THE legal battle over whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) can try former president Rodrigo Duterte for crimes against humanity has entered a critical phase, as his defense team intensifies efforts to block the court's jurisdiction.

Kristina Conti, assistant to counsel and co-representative of the victims in the case, said in an interview that Duterte's defense is not contesting the facts of the anti-drug campaign that left at least 6,000 people dead. Instead, its legal strategy focuses on undermining the court's legitimacy.

"He's not facing the facts," Conti said. "He's challenging the court itself. It's a strategy designed to deflect rather than defend."

Duterte, who was arrested earlier this year and is now detained in The Hague, stands accused of orchestrating a campaign of extrajudicial killings that, according to human rights groups, disproportionately targeted the poor.

The charges stemmed from the war on drugs waged during his presidency from 2016 to 2022.

Though the Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2019, Conti said that withdrawal does not erase accountability for actions committed while the country was still a member.

"The Rome Statute has a clear provision: withdrawal does not affect proceedings already underway," she said. "This is an attempt to delay justice, not deliver it."

Duterte's legal argument is built around a technical point: that the ICC no longer has jurisdiction because the Philippines left the Rome Statute before the court formally opened its investigation in 2021.

But Conti and other international legal experts reject this claim as legally hollow.

"They admitted that the Philippines was a member of the ICC at the time the crimes were committed," Conti said. "But now they're claiming the court can't exercise jurisdiction because the investigation was opened after withdrawal. That's a technicality, not a substantive argument."

She pointed to a 2021 Supreme Court ruling in Paunilangan v. Cayetano, which affirmed that the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was a member, especially when a preliminary examination had already begun.

"The Philippines' decision and the ICC decisions so far are compatible," Conti said. "A preliminary examination is a matter under consideration by the court. It's enough to preserve jurisdiction."

Although the ICC's decision to proceed was not unanimous — two judges dissented, citing Article 97 of the Rome Statute — Conti believes the majority ruling correctly prioritized justice over procedure.

"Three judges said the matter of jurisdiction had not been properly raised and that it's not the time to talk about it. The dissent is being used now to distract from that clear majority."

Another pillar of Duterte's defense is the assertion that the Philippine justice system is both capable and willing to investigate the alleged crimes.

Conti rejected this claim, citing years of inaction, selective prosecutions, and an entrenched culture of impunity.

"If the state was willing and able, we wouldn't be here," she said. "Domestic avenues were closed to these families from the start."

Conti also clarified that the Philippine government's earlier request to defer the investigation had little substance.

"The deferral request of the Philippine government only insisted that the case should say, 'Oh, we're already investigating the cases,'" she said. "But the ICC decision clearly pointed out that the matter of jurisdiction had not been properly raised."

Conti believes that Duterte's legal maneuvering is part of a broader public relations campaign.

"He's casting the ICC process as foreign interference," she said. "It's performative sovereignty. It's designed to make accountability look like an attack on the country."

That nationalist rhetoric, Conti said, is already resonating with Duterte's domestic base, complicating efforts to build public understanding of the ICC's role.

Conti confirmed that victims' representatives are preparing to submit independent legal arguments to the ICC, separate from the Office of the Prosecutor.

"Right now, it's just the prosecutor and the defense against each other, but the victims can also intervene," she said. "Our position is clear: The ICC has jurisdiction, and refusing to exercise it would be a travesty."