ombudsman's mandate to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing, Butuyan stressed that the office cannot challenge the ICC's jurisdiction, which has been firmly established by the highest court in the land.

"I really can't imagine the Ombudsman reviewing or questioning the ICC's jurisdiction," Butuyan said. "Even the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction to question the ICC's procedures. It's a matter already settled by our highest court."

Even if the Ombudsman were to find evidence of wrongdoing by the officials named in the complaint, Butuyan said it is highly unlikely the office could overrule the ICC's decisions or proceedings.

"For the Ombudsman to file charges, it would have to declare that the ICC's decisions were wrong," he noted. "But that's highly improbable."