THE International Criminal Court (ICC) has rejected the bid of former president Rodrigo Duterte to disqualify two judges in the Pre-Trial Chamber 1 handling the crimes against humanity charges against him.
Duterte, through his counsel Nicholas Kaufman, has sought the disqualification of Judges María del Socorro Flores Liera and Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou from taking part in determining if the ICC still has jurisdiction over the Philippines despite its withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019.
In a June 9 decision, the ICC said the plenary of judges unanimously decided to junk Duterte’s bid.
“The plenary of judges, acting unanimously, decided to reject the applications,” the ICC said, adding a “fully reasoned decision of the plenary will follow.”
Lawyer Kristina Conti, who is helping the victims of Duterte’s drug war, said the ruling should now put to rest the bid of Duterte’s camp to disqualify the two judges.
In another development, the ICC Office of Public Counsel for the Victims (OPCV) has sought the dismissal of the petition filed by defense lawyers challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction to try former president Rodrigo Duterte for crimes against humanity.
In a 20-page document dated June 9, OPCV Paolina Massida said the 38-page petition filed on May 1 by Duterte’s lawyers, entitled “Defense challenge with respect to jurisdiction,” should be dismissed as it has no basis.
In their petition, the lawyers of the 80-year-old Duterte questioned the jurisdiction of the ICC to try the former president and order his arrest and detention for the charge of crimes against humanity in relation to the extrajudicial killings that happened in the implementation of his administration’s brutal crackdown against illegal drugs.
They agued that the ICC has lost jurisdiction to try the case since the Philippines has withdrawn from the Rome Statute that established the ICC. The notice to withdraw was filed in 2018, and the withdrawal was formalized in 2019.
The ICC’s warrant of arrest against Duterte was implemented on March 11, and the former president was flown to the Netherlands and surrendered to the tribunal on the same day.
Massida, in her June 9 submission, said: “The wording of Articles 12 and 127 of the Rome Statute is crystal clear and thus, the Republic of the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Statute has no legal effect upon the already established jurisdiction of the Court, especially since the Prosecutor’s preliminary examination had commenced before the said withdrawal became effective.”
This was the same argument raised by former ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, who said the tribunal retained jurisdiction over the Philippines since the crimes investigated and for which Duterte will be tried took place from 2011, when he was still mayor of Davao City, until his incumbency as president prior to Manila’s withdrawal from the ICC in 2018.
The OPCV said that if the defense’s interpretation is allowed, then “the consequences of such impunity would be dire in the absence of any possibility to obtain justice at the national level.”
“Concluding otherwise would mean upholding impunity and depriving victims of justice,” it added.
In a related development, the OPCV told the tribunal that it has yet to personally meet with the victims of Duterte’s drug crackdown due to security and time constraints.
However, it said that Massida was able to establish communication and contact the lawyer representing some of the victims, as well as groups supporting them in the Philippines.
“They expressed the view that if the Court chooses to uphold the overly restrictive reading of the statute proposed by the defense, and the suspect, Mr. Duterte, is returned to the Philippines as a result, they will have no judicial recourse and no hope of pursuing justice,” the OPCV said, adding the victims also expressed fear of reprisal from Duterte and his supporters.
