(UPDATE) THE International Criminal Court (ICC) has removed a neuropsychology expert from the medical panel assessing the fitness of former president Rodrigo Duterte to stand trial.
In a public redacted decision dated Nov. 14, 2025, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I said it has revoked the appointment of a neuropsychology specialist whose offensive social media activity, confirmed by the Registry, was deemed “objectively incompatible” with the standards of independence and professionalism required of Court-appointed experts.
This came on the same day Duterte’s lawyers lodged an appeal before the Appeals Chamber seeking to undo an earlier ruling that affirmed the Court’s jurisdiction over his alleged crimes against humanity linked to his drug war.
The Chamber said the expert’s posts — reposted and commented on through his former X (Twitter) account — raised doubts about his judgment and integrity.
Duterte’s counsel earlier provided judges with samples of what it described as “sickeningly offensive” content, arguing that no credible assessment of Duterte’s mental or cognitive condition could proceed under an expert who displayed such behavior.
Get the latest news
delivered to your inbox
Sign up for The Manila Times newsletters
By signing up with an email address, I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Prosecutors likewise acknowledged that, if verified, the online activity would render the expert “entirely unsuitable.”
The Registry confirmed the posts were attributable to the expert, prompting judges to order his immediate removal from the panel.
They directed the Registry to rescind his pending admission to the ICC’s List of Experts, cut off his access to case materials, and ensure that any confidential information in his possession is returned or destroyed.
The Chamber also faulted the Registry for failing to detect the issue when it prepared its earlier shortlist of neuropsychology professionals, urging a reassessment of vetting procedures to prevent similar lapses.
?To avoid derailing the ongoing medical assessment, the Chamber appointed another expert ? whose name remains redacted ? to take the vacated seat, on the condition that the replacement be admitted to the ICC?s List of Experts by Nov. 7, 2025.
To avoid derailing the ongoing medical assessment, the Chamber appointed another expert — whose name remains redacted — to take the vacated seat, on the condition that the replacement be admitted to the ICC’s List of Experts by Nov. 7, 2025.
The medical evaluation stemmed from the defense’s request for an indefinite adjournment of proceedings, claiming Duterte is no longer fit to stand trial.
In September, the Chamber ordered a comprehensive medical examination under Rules 113 and 135 of the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
Once the panel is reconstituted, its joint or individual findings must be submitted by Dec. 5.
The defense, prosecution, and the Office of Public Counsel for Victims may respond until Dec. 12.
Duterte’s bid to pause the entire case will be resolved separately.
The decision was issued by Presiding Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Judge Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou, and Judge María del Socorro Flores Liera.
While the medical panel was being reshaped, Duterte’s legal team simultaneously pursued a challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction, submitting a 79-page appeal that aims to overturn the Pre-Trial Chamber’s Oct. 23, 2025, ruling allowing the investigation to proceed despite the Philippines’ 2019 exit from the Rome Statute.
The appeal centered on what the defense described as a “legal novelty” introduced by the Chamber when it held that Article 127(2) of the Statute — governing withdrawal — serves as a lex specialis that preserves the Court’s authority over matters already under consideration at the time a state withdraws.
Although the Chamber agreed with the defense that Article 12 requires a state to be a party at the time the Court exercises jurisdiction, it ruled that Article 127(2) provides a narrow exception in situations like the Philippines’.
Duterte’s lawyers insist the Chamber misapplied the lex specialis principle, arguing that Articles 12 and 127 do not conflict and address “entirely different concepts.”
The filing says nothing in the Statute’s drafting history or academic commentary supports the notion that Article 127(2) can override Article 12.
A key dispute is whether the prosecutor’s preliminary examination — launched in February 2018 — constituted a “matter already under consideration by the Court” before Manila’s withdrawal took effect in March 2019.
The defense claims preliminary examinations are informal, non-judicial processes that cannot trigger Article 127(2) because they involve no binding actions from judicial chambers.
