Two magistrates of the Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the legal standing of the opposition senators to file on behalf of the Senate a petition assailing the constitutionality of President Rodrigo Duterte’s decision to unilaterally withdraw the country’s membership from Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
During the continuation of the oral arguments on the petition seeking revocation of the withdrawal from ICC membership due to lack of concurrence from the Senate, Associate Justices Marvic Leonen and Noel Tijam raised doubts on the legal standing of the six opposition senators—Francis Pangilinan, Franklin Drilon, Leila de Lima, Paolo Aquino, Antonio Trillanes IV and Risa Hontiveros—to file the petition before the high court.
Leonen asked Pangilinan if they represented the position of the Senate as collegial body.
Pangilinan cited Senate Resolution No. 286 expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the requirement for concurrence for the ICC membership withdrawal. He said the resolution was signed by 14 signatures out of 23 senators.
When asked if the resolution had been tabled for discussion in the Senate, Pangilinan responded: “The matter was not adopted by the Senate.”
Nonetheless, during questioning, Pangilinan admitted that the Senate concurrence to the ICC membership did not have the provision requiring concurrence again in the withdrawal, unlike in 17 other treaties.
When pressed why was that the case, Pangilinan could not provide a clear answer.
Leonen then called petitioners’ lawyer and former Akbayan Party-list Rep. Barry Gutierrez to the podium to explain the legal standing of the senators.
“Their principle of basis for standing is in their capacity as senators of the Republic,” Gutierrez explained.
Tijam also raised similar question involving the collegial position of the Senate.
“Should this Court act favorable (sic) on the petition and compel the Senate to give its concurrence to the withdrawal, will that not be interpreted as an intrusion to the powers of the Senate?” Tijam asked.
“Has the Senate asserted its authority to demand concurrence in the withdrawal form the Rome Statute?” Tijam asked, to which Gutierrez replied in the negative.
In his comment, Solicitor General Jose Calida said the opposition senators have no legal standing to file the case in SC simply because of the lack of official stance of the Senate as a collegial body due to divided sentiment of senators on the issue.
Calida agreed that the Senate resolution, which sought to invoke Senate’s concurrence to the withdrawal, was not passed and had actually been shelved.
The oral arguments will continue on Sept. 18 at 2 pm for the presentation of the Solicitor General’s position.
Duterte announced last March the government’s withdrawal of its ratification of the Rome Statute, a United Nations treaty creating the ICC.
In its diplomatic note to the United Nations secretary general, the government explained 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.”
Durterte cited “baseless, unprecedented and outrageous attacks” against him and his administration as the reason for his withdrawal as a state party.
