The tension inside the courtroom did not erupt in shouting. It built slowly — through footnotes, document codes, procedural manuals, and a single word that now sits at the heart of one of the most consequential legal battles in Philippine political history:

“Neutralization.”

On Day Four of the confirmation of charges hearing before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, defense counsel for former President Rodrigo Duterte delivered what supporters immediately hailed online as a dismantling of the prosecution’s “common plan” theory.

“Good job, Atty. Kaufman!” flooded livestream comment sections. Others declared: “Bistado ang narrative!” Still others went further, suggesting that even the presiding judge appeared visibly attentive — though courtroom demeanor is rarely a reliable indicator of judicial leanings.

What unfolded was not political theater. It was a methodical legal argument — one aimed at collapsing the structural foundation of the prosecution’s case.

And it revolved around definitions.

The Battle Over a Word

At the center of the exchange lies Command Circular No. 16 (2016) and PNP Investigative Directive No. 12 (2016), documents governing the conduct of “Oplan Double Barrel” during Duterte’s anti-drug campaign.

The prosecution argues these policies operationalized a widespread and systematic attack against civilians.

The defense argues they did the opposite: they constrained police conduct within lawful frameworks.

The dispute sharpened around the term “neutralize.”

Prosecutors contend that in operational context, the word functioned as a euphemism for killing. In their pre-confirmation brief, they infer that “neutralization” equated to lethal elimination.

The defense countered with layered documentation:

The PNP Operational Procedures Manual.

Public clarifications by then–Police Chief Ronald dela Rosa.

Government submissions before the Philippine Supreme Court.

Even portions of prosecution witness testimony.

According to the manual cited by the defense, “neutralization” is defined as:

A police intervention in strict accord with the use-of-force continuum and proportionality principles… to contain or stop unlawful aggression. This may include arrest, capture, surrender, or other acts to subdue a suspect.

The defense emphasized that the term was not newly invented under Duterte but appeared in earlier PNP manuals, including revisions predating his presidency.

Their implication was blunt: If “neutralize” meant “kill,” why had no prior administration been accused of institutionalizing murder through the same vocabulary?

The Supreme Court Factor

The defense further pointed to proceedings before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, where petitions challenged aspects of the anti-drug campaign.

To date, the Court has not declared the circulars unconstitutional. Nor has it issued a ruling equating “neutralization” with an unlawful order to kill.

The ICC chamber listened as counsel framed this as institutional context: multiple branches of Philippine government — executive, legislative, judicial — had operated under an understanding that “neutralization” signified lawful incapacitation.

Of course, ICC jurisdiction is independent of domestic rulings. The Court is not bound by Philippine judicial determinations.

But the defense strategy is clear: show consistency, show lawful frameworks, show absence of explicit kill orders.

The “Common Plan” Theory

Under Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute, indirect co-perpetration requires proof of:

A common criminal plan.

An essential contribution by the accused.

Control over the crime.

The prosecution argues Duterte and close associates formed a common plan to carry out killings under the guise of anti-drug enforcement.

The defense calls that theory “bootstrapping logic” — building a conspiracy from rhetorical similarities.

According to counsel, prosecutors selected inflammatory public remarks from Duterte’s colleagues and retroactively labeled them co-perpetrators without demonstrating coordination or agreement.

They cited interviews where officials — including statements attributed to Al Jazeera interviews — clarified that lethal force was justified only in self-defense.

The defense contends that narrative venting, even aggressive rhetoric, does not equal conspiratorial coordination.

In conspiracy law — particularly in common law jurisdictions — statements must further the criminal objective to serve as evidence of conspiracy.

The argument is technical. But its stakes are enormous.

If judges find insufficient evidence of a mutually agreed criminal plan, the entire indirect co-perpetration framework collapses.

The Statistics Debate

Then came the numbers.

The prosecution has relied on government-published statistics acknowledging thousands of drug-related deaths.

The defense reframed those same reports.

In the Duterte administration’s 2017 year-end report — 63 pages covering multiple sectors — only two pages concerned policing. Of the 118,287 drug-related arrests, 3,967 deaths were recorded.

The defense emphasized proportionality: deaths represented a fraction of total operations.

More strikingly, they highlighted data showing investigations against police officers — including dismissals and retraining initiatives. Two officers involved in the killing of teenager Kian delos Santos were prosecuted and convicted domestically.

The defense’s thesis: A government publicly documenting internal discipline undermines the idea of a secret murder conspiracy.

But then the courtroom shifted forward in time.

The Marcos Administration Figures

In a dramatic pivot, defense counsel introduced statistics from the first two years of President Bongbong Marcos’s administration.

Citing data associated with the Dahas Project of the University of the Philippines Third World Studies Center, they noted that:

342 killings were recorded in the first year.

160 were attributed to state agents.

In the second year, vigilante killings reportedly increased while police-attributed killings decreased proportionally.

The implication was unmistakable:

If killings continue after Duterte left office, can his alleged “essential contribution” be said to have controlled or caused them?

This argument directly challenges the “sine qua non” test — whether the crimes would not have occurred but for Duterte’s involvement.

The defense’s rhetorical question echoed in the chamber:

If he had withdrawn, would the killings have stopped?

Essential Contribution and Control

International criminal law requires more than rhetorical alignment. It requires proof that the accused exercised control over the crime and could frustrate its commission.

Defense counsel quoted from ICC jurisprudence emphasizing “control over the crime” as a defining element of co-perpetration.

The statistical continuation of killings under a different administration was presented as evidence that violence, if occurring, was not dependent on Duterte’s authority.

Prosecutors will likely counter that systemic momentum can persist beyond an architect’s tenure. They may argue institutional culture and operational norms established during one presidency can endure.

But the defense has planted doubt.

And at the confirmation stage, doubt regarding “substantial grounds” can be decisive.

The Internal Contradiction Claim

One of the defense’s sharpest rhetorical points targeted alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s theory.

If the administration openly celebrated killings in official reports, why would perpetrators allegedly conceal their actions through staged encounters and masked operations?

The defense framed this as an internal contradiction: either the killings were openly sanctioned or they were covert deviations.

Both cannot simultaneously underpin the same common plan narrative without further proof.

Witness Credibility

The defense also scrutinized prosecution witnesses described as self-confessed killers.

One transcript excerpt quoted a witness describing indiscriminate violence — even targeting political opponents.

The defense argued such testimony undermines the prosecution’s narrative that killings were carefully directed toward drug suspects.

If a witness describes chaotic or random violence, that does not necessarily align with a structured common plan.

However, prosecutors often rely on insider witnesses precisely because conspiracies are rarely documented in official memos.

The judges must evaluate credibility carefully.

Politics Outside the Courtroom

Beyond the legal intricacies, the proceedings reverberate politically in Manila.

Supporters of Vice President Sara Duterte frame the ICC case as politically selective. Critics reject that framing, insisting accountability transcends administrations.

The defense’s reference to killings during the Marcos era intensifies that debate.

Are current statistics relevant to historical liability?

Or are they an attempt to shift political focus?

Legal experts note that international criminal proceedings must isolate individual criminal responsibility from broader sociopolitical trends.

Still, in the court of public opinion, such comparisons are powerful.

A Pause Before Lunch

As counsel approached the end of allotted time, he announced reaching a “natural break” before addressing the second limb of liability — essential contribution in greater depth.

The chamber adjourned for lunch.

Outside, commentators dissected every line.

Inside, the judges returned to deliberative quiet.

What Comes Next?

At the confirmation stage, the standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It is whether substantial grounds exist to believe the accused committed the crimes charged.

Three possible outcomes remain:

Confirmation of charges (leading to trial).

Partial confirmation.

Non-confirmation.

The defense’s strategy is surgical: dismantle the legal architecture supporting common plan and essential contribution.

The prosecution’s task is to persuade judges that patterns, rhetoric, operational directives, and documented deaths collectively establish sufficient grounds.

The Larger Question

Beyond legal doctrine lies a national reckoning.

Was the anti-drug campaign a legitimate law enforcement effort marred by rogue actors?

Or was it, as alleged, an institutionalized attack against civilians?

The ICC chamber will answer only the legal dimension.

History will debate the rest.

For now, in The Hague, arguments unfold in citations and case law, not hashtags.

But thousands of miles away, a nation watches — divided, passionate, waiting.

And at the center of it all remains a single word.

Neutralization.

Whether it signifies lawful restraint or unlawful elimination is no longer merely a semantic dispute.

It may determine whether a former president stands trial — or walks free from one of the most consequential international prosecutions of the decade.