“The choice to cooperate with Interpol appears more advantageous in the broader context of maintaining international relations and upholding the rule of law”
The clashing tides of justice and sovereignty are once again causing ripples in the Philippines.
In an unexpected twist, DOJ Secretary Boying Remulla announced the Philippines will not obstruct Interpol from arresting suspects wanted by the International Criminal Court.
This stance comes despite the country’s previous severance of ties with the ICC and staunch refusal to cooperate with its probe into former President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody drug war.
The controversy’s genesis
The ICC, established to prosecute individuals for the gravest offenses like genocide and war crimes, lacks its own enforcement arm and thus relies heavily on cooperation with international bodies like Interpol.
The Philippines, a former signatory to the Rome Statute which established the ICC, withdrew from the treaty under Duterte’s administration.
Yet, Article 127 of the Rome Statute stipulates that all proceedings initiated before the withdrawal remain valid, a stance upheld by the Philippine Supreme Court.
Interpol, a network facilitating police cooperation among 195 member countries, operates through notices rather than warrants, meaning its red notices are requests for the location and provisional arrest of individuals based on warrants issued by judicial authorities in requesting countries.
The case for Remulla’s stand
From an ethical standpoint, Remulla’s decision aligns with the principles of international cooperation and comity.
Blocking Interpol could be seen as an affront to the global community’s collective effort to combat crime.
Practically, the Philippines must navigate its obligations as an Interpol member to avoid isolation and potential retaliatory measures that could undermine its law enforcement collaborations.
Under international law, specifically the Interpol-ICC agreement of 2004, cooperation is not merely optional but a commitment.
Philippine law, despite the withdrawal from the ICC, has not invalidated this aspect.
The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms the country is still bound to assist in proceedings initiated prior to its withdrawal.
Court precedents
Historically, non-cooperation with international law enforcement bodies has led to diplomatic and legal repercussions.
For instance, defiance in extradition matters has previously resulted in strained diplomatic ties and sanctions, lessons the Philippines cannot afford to overlook.
Challenging Remulla’s stance
Critics argue complying with Interpol in this context is tantamount to conceding to an international body’s jurisdiction over national affairs, undermining sovereignty.
Practically, this could embolden international entities to intervene in domestic matters, setting a precedent that might be exploited in the future.
While international obligations are clear, detractors highlight the sovereign right to self-determination, emphasizing the Philippines, having withdrawn from the ICC, should not be coerced into compliance. The executive branch’s firm stance on non-cooperation reflects this sentiment, suggesting a nationalistic defense against perceived external interference.
Previous cases where countries have resisted international pressure (e.g., Russia and the US in certain extradition cases) showcase the potential to assert sovereignty successfully.
They argue that standing firm could inspire similar nationalistic defenses, reinforcing the primacy of domestic law over international mandates.
The dilemma dissected
Strengths:
• Upholding international commitments strengthens global cooperation.
aintains law enforcement collaborations.
Weaknesses:
• Potential erosion of national sovereignty.
• Domestic backlash from nationalist factions.
Opportunities:
• Reinforces the rule of law and commitment to human rights.
• Strengthens international partnerships and goodwill.
Threats:
• Possible exploitation of compliance to further international intervention.
• Strain on internal political stability and governmental credibility.
Assessment
The choice to cooperate with Interpol appears more advantageous in the broader context of maintaining international relations and upholding the rule of law.
While sovereignty concerns are valid, they are outweighed by the potential diplomatic and practical repercussions of non-compliance.
Recommendations
1. Strengthen Legal Frameworks: The Philippines should bolster its legal frameworks to ensure any cooperation with international bodies is transparently aligned with national interests.
2. Engage in Diplomatic Dialogue: Initiate dialogues with international partners to reaffirm commitments while clearly defining the limits of cooperation.
3. Public Communication: Enhance public communication strategies to explain the rationale behind compliance, addressing sovereignty concerns and reinforcing the rule of law narrative.
4. Monitor and Evaluate: Continuously monitor and evaluate the impacts of this decision, ready to adapt strategies to mitigate any adverse outcomes.
