nd

[nd @nddnadelute]

@SecRubio check the money trails of ICC and see who is behind the funding of this court -for sure it has been a tool for political machinaries

[nd @nddnadelute]

@pinoyanghang for real ba to? lol

[nd @nddnadelute]

@Mayhew04222 *followers

[nd @nddnadelute]

@Mayhew04222 Hindi lng unfollow kasi for sure gumamit yan ng bots para “padded” followed nyan. Dapat “block” talaga para negative strike sa algorithm ni meta

[nd @nddnadelute]

@babystepsparrow @News5PH lastly, nag tago si bato before the warrant and that is not a crime he would only be considered "fugitive" pag me warrant na so kahit valid pa icc warrant it was only confirmed after the incident so they have no right to stop or run after him. in short mali strategy nila.

[nd @nddnadelute]

@babystepsparrow @News5PH si trillanes mismo and nbi ang dapat kasuhan trillianes, for unlawful arrest lalo na civilian xa NBI for contempt

[nd @nddnadelute]

@babystepsparrow @News5PH but ur argument is filing of obstruction anong legal basis nun if wala pa ngang confirmation na meron nang arrest warrant.but the fact they tried to stop him is already a law violation

[nd @nddnadelute]

@babystepsparrow @News5PH yun na nga eh pano me kopya si trillianes na wala ang doj mismo na supposed to be "secret" yun so govt to govt dapat pero meron si trillianes it just means someone from the admin nag i-engineer nyan and if ikaw man si bato lam mo na may precedence na may nadala na sa hague

[nd @nddnadelute]

@babystepsparrow @News5PH Papano kakasuhan nila eh secret nga daw yung warrant -pano maging obstruction of justice if hindi pa na establish ang existence ng warrant

[nd @nddnadelute]

@Knesix mozart

[⋆౨ৎ˚⟡˖Eliza Duterte ⋆౨ৎ˚⟡˖ ࣪艾丽莎·杜特尔特 @ElizaX11235813]

Let the whole world see how corrupt the people who are holding PRRD captive.

[Anna Malindog-Uy @AnnaMalindogUy]

Folks, WATCH RT International's Special Coverage on the ICC Alleged Bribery Story on the Case Against President Rodrigo Duterte. Please feel free to share.

[nd @nddnadelute]

@smninews tanggalin na to as senate pres

[nd @nddnadelute]

@realDonaldTrump

[For the Motherland @srsasot_]

YES! This is it. The testimony of the 18 marines + Zaldy Co regarding ICC investigators being paid by PH politicians IS PERFECT. This is the unraveling of the ICC! 🤣😅🤣😅

[For the Motherland @srsasot_]

YES! This is it. The testimony of the 18 marines + Zaldy Co regarding ICC investigators being paid by PH politicians IS PERFECT. This is the unraveling of the ICC! 🤣😅🤣😅

[nd @nddnadelute]

@realDonaldTrump there u go-thanks for going after ICC

[@iamjet 💔💚 @urpoliticalchar]

Now we know why they had to charge Duterte in the ICC. It’s not that Philippine courts were weak or unwilling to try. It’s because our justice system is stronger. The allegations presented would not even survive legal scrutiny in our local courts, as they do not meet the high standard of probable cause required by Philippine law. I was overwhelmed with immense pride in our own justice system.

[nd @nddnadelute]

@Knesix

[Anna Malindog-Uy @AnnaMalindogUy]

Circumstantial Justice or Political Theater? Confirmation Hearing, Duterte, and the Burden of Proof..... Quick Commentary by Anna Malindog-Uy
February 23, 2026

Let us begin with a basic legal reality: a confirmation-of-charges hearing is not a trial. It is a filtering stage. Judges determine whether there are substantial grounds to believe the accused committed the crimes charged, not whether guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That distinction is crucial.
Because to critical observers, what unfolded in the Deputy Prosecutor’s presentation did not always resemble a tightly structured evidentiary case. At moments, it felt more like rhetorical architecture, emotionally compelling, morally charged, but legally thin.

Repeated emphasis on “drug lords,” “criminality,” “lawlessness,” and the brutality of the drug trade creates a powerful narrative frame. But narrative framing is NOT legal proof. The danger is that the accused appears not to be on trial for specific, legally defined acts, but for having waged an uncompromising campaign against criminal networks. That is where the line must be drawn.

The core issue is not whether governments have the authority to fight crime. Every sovereign state possesses that duty. Maintaining public order is not merely a political choice; it is a foundational function of sovereignty. Heads of state swear to protect their citizens and preserve internal security. Policing criminality is NOT a crime.

The legal question, therefore, is far narrower and far more precise: Did the campaign cross the threshold into crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute with the so-called 78 victims under the 3 counts of charges?

If the prosecution blurs the distinction between aggressive law enforcement and an unlawful “widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population,” it risks appearing to criminalize governance itself. And that is not just controversial, it is political theater.

The optics are stark: a former president, elected on a platform of restoring order, detained before an international tribunal (ICC). In many jurisdictions, leaders who pursue harsh anti-crime policies are domestically praised as protectors of public safety. Here, that posture is framed as international criminality. The case of Rodrigo Duterte is indeed an irony.

The prosecution must do more than recount patterns of killings. It must establish the legal architecture required under Article 7 of the Rome Statute:

• A clearly identifiable state or organizational policy
• A widespread or systematic attack
• A nexus between that policy and specific acts
• The accused’s knowing and intentional contribution

Circumstantial evidence is not inherently weak. Courts convict on circumstantial evidence every day, when it is coherent, corroborated, and logically compelling. But circumstantial reasoning cannot substitute for substantiation. It must converge toward inevitability, not merely suggest plausibility.

If the evidentiary chain relies primarily on summaries, second-hand accounts, inferential layering, and emotive testimony without demonstrable connective tissue, one must reasonably ask:
Where is the direct linkage/tissue?
Where are the documented orders?
Where are the institutional directives, incentives, or command structures demonstrating intent?
Command responsibility is NOT automatic liability. Authority alone does not equal guilt. The prosecution must show how power translated into criminal conduct — through orders, encouragement, deliberate tolerance, or conscious failure to prevent and punish.
If the reasoning reduces to: “He was head of state, therefore he is liable,” then the doctrine collapses into presumption rather than proof. That would weaken, not strengthen, international justice.

Another concern is tone. When a prosecutorial presentation leans heavily on moral outrage, evocative storytelling, and emotional amplification of victims’ suffering, it risks drifting from legal argument into moral and political theater. Victim narratives are important. They humanize proceedings. But emotion CANNOT replace evidentiary rigor.

International justice does not survive on moral resonance. It survives on disciplined proof.

The ICC already faces long-standing accusations of selectivity and politicization. Whether fair or not, perception matters. If this case appears rhetorically driven rather than evidentiary anchored, it will reinforce skepticism rather than silence it.
If the Court wishes to fortify its credibility, it must demonstrate prosecutorial precision. Nothing less will suffice.
Because in a case as polarizing as this, the stakes extend beyond one individual. They touch on the legitimacy of international criminal law itself.

International justice cannot be sustained by narrative force alone. It endures only when evidence — not emotion, not politics, not optics — carries the weight.

And in this case, that burden must be unmistakably met by those sitting as ICC judges of this very controversial and polarizing case.

[Evoree💚👊🦅🟢 @chanchi_evo1]

Mas mahalaga pa sa kanila ang buhay ng mga adiktus!

[ricci @ricci_richy]

Kaufman: “This is a court of law which decides matters on the basis of evidence not on the basis of political demagoguery..”

Then he then proceeded with his speech implying that Duterte’s arrest was political in nature.

#DuterteICCHearing #DutertePanagutin

[nd @nddnadelute]

@Knesix

[💚HAND$0ME🌟🇵🇭 @MILEYjna]

🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬