President Rodrigo Duterte’s decision to withdraw from the establishing treaty of the International Criminal Court will be put to test, as the Supreme Court has issued guidelines for the upcoming Aug. 14 oral arguments on the consolidated pleadings challenging the decision.
The SC, in its July 17 advisory, has set four major issues on the President ’s decision to pull out the country’s membership from the genocide and war crimes court, after a prosecutor has alleged that the President had sanctioned the killing of drug suspects in the government’s war on drugs.
The SC will hear the arguments on whether or not the SC may take cognizance of the consolidated petitions, and whether or not the withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the ICC’s establishing treaty, through a note verbale delivered to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, is “valid, binding and effectual.”
These will also cover whether or not the government’s executive branch had valid grounds to withdraw from the Rome Statute, and if the withdrawal needed at least two-thirds of the Senate, as claimed by its challengers.
Also set for oral arguments are whether or not the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statue constitutes a breach of its obligations under international law; and whether or not the pullout will “diminish the Filipino people’s protection under International Law”—and if it is at all a question that could be subject to trial in a court of law.
The SC will be hearing the consolidated pleadings petitions filed by opposition senators Leila de Lima, Francis Pangilinan, Franklin Drilon, Paolo Benigno Aquino IV, Risa Hontiveros, and Antonio Trillanes IV, and of the Philippine Coalition for the ICC (PICC), led by former Human Rights Commissioner Etta Rosales and 11 other individuals.
In its note verbale, the government argued that the “decision to withdraw is the Philippines’ principled stand against those who politicize and weaponize human rights, even as its independent and well-functioning organs and agencies continue to exercise jurisdiction over complaints, issues, problems and concerns arising from its efforts to protect the people.”
But the petitioners claimed that the respondents committed usurpation of legislative powers, which is punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
President Duterte had announced on March 14, 2018 the Philippines’ withdrawal of its ratification of the Rome Statute, a United Nations (UN) treaty creating the ICC.
Duterte cited “baseless, unprecedented and outrageous attacks” against him and his administration by the ICC as the reason for his withdrawal as a state party.
In their petition, opposition senators asked the SC to declare “invalid and ineffective” the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute without the nod of two-thirds of the members of the Senate, the body that ratified it in 2011.
The petitioners also argued that the Office of the President and the DFA gravely abused their discretion in formulating the decision.
They said the Rome Statute is a treaty validly entered into by the Philippines, which has the same status as a law enacted by Congress, thus, can only, be withdrawn with the approval of Congress.
They also asked the Court to compel the DFA and the Philippine Permanent Mission to the United Nations to notify the United Nations Secretary-General that it is revoking the notice of withdrawal that it received on March 17, 2018.
The coalition’s petition, on the other hand, wants the Philippines’ Notice of Withdrawal from the ICC declared “void ab initio,” and the government ordered to recall and revoke the document submitted to the UN Secretary General.
Named respondents in the petitions were Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, Foreign Affairs Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano, Permanent Philippine mission to the UN Teodoro Locsin, Jr., and chief presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo.
In a related development, opposition senators appealed to the Supreme Court to allow De Lima, who is currently detained, to argue in their behalf, in connection with their petition seeking to nullify the decision of President Duterte to withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In their manifestation, the opposition lawmakers argued that it has been a practice of the SC to allow members of Congress to appear before it and argue cases that they file in their capacity as senators or representatives, who are real parties-in-interest.
“The undersigned manifesting senators, in the course of their preparations for this case and in compliance with this Honorable Court’s directive for the respective parties or their counsels to attend the oral arguments for this case as scheduled, are of the strong conviction that the arguments for the case of all the petitioners will be best presented before this Honorable Court by their colleague, Senator de Lima,” stated the manifestation signed by Pangilinan, Drilon, Senator Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino, Risa Hontiveros, Trillanes IV and De Lima.
According to the lawmakers, the issues raised in their petitions are of “transcendental importance”, thus, the detained senator should be allowed to personally argue the case during the oral arguments.
The opposition senators informed the SC that they will no longer be represented by counsel during the oral arguments as they have decided to adopt in whole the arguments and positions that De Lima would raise.
De Lima is currently detained at the Philippine National Police Custodial Center pending resolution of the illegal drug charges filed against him before the court.
She has been accused of benefitting from the illegal drug trade inside the New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) in Muntinlupa during her stint as Justice secretary.
