LATEST WRITTEN INTERVIEW WITH DEFENCE LEAD COUNSEL ATTY. NICHOLAS KAUFMAN.
NOTE: The answers are published in this post verbatim.
JULY 29, 2025.
Question 1. Could you kindly shed light on this article? What are the effects on your previous clients concerning your representation of former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, if any?
Article: forbesafrica.com/focus/2013/07/01/scourge-dreaded-red-notice/?fbclid=IwY2xjawL1cehleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETAwV2N6eE9XRVV6UDBmRW1YAR7HuFirfxyn_xTnjtS0MUliETNbJa_b2x3ZztH-sDK6W9qFmfG0j2CmxRa1vQ_aem_obDsurG0-Z2rumOQWYuvjA
Answer: The former President is fully aware of my former clients and also knows that my meeting with Imelda Marcos took place more than 13 years ago over a Chinese meal in Manila. This was before the Duterte family was recognized as a political force to be reckoned with in the Philippines. The former President also knows that I have recently met Imelda Marcos’s daughter – Imee – who, through the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, has been of invaluable assistance to the Filipino people in exposing the illegal actions taken by her own brother’s administration. There is no question of my loyalty to former President Duterte.
Question 2. What is your response to individuals who accuse you of employing what they perceive as delaying tactics or stalling the proceedings? Could you also explain why the deferment of the interim release is necessary?
Answer: I am stalling nothing. I will not, however, pursue a request for something as fundamental as interim release when I have been prevented from accessing information which I believe to be crucial to obtaining that objective. Unfortunately, I cannot elaborate on the nature of the information that I require. I have, however, been seeking this information for several months and did not believe it conceivable that it would be so slow in forthcoming. These delays are not attributable to the Defence. Furthermore, I am not going to apologise for doing my job thoroughly even if it is not at the pace required by others. All that counts is that the former President is fully informed and consents to his team’s activity on his behalf.
Question 3. There have also been statements that former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte is unaware of his case and that his lawyers are not visiting him. How accurate are these claims?
Answer: These are baseless claims circulated by petty minded and self-interested individuals who have a reason to vilify the Defence. As you know, Alvin, we visit the former President on a daily basis. You see us coming out of the prison regularly and you are our best witness to the fact that these statements and rumours are malicious lies.
Question 4. In our previous interview, you characterized a 'crazy scheme' legal remedy involving Dutch laws. Why do you consider this a big mistake?
Answer: A Dutch lawyer has confirmed to me that Harry Roque approached him with an initiative to sue the Dutch Government for facilitating the rendition of the former President. In my opinion, this was a crazy scheme because the release of the former President would require the cooperation of the Dutch Government – something unlikely to be forthcoming if they are being sued by the person concerned. I was also told that once the Dutch lawyer learned that Harry Roque was a fugitive from justice, he severed all contact with him. But Harry Roque is persistent to the point of obssessive and with this plan, he could very well have jeopardized the Defence’s efforts to release the former President. I have made it known that I would find it hard to forgive him for that and I refuse to entertain his ramblings. From day one, Harry Roque has portrayed himself as the only person capable of defending the former President, motivating the public against me and my team. Harry Roque would be best advised to channel the energy he has expended on meddling into defending his appeal against the denial of his supposed refugee status – a status which he would have been happy to jettison if someone would be prepared to employ him. As it is, neither the former President, nor anyone else in his immediate vicinity, is interested in Harry Roque as a lawyer . The former President has made it known that Roque should stop interfering in his case and return to the Philippines to sort out his own troubling legal issues.
Question 5. During your exclusive interview with ABS-CBN, you referred to 'substantial grounds' for the dismissal of the case against the former President before the confirmation of charges before the ICC. Could you elaborate on what qualifies explicitly as substantial grounds in this context?
Answer: The Prosecution has to convince the Pre-Trial Chamber judges that there are substantial grounds to believe that the former President has committed the crimes of which he is accused. This is a much lower standard than that required at trial which is “beyond reasonable doubt” yet a higher standard than that required for the arrest which is a “reaonsable suspicion”. Unfortuantely for the Defence, credibility of witnesses and their motives for lying about the former President are given very little weight at confirmation. The arguments which will be presented by the Defence will be more legal and to a large degree focussed on showing what elements of the offences imputed to the former Presdient have not been made out because the evidence is lacking or the evidence which does exist is so inherently contradictory that it cannot be relied on. No witnesses will be presented by the Prosecution so the Defence will not have the opportunity to prove lies through forensic questioning.
Question 6. Now that it is the judicial recess, are we to wait for developments about the case of former President Duterte only until late August?
Answer: Consequential and urgent applications and decisions can be introduced at any stage.
Question 7. In your submission to the ICC, you indicated that you will neither present an alibi nor invoke grounds for excluding criminal responsibility, nor call any witnesses during the confirmation hearing. What is the reasoning behind this strategic decision?
Answer: As I mentioned in my answer to the last question, the confirmation of charges hearing is limited in scope. It would be a mistake for the Defence to present witnesses at confirmation and thereby alert the Prosecution as to its ammunition should the case go to trial. I cannot elaborate on who exactly will be testifying for the Prosecution at trial but those that currently incriminate the former President can be counted on the fingers of one hand. This is in stark contrast to the many potential Defence witnesses who held positions of consequence and who will be prepared to rally to the former President’s side to dismiss the lies of the Prosecution’s witnesses. There is no need for an alibi if the Prosection is not alleging the former President’s direct involvement in criminality. That is not the Prosecution case. The Prosecution cannot prove that the former President ordered a murder and has, accordingly, constructed a fantastic theory of indirect co-perpetration. This theory entails the notion that crimes were committed by others all of whom were subordinated to the former President’s supposed domineering control. This criminality, accoring to the Prosecution, was enacted pursuant to an elaborate criminal plan with all participants sharing the same criminal intent. The Defence will show this bizarre, highly convoluted and speculative theory of responsibility to be thoroughly baseless.
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=126275.0
