THE Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has recused from commenting and participating on behalf of the Marcos government in the consolidated petitions for habeas corpus filed before the Supreme Court (SC) by the children of former president Rodrigo Duterte seeking his release from the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and return to the country.
The OSG, led by Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra, filed its manifestation before the SC yesterday in compliance with the court’s order issued last Thursday night ordering government officials to show cause why the habeas corpus pleas should not be granted.
As solicitor general, Guevarra is the top government counsel and represents it in major cases or litigation.
In its manifestation, the OSG said: “Considering the OSG’s firm position that the ICC is barred from exercising jurisdiction over the Philippines and that the country’s investigative, prosecutorial and judicial system is functioning as it should, the OSG may not be able to effectively represent Respondents in these cases and is constrained to recuse itself from participating herein.”
“In steadfast adherence to this sovereign decision, the OSG has consistently maintained, both in its submission before the ICC and in its public statements, that the case of the Philippines was not admissible and that the ICC failed to timely exercise its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Philippine Government has no legal obligation to cooperate with the ICC nor recognize any process emanating from the ICC following the effectivity of the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute,” it added.
SC spokesperson Camille Ting told reporters the manifestation was filed with the High Court yesterday afternoon.
“As of 1:03 p.m. today, March 17, 2025, the Supreme Court received the OSG’s manifestation of recusal from the consolidated habeas corpus petitions filed by former president Duterte’s children,” Ting said.
Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra, when asked about the manifestation, simply told reporters in a message: “Done. The OSG’s one-page manifestation and motion says everything.”
Ting said the OSG has also asked that Guevarra be dropped as respondent in the consolidated petitions.
Aside from Guevarra, the other respondents in the petitions are Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, DILG Secretary Jonvic Remulla, PNP chief Gen. Rommel Francisco D. Marbil, CIDG head Nicolas D. Torre III, DFA Secretary Enrique Manalo, AFP chief General Romeo Brawner Jr., and Antonio Alcantara, Executive Director of the Philippine Center on Transnational Crime.
The petitions were separately filed last week by Davao City Rep. Paolo “Pulong” Duterte, Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte and Veronica “Kitty” Duterte following the arrest of their father on Tuesday morning upon his arrival from Hong Kong.
The Duterte patriarch has been turned over to the jurisdiction of the ICC, where he has been charged with crimes against humanity over the extrajudicial killings related to his bloody drug war during presidency and his campaign against crime when he was mayor of Davao City.
Asked who will represent the government in the case following the OSG’s move, Guevarra said the respondents will file their respective manifestations.
“They will comply,” he said.
Asked if he informed President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of his decision not to represent the government, Guevarra declined to answer, citing “executive privilege.”
Guevarra served as secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the last two years of the Duterte administration.
He has repeatedly taken the position that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the country since it has already withdrawn from the Rome Statute that created it in 2019.
The Duterte siblings’ petitions are anchored on the same argument.
They asserted that the decision of the Marcos government to serve the ICC arrest warrant and extradite their 79-year old father is tantamount to grave abuse of discretion, considering that Manila is no longer a signatory to the Rome Statute.
DROP GUEVARRA
AS RESPONDENT
In asking that Guevarra be dropped as respondent in the habeas corpus pleas and be excused from complying with the show-cause order, the OSG said: “The Solicitor General is not a party who stands to be benefitted or injured by the judgment in the suit.”
“A careful review of the consolidated petitions will show that there are no allegations whatsoever constituting a cause of action against the Solicitor General, nor is there any relief sought from him or against from him. The Solicitor General is ‘merely impleaded’ to ensure that the Philippine government maintains a strong legal position against ICC cooperation,” it added.
The manifestation was signed by Guevarra and his deputies.
There was no immediate statements from Malacañang or DOJ officials on the OSG’s move.
‘IMPLIED ADMISSION’
Former chief presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo and his sone, Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr., in a statement, said the OSG refusal to represent the Marcos government before the SC is an “implied admission” that the arrest and detention is “illegal and unconstitutional.”
“That’s another way of saying that the arrest, detention and kidnapping of Duterte based on an ICC warrant is illegal and unconstitutional. It’s an implied admission that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the Philippines coming from the government’s lawyer,” they said.
The Panelos represent Kitty Duterte in the habeas corpus plea filed with the SC.
The older Panelo, in an interview with media, said: “Tama ang posisyon ni SolGen dito. Pagka sa madali’t sabi, gagawa rin sya ng ilegal na aksyon kung ipagtanggol nya ang isang ilegal na gawain ng mga opisyales ng gobyerno at ng gobyerno (The position of the SolGen is correct. If he defends an illegal action of an official of the government, his acts would also be considered illegal).”
Retired SC Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said Guevarra’s decision to recuse from representing the government in the habeas corpus case is “obviously wrong.”
“Guevarra is obviously wrong. The Supreme Court has already unanimously ruled that the ICC retains jurisdiction over offenses committed while the Philippines was still a member of the Rome Statute. Guevarra cannot simply gloss over this unanimous decision of the Supreme Court,” Carpio said.
He said the government can cite Republic Act 9851, or the Act Defining and Penalizing Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and other Crimes Against Humanity, Organizing Jurisdiction, Designating Special Courts, and for Related Purposes” which was enacted in 2009, to defend its action.
He pointed out that RA 9851 allows the government to surrender Duterte to the ICC even if the country has withdrawn from the Rome Statute.
TRO PLEA NOT
MOOT – DUTERTE CAMP
Lawyer Israelito Torreon said their petition questioning the legality of Duterte’s arrest and his extradition to the Netherlands is not yet moot even if the former president is now under the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Duterte made his first appearance before the ICC Pre Trial Chamber 1 last Friday through video link. The hearing for the confirmation of the crimes against humanity charges is set on September 23, 2025.
“The case is of transcendental importance. There is a grave violation of the Constitution. This is capable of repetition, yet evading review. These are exceptions to the mootness doctrine, which we all lawyers know,” Torreon told the Bilyonaryo News Channel in an interview.
Torreon is representing Duterte and Sen. Ronald dela Rosa in the petition filed with the SC on Tuesday afternoon, the same day that the former chief executive was served the arrest warrant issued by the ICC.
The petition challenged the government’s cooperation with the ICC that led to the arrest of the 79-year old former president.
It accused the government of grave abuse of discretion and of violating the country’s sovereignty by cooperating with the ICC despite Manila’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute that created the ICC in 2019.
Torreon insisted that the arrest, detention and extradition of Duterte were “unconstitutional” and may cause “irreparable harm” if the judiciary fails or does not step in to address the issue.
He said that what happened to Duterte could happen to any Filipino citizen and could set a dangerous precedent.
‘DUTERTE RELEASE UNLIKELY’
Carpio said it is unlikely that the ICC will dismiss the charges of crimes against humanity filed against the former president.
He said Duterte’s legal team will be in for a tough legal battle ahead as key witnesses, including former members of the Davao Death Squad, have firsthand knowledge of his alleged involvement or connection to the killings.
“It’s very difficult for Duterte to get out of that because these are insider people, they have personal knowledge. They were the ones who did the killing for him. So how can he rebut that?” Carpio told News5.
Retired police officer Arturo Lascanas earlier claimed under oath that he killed almost 200 people and was paid millions of pesos by Duterte when he was still mayor of Davao City.
He said that DDS members received reward money from Duterte in exchange for the killing not only of criminals but even his enemies in politics and the media.
Edgar Matobato, a self-confessed hitman and DDS member, has also linked Duterte to the operation of the death squad.
The two witnesses are now under ICC custody pending their appearance in the trial.
Carpio said that while he expects Duterte’s camp to challenge the legality of his arrest before the ICC hearing in September 23, this will not affect the court’s jurisdiction.
“Even if you are illegally arrested by the surrendering state, the ICC will still acquire jurisdiction over you when you are handed over to them because the ICC has nothing to do with the illegal arrest that was done by the surrendering state,” he explained.
Lawter Harry Roque, one of the members of Duterte’s legal team, has earlier said they will ask for Duterte’s interim release before the September hearing.
Lawyer Joel Butuyan, one of the five Filipino lawyers accredited by the ICC to take part in their proceedings, said it is unlikely that the ICC will grant the petition.
Butuyan said this is due to concerns that the former president poses a flight risk or may evade prosecution if released from ICC custody.
“Mahihirapan silang kumuha ng interim release, lalong-lalo na flight risk si former President (It would be difficult for them to get an interim release especially since the former president is a flight risk),” Butuyan, who is the chairperson of the Center for International Law, told GMA7’s Balitanghali.
Aside from being a flight risk, Butuyan said there is also concern that he might intimidate or antagonize witnesses.
“Nandoon din ‘yung possibility na ma-intimidate and ma-antagonize ‘yung mga witnesses and ma-tamper ‘yung mga ebidensya laban sa kanya (There is also the possibility that witnesses might be intimidated or antagonized and evidence against him will be tampered),” he added.
He said that while the ICC allows detainees to apply for interim release pending trial, the request must demonstrate “extreme and urgent necessity.”
As to health reasons or concerns, Butuyan said Duterte’s camp would also have difficulty to get the ICC nod to release him considering that the ICC can get independent medical findings to verify his condition.
“Nung Friday, sinabi nga nung presiding judge na mentally and physically fit siya (Last Friday, the presiding judge said he was mentally and physically fit),” he pointed out.
Duterte’s legal counsel Salvador Medialdea has informed the ICC of the former’s “debilitating medical condition” during last Friday’s pretrial of the case, but Presiding Judge Iula Antoanella Motoc was quick to point out that he was pronounced mentally and physically fit by their doctors.
The pretrial chamber set the next hearing of the crimes against humanity cases against Duterte on September 23, 2025.
‘UNTRUE’
Meanwhile, the SC yesterday denied reports circulating in social media that it has received a petition seeking the resignation of Marcos.
The High Court issued the clarification after social media posts, particularly from Facebook accounts under the name “Choose Libungan” and “Bernard Flores Maicon,” shared a “fabricated document” dated March 16, 2025 supposedly from the Office of the SC Spokesperon stating that the SC has received a petition that allegedly contained 16 million signatures calling for the president’s resignation.
The same Facebook accounts also claimed that the Court en banc was set to convene yesterday to tackle the alleged petition.
“We categorically deny the authenticity of this document. No such statement has been issued by the Supreme Court Spokesperson,” the SC Office of the Spokesperson said.
As to the alleged en banc session, the SC said there wsas also no truth to the claim.
“This is completely untrue. The SC has not received any such petition, and no en banc session is scheduled today (Monday) for this matter,” it added.
The High Court said it will investigate the claim and take the necessary action.
“These acts of disinformation, including previous false reports on March 11, 2025 alleging that the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order, will be submitted for appropriate action,” the SC said.
“The SC will investigate these incidents and take necessary measures, including the imposition of proper sanctions on those responsible, “ it added.
To recall, lawyers Raul Lambino and Torreon claimed last Tuesday that they received information that the SC has issued a temporary restraining order on the petition filed by Duterte and Dela Rosa seeking an injunction on the cooperation of the government with the ICC.
The SC until now has not issued any TRO. – With Jocelyn Montemayor
