Pre-trial chamber says move ‘lacks procedural propriety’
THE International Criminal Court (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber 1 has dealt another blow to the camp of former president Rodrigo Duterte after it junked the latter’s appeal to excuse two judges from ruling on his petition challenging the international court’s jurisdiction to hear the crimes against humanity case filed against him.
In a ruling dated May 6 signed by Presiding Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc, the chamber said a judge’s excusal can only be sought by the concerned judge, and not on the request of any parties to a case.
“A judge’s excusal from the exercise of a function may only be sought by the concerned judge directly before the presidency, as opposed to disqualification for which the prosecution or the person being investigated or prosecuted may submit a request before the presidency,” read part of Motoc’s four-page ruling.
“The possibility for that person to invite or request judges to seek excusal before the presidency is thus not contemplated in the statutory texts,” it said.
“As stated by the presidency, no preemptive request may be made by the parties that a judge request his or her excusal,” it also said.
It added that “such course of action lacks procedural propriety.”
Duterte’s defense team headed by Nicholas Kaufman on May 1 asked the chamber to excuse Judges Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou and Maria del Socorro Flores Liera from participating in the proceedings related to their jurisdictional challenge.
They cited the two judges’ “perceived bias,” saying that they previously approved the conduct of preliminary investigation in 2021 on the former president’s alleged role in the extrajudicial killings that took place when he was still mayor of Davao City and when he assumed the presidency in 2016 as part of his administration’s war on drugs.
The prosecution headed by ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan filed its opposition to the request for excusal on May 5.
Duterte’s legal team has sought the dismissal of the complaint against the former president, arguing that the ICC lacked jurisdiction to hear the case since Manila withdrew from the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the tribunal, in 2019.
Khan has previously said that the ICC retained jurisdiction to try Duterte since the complaint covered incidents from 2011 to 2019 when Manila was still a state party to the Rome Statute.
Duterte first appeared before the pre-trial chamber via video link on March 14, three days, after he was arrested and flown to the custody of the ICC in the Netherlands on March 11.
In that hearing, the pre-trial chamber dismissed former Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea’s claim that Duterte was “kidnapped” when he was arrested and surrendered to ICC custody.
The pre-trial chamber also denied Medialdea’s claim that the 80-year former president was suffering from “debilitating medical issues,” noting that the tribunal’s doctors have pronounced that he was physically fit to face the court.
Duterte is set to appear before the pre-trial chamber during the confirmation of the charges against him on September 23 this year.
OMBUDSMAN ORDER
Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla yesterday said he will respond to the complaint filed by Sen. Imee Marcos, chairperson of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, in relation to the alleged unlawful arrest of Duterte and his surrender to the ICC.
“Sasagutin namin ang bawat isyu na nakasaad doon (We will answer every issue in the complaint),” Remulla told reporters in a chance interview at the Department of Justice.
Ombudsman Samuel Martirez on Tuesday directed Remulla, his brother Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla, PNP chief Gen. Rommel Marbil, PNP-CIDG chief Maj. Gen. Nicolas Torre III, and Special Envoy on Transnational Crimes Markus Lacanilao to answer Marcos’ complaint, which was filed last May 2.
Marcos is seeking their indictment for arbitrary detention, usurpation of judicial functions, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), usurpation of authority or official functions, and false testimony and perjury.
A separate complaint, she also accused them of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Remulla maintained that Duterte’s arrest and surrender were legal.
“Everything that happened was within legal bounds. Lahat naman yan according to law (All of it were according to law),” he said, even as he questioned the haste by which Marcos filed the complaints.
“But actually, the complaint itself, parang na-weird-an ako. Hindi naman kasi committee report ’yon and it was a committee investigation. So why the haste (But actually, I feel weird about the complaint. It’s not even based on a committee report, (but) it was a committee investigation. So, why the haste)?” he asked.
He also said: “Parang hindi malinaw ang procedure, kasi dati may (Ombudsman) fact-finding ’yan. Ngayon parang hindi na dumaan sa fact-finding, dire-diretso kaagad. But we’ll see. I’m not insinuating anything. I’m just saying yung rules na tinitingnan natin ay hindi nasunod
(The procedures is not clear. There is supposed to be an [Ombudsman] fact-finding, but it seems that this case did not undergo a fact-finding. But we’ll see. I’m not insinuating anything. I’m just saying the rules were not followed).”
He also said that the haste with which Marcos filed the complaint seems to have something to do with the May 12 midterm elections.
“Parang in aid of elections. Parang gusto lang makakuha ng publicity dahil sa eleksyon. Wala tayong magagawa (It seems it was done in aid of elections. To get enough publicity with the election looming. We cannot do anything about it),” Remulla said.
Marcos is seeking reelection in the coming polls.
Like Remulla, Palace press officer Claire Castro maintained that the actions of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his administration in connection with Duterte’s and turnover to the ICC is in accordance with the law.
Castro said that contrary to the “baseless” claims of Vice President Sara Duterte, neither the president nor his administration surrendered the Philippines’ sovereignty when the former president was arrested and brought to ICC.
“Unang-una po, ang pamahalaan po, ang administrasyon po, gumawa po ng hakbang na naaayon sa batas at ito po ay in cooperation with the Interpol (First of all, the government, the administration, took steps in accordance with the law and this is in cooperation with Interpol),” Castro said.
“Siya po ay kinu-konsiderang isang akusado, isang suspek sa crimes against humanity, particularly murder na ang nagsampa rin po ay kapwa Pilipino na diumanong biktima ng extrajudicial killings ng madugong war on drugs. Ang ginawa ng pamahalaan ay hindi naman po pagsuko ng soberanya kundi pagsuko ng isang akusado (He is considered an accused, a suspect in the crimes against humanity, particularly murder, which was also filed by Filipinos who were allegedly victimized by his bloody war on drugs. The government did not surrender the country’s sovereignty but it surrendered an accused),” she added.
“Hindi po ibebenta o isusuko man ng Pangulo ang anumang parte ng ating karapatan sa bansa kaninuman. Ang opinyon na nanggagaling sa ating Bise Presidente ay walang pinanggagalingan, walang basehan (The President will not sell or surrender any part of our country’s rights to anyone. The opinion coming from our Vice President has no source, no basis),” Castro said. – With Jocelyn Montemayor
