Overview
A widely shared claim on social media asserts that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has no evidence of crimes linked to former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s drug crackdown. This claim is misleading and contradicts official statements and ongoing investigations. Experts and ICC updates indicate that prosecutors do possess materials and have engaged in formal processes related to the case.
What the ICC is investigating
The ICC opened an investigation into the Philippines for drug-related killings and other alleged crimes under Duterte’s war on drugs. The investigation focuses on whether state actions and policies leading to extrajudicial killings meet the criteria for crimes under the Rome Statute, including crimes against humanity. Prosecutors typically gather evidence through interviews, documents, field investigations, and cooperation with national authorities. The existence of evidence is often referenced in court filings, prosecutor statements, and publicly released summaries, though specific exhibits are usually not disclosed in full to protect ongoing proceedings and witnesses.
Why the claim is misleading
The assertion that “ICC has no evidence” ignores the procedural reality of international prosecutions. Evidence in ICC cases is built over time, through a formal process that includes requests for information, witness protection considerations, and the management of sensitive materials. Prosecutors must meet high legal standards to present evidence in court, which can take months or years. Publicly available updates frequently mention ongoing investigations, requests for documents from state authorities, and cooperation agreements—an implicit acknowledgment that evidence is being gathered and evaluated.
What has been publicly documented
1) Official communications: The ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has publicly outlined the opening of an investigation and subsequent steps, which inherently implies the collection of evidence and preliminary assessments of admissibility and jurisdiction.
2) Court filings and updates: Regular court filings reference the progress of the investigation and potential charges, which are grounded in evidence obtained through formal channels.
3) National cooperation: ICC investigations rely heavily on cooperation from the Philippines and other actors. This cooperation often includes access to records, interviews, and other materials that form the evidentiary basis for future actions.
Common misconceptions explained
– Misconception: ICC cases are decided without evidence. Reality: The ICC requires compelling evidence to issue charges and pursue trials. Early communications can begin long before formal indictments are announced.
– Misconception: An ongoing investigation means no evidence exists yet. Reality: Investigations inherently involve evidence gathering; the lack of public disclosure does not indicate the absence of evidence.
– Misconception: All evidence becomes public. Reality: Sensitive material, witness protection issues, and strategic legal considerations limit what is disclosed to the public at any given time.
What this means for the public
For observers, the key takeaway is that the ICC continues to assess, collect, and analyze material related to Duterte’s drug policy. Claims that there is “no evidence” fail to reflect how international criminal proceedings operate and can mislead audiences about the case’s stage. As the process progresses, more information may become available through official ICC releases, court documents, and credible reporting.
Takeaway
Labeling the ICC investigation as devoid of evidence is inaccurate. Prosecutors have been collecting and evaluating materials pertinent to potential charges. The case remains active, subject to legal standards and international procedures that govern how evidence is gathered, authenticated, and presented in court.
