THE camp of former president Rodrigo Duterte yesterday insisted he was “abducted” by the Philippine government and illegally transported to The Hague where he is now detained pending his trial for the crimes against humanity case being heard by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The three children of the former president – Davao City Rep. Paolo “Pulong” Duterte, city Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte, and Veronica “Kitty” Duterte – made the manifestation in their respective “traverse comments” submitted to the Supreme Court (SC) in response to the submission of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is representing ranking government officials named as respondents in their consolidated habeas corpus petitions.
SC spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting said the comments were submitted on Monday.
Kitty Duterte, through her legal counsel Salvador Panelo, maintained that her father was abducted by the Philippine government and forcibly brought to the Netherlands as she insisted that his arrest last March 11 was illegal.
She reiterated her earlier argument that the ICC warrant of arrest was not enforceable in the country because the international court has lost its jurisdiction over the Philippines following Manila’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019.
She likewise argued that Republic Act 9851, or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, is not a valid basis for the government’s actions.
She pointed out that when RA 9851 was being deliberated in the Senate, the Philippines was not yet a member of the Rome Statute, thus the ICC has yet to acquire “complimentary jurisdiction” over the country.
She noted that RA 9851 was signed into law in 2009, while the Rome Statute was transmitted for Senate concurrence only in 2011.
She likewise said that the ICC prosecutor’s request for an investigation into Duterte’s alleged crimes was done on May 24, 2021, or two years after the Philippines’ withdrawal from the statute took effect.
“Since the ICC failed to timely exercise its jurisdiction, it had no legal authority whatsoever to continue its investigation in the Philippine situation, let alone issue the warrant of arrest implemented by the respondents against former president Rodrigo Duterte (FPRRD),” she said.
The camp of the former president also cited the dissenting opinions of ICC judges Perrin De Brichambaut and Gocha Lordkipandize in the arrest order, who supposedly said that the Pre Trial Chamber “erred in law” by concluding that the ICC still has jurisdiction over Duterte.
She likewise pointed to the refusal of Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra to represent the Philippine government in the pending petitions, which she said was “an indication that FPRRD’s abduction and transfer to The Hague pursuant to the ICC warrant of arrest is illegal and indefensible.”
Kitty said that their petition for habeas corpus cannot be considered moot even if her father is already under ICC jurisdiction in The Hague since the SC can still order the Philippine government to find ways to bring the elder Duterte back to Manila.
“With respect to the supposed territorial limitations of the writ of habeas corpus, it shall suffice to reiterate that while the Honorable Court may not have jurisdiction over the ICC, the respondents certainly fall under its jurisdiction,” she said.
‘BIASED SEMANTIC PHRASEOLOGY’
Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla declined to comment on the arguments raised by the Duterte children, saying that “it’s pending before the Supreme Court.”
He said the DOJ will reply to the traverse comments “in due time.”
“Kasi nga, ano yan eh, sub judice. I think we should respect the metes and bounds by which we will hear the cases in the Supreme Court. So, it’s not good to comment on these matters,” he said.
Remulla maintained that the government’s actions related to the arrest and transport of Duterte were legal.
“I think that we were able to give the legal basis for everything that happened on March 11 and I stand by everything that we do. I stand by the government,” he said.
Remulla said the abduction claim of the Duterte camp is a mere “semantic phraseology that is very biased.”
“We cannot operate that way [through abduction] because clearly, they’re already under competent judicial authority with the ICC hearing the case,” he said.
Remulla also said the more petitions that the Duterte camp files before the High Court, the magistrates will need a longer time to decide on the issues.
“Well, it’s going to take longer time because we will answer that. The setting will be pushed back further. So, the more pleadings they file, the longer it will take,” he said.
During last week’s Senate hearing, Remulla said that while the ICC no longer has jurisdiction over the Philippines as a state, individuals charged before it are still under its authority.
DUTERTE ASSETS
ICC spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah said the international body can issue a freeze order on the assets of the former president anytime as ICC judges can do that “at any stage” of the proceedings.
In an interview with NewsWatch Plus, Abdallah said: “Well, it can happen at any stage. It depends on what the judges consider that is appropriate to be done. It can be a legal order issued by the judges.”
According to the ICC website, the Office of the Prosecutor can gather information on the accused at the start of the trial and request for the identification, tracing, or freezing of property or assets of the accused.
The ICC may also seek the cooperation of a state party, but this will be difficult under the current setup because the Philippines is no longer a member state.
In a separate interview with the same media outlet, former senator Antonio Trillanes IV said he has information that the ICC is allegedly likely to issue a seizure order on the former president’s assets as “part of the tribunal’s proceedings on crimes under its jurisdiction.”
Once the order is issued, Trillanes said it will be up to the Philippine government how to act on such order.
“Ang tanong lang dito is kung ano ang magiging approach ng Marcos administration towards that specific order, pero kung may order man sila sa iba’t ibang, kung may ari-arian man ang mga Duterte sa iba’t ibang parte ng mundo… (The question is how will the Marcos administration handle the order if ever there will be a seizure order on Duterte’s assets and properties around the world, if there are any),” he said.
Communications undersecretary Claire Castro said the administration cannot make any commitment that it will implement any seizure or freeze order on Duterte’s assets to be issued by the ICC.
“When it comes to the alleged incoming freeze order to be issued by the ICC, there is no commitment on our part, on the part of the administration, if we will comply with any order issued by the ICC considering that the ICC as of the moment has no jurisdiction over the Philippines,” Castro said.
She reiterated that there is also no discussion at present about rejoining the ICC.
Castro added that the last time she talked with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. about the issue of returning to the ICC, the president just smiled.
“Iyong huli po nating nakausap ang pangulo, tinanong po natin iyan nang personal at siya’y ngumiti lamang at sasabihin ko daw dapat na wala pa talagang napag-uusapan patungkol doon (The last time I spoke with the president and asked him, he just smiled and said I should just say that there are no discussions about that),” she said. – With Jocelyn Montemayor
