LIVE Updates: ICC confirmation of charges hearing for Rodrigo Duterte. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant context that would help readers fully understand the situation.

The article states: "Prosecutors have charged him with three counts of crimes against humanity, citing at least 76 murders between 2013 and 2018." It does not explain that the broader drug war has been alleged by various sources to involve thousands of killings, nor does it clarify whether the 76 murders are a representative sample, a specific subset, or the full scope of the charges. It also omits any mention of Duterte’s or his defense team’s position on the charges (e.g., denial, justification, or legal arguments).

3 suggestions

Clarify the scope of the alleged crimes: e.g., "Prosecutors have charged him with three counts of crimes against humanity, citing at least 76 murders between 2013 and 2018 as part of a broader anti-drug campaign in which human rights groups and other observers allege that thousands were killed."

Explain what the 76 murders represent: e.g., "The 76 murders cited in the charges are specific incidents selected by prosecutors as representative cases within the wider pattern of alleged killings."

Include the defense’s position: e.g., "Duterte has denied wrongdoing and has long defended his anti-drug campaign as a necessary measure against crime, while his legal team argues that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the case."

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s perspective or institutional framing more fully than the other side’s, without making that limitation explicit.

The article provides procedural details from the ICC’s perspective (hearing dates, nature of the hearing, detention status, formal case title) and the prosecution’s framing of the charges, but does not present any direct or indirect statement from Duterte, his defense, or his supporters. For example, it notes: "Duterte, 80, will not attend the hearing in The Hague after the ICC granted his defense’s request to waive his right to appear," but does not explain the defense’s reasoning or broader stance on the case.

3 suggestions

Add at least one sentence summarizing Duterte’s or his defense’s stance: e.g., "His lawyers have maintained that the proceedings are politically motivated and that the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC in 2019 means the court has no jurisdiction."

If no comment is available, state that explicitly: e.g., "Duterte’s legal team has not publicly commented on the latest hearing schedule as of publication time."

Briefly note domestic political context or support: e.g., "Supporters of Duterte argue that his anti-drug campaign reduced crime, while critics say it led to widespread human rights abuses."

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex legal and political situation to a few brief statements that may omit important nuances.

The article states: "The hearing, which is not a trial, will determine whether there is enough evidence to send Duterte’s case to a full trial over alleged crimes against humanity." While this is broadly accurate, it simplifies the confirmation of charges process, which involves legal thresholds, admissibility, and jurisdictional considerations, not just a simple sufficiency-of-evidence test.

2 suggestions

Slightly expand the description of the hearing: e.g., "The hearing, which is not a trial, will allow judges to assess whether the evidence and legal arguments presented by prosecutors meet the threshold to confirm the charges and move the case to a full trial."

Optionally add a brief note on what judges consider: e.g., "Judges will consider the strength of the evidence, the legal characterization of the alleged acts, and issues such as jurisdiction and admissibility."