1300 Pieces of Evidence? What the ICC Disclosure Really Means

The International Criminal Court prosecutor has announced the disclosure of more than 1,300 pieces of evidence to the defense of former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte—a development that has quickly been framed by headlines as a major breakthrough for the prosecution.

But in legal reality, disclosure is not a verdict.

According to ICC documents made public in late December, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) disclosed 1,303 items to the defense over several months. These are divided into categories:

• Incriminating materials,

• Rule 77 evidence, which the defense is entitled to inspect, and

• Potentially exonerating evidence.

This distinction matters. Disclosure is a procedural obligation, not proof of guilt. International courts are required to turn over materials—strong, weak, and even contradictory—so that the defense can prepare properly. Quantity alone says nothing about quality.

More importantly, the ICC itself clarified that a large portion of the disclosed evidence will not even be used in the upcoming confirmation-of-charges hearings, which are still to be rescheduled. In other words, these materials are part of case preparation—not final adjudication.

Another point often overlooked: the disclosed items remain confidential. The public has not seen the evidence, cannot assess credibility, and cannot verify context. Any claim that these materials “prove” guilt is speculative at best and misleading at worst.

This is precisely why courts exist—to evaluate evidence, not headlines.

For Duterte’s legal team, disclosure is not a setback. It is a necessary step toward testing the prosecution’s case, challenging sources, examining credibility, and identifying gaps. Due process works both ways: the prosecution presents, and the defense scrutinizes.

In high-profile cases, numbers are easily weaponized. But justice is not a numbers game. It is a process governed by rules, thresholds, and standards of proof.

Until a court rules—after hearings, arguments, and judicial review—no amount of disclosed material equals a conviction.

That is not politics.
That is how law works.

'