The Empty Chair at The Hague: Duterte’s Absence May Speak Louder Than His Iron Fist
By Cellina Mhae S. Estrada

On May 27, 2026, when judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) convene the first status conference involving former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte and allegations of crimes against humanity linked to his anti-drug campaign, one chair in The Hague will remain empty. Duterte himself has chosen not to appear.

Instead, a signed waiver now sits in the official record.

At first glance, the development appears routine. International proceedings frequently allow defendants to waive attendance during procedural hearings, particularly when discussions focus on schedules, legal coordination, and administrative matters rather than trial evidence. Earlier this week, ICC Trial Chamber III granted Duterte’s request to waive his appearance at the first status conference and ordered the defense to submit a signed waiver by May 25. (The Manila Times)

Yet politics has never been governed merely by procedure.

Because for a man whose political identity was built upon confrontation, visibility, and defiance, absence inevitably acquires symbolic meaning.

This week, Duterte’s lead counsel Peter Haynes, KC, formally submitted a public “Defence
Notification of Mr Duterte’s Signed Waiver to Appear at the First Status Conference” before ICC Trial Chamber III. The filing complied with the Chamber’s earlier directive requiring the defense to place Duterte’s waiver on record. (POLITIKO – News Philippine Politics)

According to the filing, the 81-year-old former president instructed his legal representatives to handle all procedural matters in his absence. (GMA Network)

The defense filing stated that Duterte instructed his lawyers to address procedural matters in the agenda and any additional issues that may arise during the hearing. Prior communications from Duterte’s legal team had already suggested this course of action. The defense earlier informed the Chamber that Duterte “fully trusts his legal team” to handle procedural concerns connected with the conference agenda. (ABS-CBN)

Legally, the issue appears settled. Politically, however, the image remains difficult to ignore.

For years, Duterte cultivated a public persona centered around forceful directness. His rise from local politics in Davao City to the presidency was built largely on projecting a willingness to confront enemies–whether political opponents, critics, foreign governments, or international institutions.

During his administration, confrontation often functioned as political language itself. Duterte publicly challenged critics and repeatedly questioned institutions that scrutinized his administration.

Most notably, he openly criticized the ICC and challenged its authority over Philippine affairs. His administration withdrew the Philippines from the Rome Statute in 2019 amid growing international scrutiny over the anti-drug campaign. Even after withdrawal, legal arguments persisted over whether the Court retained jurisdiction over acts allegedly committed while the Philippines remained a state party. (Reuters)

What once began as a dispute over international jurisdiction gradually evolved into one of the most consequential legal proceedings involving a former Philippine head of state.

Now Duterte stands at the center of proceedings in The Hague.

Or perhaps more accurately, around them.

Because on May 27, his legal team, not Duterte himself, will stand before the judges.

The conference itself will be presided over by Judge Joanna Korner alongside Judge Keebong Paek and Judge Nicolas Guillou of ICC Trial Chamber III. The hearing is expected to focus primarily on procedural concerns before substantive proceedings advance. (ABS-CBN)

Status conferences are generally not dramatic courtroom spectacles. They do not determine guilt or innocence. Instead, they establish timelines, clarify legal obligations, and organize the mechanics of future hearings.

But history rarely remembers procedural details, but it remembers symbols. And empty chairs have always carried symbolic power.

A vacant podium.

An unanswered summons.

An absent figure.

Such moments become larger than scheduling decisions because they invite interpretation.

Supporters of Duterte may view the waiver through a practical lens.

The former president is now 81 years old. The conference itself concerns procedural matters rather than testimony or evidence presentation. Delegating legal responsibilities to counsel is neither unprecedented nor extraordinary under international legal practice. (Manila Bulletin)

From this perspective, Duterte’s decision may simply reflect efficiency. Why personally attend discussions lawyers can adequately manage?

Critics, however, may interpret the optics differently. For years, Duterte embraced confrontation as political identity. He projected toughness as language and cultivated an image built around decisiveness and direct engagement.

That history inevitably shapes public interpretation.

Because when a figure known for challenging institutions chooses procedural distance at a
highly anticipated legal moment, observers naturally ask questions—not necessarily legal
questions, but symbolic and political ones.

Questions of consistency. Questions of image. Questions of narrative.

The contrast becomes difficult to overlook.

The same political leader who once openly criticized international institutions and is known for his iron fist now allows legal representatives to stand before one. Again, none of this constitutes evidence of legal weakness or wrongdoing. But politics has always operated through imagery as much as action.

The Hague may be geographically distant from Manila, but politically its courtroom remains
remarkably close.

The ICC proceedings continue dividing public opinion. Some Filipinos see them as a long-awaited avenue for accountability concerning allegations surrounding the anti-drug campaign. Others continue viewing international intervention through the lens of sovereignty and external intrusion. (Reuters)

These competing narratives have existed for years. The legal process merely gives them a new stage. What unfolds before the ICC therefore extends beyond judicial procedure. It is also a struggle over memory, accountability, and competing political narratives.

One side sees justice. Another sees overreach. And between these narratives sits an empty
chair.

Perhaps that chair ultimately proves insignificant.

Perhaps future evidence and legal arguments will overshadow procedural symbolism.

History often reduces once-heated moments into footnotes. But history also preserves images. And when proceedings begin in The Hague this week, observers may listen to lawyers and judges.

Yet many may quietly notice what is missing. Not because Duterte was legally required to attend. But because sometimes absence creates a louder spectacle than presence ever could.

References
● ABS-CBN News: Rodrigo Duterte signs waiver, to skip first ICC status conference
● Politiko: Duterte submits waiver to initial ICC hearing, lawyers to represent him
● GMA News: Duterte formally waives appearance at first ICC status conference
● Manila Times: ICC allows Duterte to skip first status conference
● Philippine Daily Inquirer: Duterte to also skip first hearing for his ICC trial
● Reuters: Philippine Supreme Court rejects bid to block arrest of senator wanted by ICC
● Reuters: Philippines vows to arrest fugitive senator wanted by ICC without delay
● https://www.icc-cpi.int/philippines/duterte