THE Senate Committee on Foreign Relations yesterday said the “premeditated” arrest of former president Rodrigo “Rody” Duterte on March 11 was attended by irregularities and violated his constitutional rights.
This was the gist of the preliminary committee report which Sen. Imee Marcos, panel chairperson, released yesterday, exactly one week after she held a committee hearing on the arrest and transfer to the Netherlands of the former chief executive.
Marcos had called for the hearing to determine if due process was observed by the government when it served the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Duterte.
In a press conference, Marcos presented three major findings of the committee.
Marcos said the arrest was premeditated, pointing to an alleged “group effort” by a “core group” of Cabinet officials to plan it even before the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) communicated the diffusion notice on the ICC arrest warrant on March 11.
She said information gathered by the committee showed that the government had “decided to assist the ICC to arrest FPRRD” and prepared to implement the arrest warrant issued by the international court one day before the diffusion notice was received on March 11.
“Police units were mobilized as early as March 10. National Security Adviser Eduardo Año was already tracking Duterte’s movements, and executive officials had gone on record, saying the administration would cooperate with the ICC if the arrest request came through Interpol,” she said.
She cited a statement made by Interior Secretary Juan Victor “Jonvic” Remulla after Duterte’s arrest that he, Año, Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. had discussed the impending arrest of Duterte.
During the Senate hearing, Remulla clarified that their discussion was based on the statement of the former president during an event with overseas Filipinos in Hong Kong last March 9 that he has information that the ICC has issued a warrant for his arrest.
When pressed to reveal what was discussed during the meeting, Remulla invoked executive privilege.
Marcos said the DILG secretary’s statement allegedly provided the whole picture about the government’s plan to arrest Duterte.
“This attempt to cover up what was already aired on media and what had already come to pass was an indication of a comprehensive plan to arrest the former president, already being in place even before the date indicated in the ICC warrants of March 11,” she said.
INTERPOL NOTICES
Marcos also noted previous statements made by Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin and other government officials stating that the government will only implement the arrest of Duterte if this is coursed through the Interpol, which she said is one of the violations committed by the government.
“Furthermore, even before the ICC Prosecutor applied for a warrant of arrest, there were already statements by key executive officials that the administration will cooperate if the ICC courses through Interpol its request to arrest FPRRD,” she said, citing the statements made by Bersamin on November 13, 2024, among others.
She said Bersamin was quoted as saying that “if the ICC seeks the intervention, which may then transmit a red notice to the Philippine authorities, the government will feel obliged to consider the red notice as a request to be honored, in which case the domestic law enforcement agencies shall be bound to accord full cooperation to the Interpol pursuant to established protocols.”
She said “emphasis” should be given on the administration’s narrative that it will be compelled to honor the ICC request if the Interpol transmits a red notice to the government.
She pointed out that “it was admitted during the public hearing that “there is no red notice” but only a diffusion notice.
Senate President Francis Escudero had said that a diffusion notice has the same effect as a red notice in arresting a person.
Escudero said the only difference between the two is that a diffusion notice is not posted on the Interpol website, while the red notice is posted for all to see.
Marcos said the Philippines was not legally bound to arrest Duterte and turn him over to the ICC because the diffusion notice transmitted by the Interpol to the Philippine government “was not verified or approved by the Interpol secretariat.”
She pointed out that there was no verification by the Interpol whether the request complied with Article 3 of the Interpol constitution which forbids the organization from undertaking any intervention or activities that are of political, military, religious, or racial character.
She also said that “the diffusion notice appears to be under Article 92 of the Rome Statute which requires ‘provisional arrest,’ and not under Article 91, which is a request for ‘arrest and surrender.’” She pointed out that under Article 92 of the Rome Statute, “a provisional arrest is followed by a request for surrender.”
If the provisions of the Rome Statute were followed to the letter, Marcos said the Philippine government should not have turned over Duterte to the ICC since there was no the request for extradition or request for surrender.
Marcos said the argument of Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla that the ICC continues to have jurisdiction over individuals charged before the court in compliance with the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) “is deeply flawed.”
“First, IHL customary law does not apply. FPPRD is accused of committing crimes against humanity, not war crimes. IHL refers to war crimes. Second, procedural and administrative matters such as court processes, do not become part of customary international law. Finally, it is the State’s consent to the jurisdiction of the ICC which gives the ICC power to prosecute individuals belonging to that State or crimes committed within such State. IHL is international customary law but the jurisdiction of ICC is not,” she said.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Marcos also said there was a “glaring” violation of Duterte’s constitutional rights on the guarantee of liberty and due process of law.
She said the 79-year-old Duterte was arrested without a local arrest warrant.
“Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla impliedly admitted that no effort was made to get any warrant from a Filipino court. Meanwhile, (Major) Gen. Nicolas Torre III invoked Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code in order to justify the reason for immediately arresting, detaining, and sending FPRRD to The Hague,” she said.
She noted that Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code applies only to warrantless arrests.
She also said there was no court order mandating Duterte to be taken out of the country, thus, his transport to The Hague was unlawful.
Marcos also alleged that Duterte was deprived the right to be visited by or talk with his immediate family members when h e was held at the Villamor Air Base, noting that Vice President Sara Duterte was not even allowed to enter the premises so she can serve as her father’s counsel.
“The claim of Secretary Juanito Victor Remulla Jr. that they accorded the accused his legal remedy because FPRRD was able to file a petition for temporary restraining order is self-serving. FPRRD was flown out of the country even before the Supreme Court had a chance to decide on his application for TRO,” she added.
Marcos said Duterte was supposedly denied the right to apply for interim release under Article 59 of the Rome Statute or the right to apply for bail under prevailing jurisprudence on extradition before he was flown to the Netherlands.
“The inconsistent statements of the Department of Justice raise suspicions that the Department is trying to justify lack of due process in the arrest of FPRRD and the administration’s failure to respect FPRRD’s right to be brought before a competent judicial authority and/or to apply for bail,” she said.
“Section 2, Article 59 of the Rome Statute states that ‘a person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State. During the public hearing of March 20, 2025, the secretary of justice insisted on the inapplicability of the Rome Statute,” she added.
Marcos, however, said that in a DOJ certification signed by Prosecutor General Richard Fadullon, it was stated that the DOJ made the following determinations “as a competent authority of the custodial State:” that the arrest order issued by the ICC applies to Duterte, the arrest was conducted in compliance with a legal process, the rights of Duterte were observed.
She said that the certification expressly cited Article 59 of the Rome Statute twice.
“Therefore, it is apparent that the DOJ first tried to convince the public that the requirements under Article 59 of the Rome Statute were complied with, and later on, when such stance became untenable, decided to ditch Article 59 altogether and pursued another theory —extrajudicial rendition,” she said.
“There were glaring violations of the rights of the former president. No warrant was issued by a Philippine court. The arrest did not fall under the exceptions to warrantless arrest. This is gross violation of the constitutional safeguards protecting liberty and due process,” she stressed.
INTERIM RELEASE
Palace Communications undersecretary Claire Castro said Malacañang cannot accept any conditions or measures that might be imposed by the ICC for the interim release of Duterte since Manila is no longer under its jurisdiction.
The ICC spokesperson has earlier said that Manila must accept technical conditions and measures before its judges can order the interim release from detention of Duterte.
Castro said agreeing to the ICC conditions would mean that the country is recognizing ICC’s jurisdiction over the Philippines.
“I believe the family of former President Duterte is asking and praying from the Supreme Court that the government should not cooperate with the ICC. So, it means that if we will not cooperate with the ICC, even that prayer or even that manifestation of the ICC, we will not take cognizance of that,’’ Castro said. – With Jocelyn Montemayor
