Former President Rodrigo Duterte —Screengrab from ICC
MANILA, Philippines — The three kids of former President Rodrigo Duterte are urgent the Supreme Court docket to grant their habeas corpus petitions for his instant launch from the custody of the Worldwide Legal Court docket (ICC), with Veronica Duterte citing the Workplace of the Solicitor Basic’s (OSG) recusal as proof that his “abduction” and switch to The Hague had been “unlawful and indefensible.”
In separate traverses, or pleadings denying the information alleged by the opposing social gathering, siblings Veronica, Davao Metropolis Mayor Sebastian Duterte and Davao Metropolis Rep. Paolo Duterte reiterated on Monday that their father’s arrest was unlawful, that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the Philippines following its withdrawal from the Rome Statute, and that the federal government violated the Structure by implementing the ICC warrant with out judicial evaluation and due course of.
The traverses, made public by the Supreme Court docket on Tuesday, reply to the consolidated compliance of the Division of Justice (DOJ), which assumed the function of state lawyer after the OSG recused itself from the case.
READ: OSG inhibits from defending Marcos govt’s place on Duterte arrest
Duterte was flown to the ICC headquarters in The Hague previous 11 p.m. on March 11 after the federal government assisted the Worldwide Legal Police Group (Interpol) in serving the arrest warrant.
A day after their father was turned over to the ICC, Duterte’s kids requested the Supreme Court docket to compel the federal government to deliver him again to the Philippines.
On March 13, the excessive courtroom issued a show-cause order directing the federal government to clarify why the petitions for a writ of habeas corpus individually filed by Veronica (G.R. No. 278768), Sebastian (G.R. No. 278763) and Paolo (G.R. No. 278798) shouldn’t be granted.
In a manifestation and movement filed on March 17, the OSG requested the Supreme Court docket to be aware of and/or favorably think about its recusal, emphasizing that it had lengthy maintained that the Philippines’ case was inadmissible earlier than the ICC and that the tribunal didn’t train its jurisdiction in a well timed method.
The DOJ, representing authorities officers named as respondents within the petitions—together with Government Secretary Lucas Bersamin, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, Philippine Nationwide Police chief Gen. Rommel Marbil, and Legal Investigation and Detection Group director Maj. Gen. Nicolas Torre III—argued that the habeas corpus petitions ought to be dismissed as moot since Duterte is already in ICC custody within the Netherlands and not inside Philippine jurisdiction.
Citing Part 2, Rule 102 of the Guidelines of Court docket, the DOJ careworn {that a} writ of habeas corpus is enforceable solely inside the nation and doesn’t apply when a sound arrest warrant has been issued.
The DOJ additionally invoked Republic Act No. 9851, which permits the Philippines to defer to a global tribunal and give up suspects in accordance with extradition legal guidelines and treaties.
Remulla’s UN speech
In her response, Veronica famous that Justice Secretary Remulla had mentioned in a 2023 speech earlier than the United Nations Human Rights Council that the ICC had no jurisdiction because the Philippines had a “working justice system.”
She mentioned it was “unsurprising” that the OSG, which is legally mandated to function authorized counsel for the Philippine authorities and characterize the nation in pretrial proceedings earlier than the ICC, recused itself from representing the respondent authorities officers, who, she argued, had “immediately” adopted an “irreconcilable view on the ICC’s jurisdiction.”
“The OSG’s recusal is due to this fact clear indication that [Duterte’s] abduction and switch to The Hague pursuant to the ICC warrant of arrest is unlawful and indefensible,” Veronica mentioned.
Paolo’s reply tackled on how the previous president’s arrest was carried out by a diffusion by Interpol of the ICC-issued arrest warrant relatively than by a proper discover.
Citing Interpol’s Guidelines on the Processing of Information, Paolo defined that Interpol notices are worldwide alerts or cooperation requests issued on the request of a Nationwide Central Bureau (NCB) or a global entity, or initiated by Interpol’s Basic Secretariat.
A crimson discover, he identified, is particularly issued for arrest functions and should endure a authorized evaluation by Interpol’s Basic Secretariat to make sure compliance with its structure and guidelines.
A diffusion, however, is a direct request despatched from an NCB or a global entity to chose recipients with out requiring Basic Secretariat evaluation. Diffusions share intelligence or request help in prison investigations however don’t mandate authorized scrutiny, he famous.
“Therefore, the legality of the warrant of arrest issued by the ICC was not subjected to the authorized evaluation of the Basic Secretariat of Interpol, thus, leading to its procedural infirmity,” he mentioned.
‘Private curiosity’
In his personal reply, Sebastian equally questioned the execution of the arrest, arguing that it was based mostly on a “much less formal and nonbinding mechanism of worldwide police cooperation.”
The Davao mayor cited a Senate listening to on March 14, the place Philippine Middle for Transnational Crime Government Director Anthony Alcantara confirmed that Interpol had issued solely a diffusion, not a crimson discover, on the day of Duterte’s arrest.
“If it was a Philippine regulation enforcement company that subtle the ICC’s request, this strongly means that the Philippine authorities, below the colour of Interpol cooperation, executed and organized the rendition itself,” Sebastian mentioned.
“In such a case, the diffusion was merely a pretext—a procedural facade to hide what was, in essence, a unilateral and political give up of a Filipino citizen to a international tribunal, exterior the scope of regulation,” he added.
He claimed that the Philippine authorities “orchestrated” the arrest out of “private curiosity” relatively than real Interpol cooperation.
Your subscription couldn’t be saved. Please attempt once more.
Your subscription has been profitable.
The enforcement of the arrest warrant with out prior courtroom approval, he mentioned, steered a “chance of politically motivated motion, which might represent unlawful detention or, much more regarding, state-sponsored kidnapping, all below the guise of worldwide cooperation.”