WHEN the ICC Pretrial Chamber rejected on Jan. 24, 2023 the appeal of the Philippine government to delay or stop the ICC formal investigation of the crimes against humanity charges against Rodrigo Duterte and his ilk, the two chambers of Congress separately called for a similar rejection of the formal probe. Incidentally, the appeal was a continuation of the initiative of the erstwhile Duterte administration to oppose the ICC formal investigation of its bloody but illfated war on drugs.
Three weeks after the ICC rejection of the appeal, an initiative started at the House of Representatives when Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, a former president, led a group of 19 lawmakers in the resolution dated Feb. 16, 2023, asking the chamber to support Duterte, who was facing an ICC probe over his bloody drug war.
Her resolution said: “Be it resolved, as it is hereby resolved, that the House of Representatives declares unequivocal defense of former president Rodrigo Roa Duterte, the 16th president of the Republic of the Philippines, in any investigation and/or prosecution by the ICC.”
It did not say the reason for the defense. It also did not make clear if the lawmakers felt Duterte was not guilty of the allegations. Neither did it say anything about what kind of support it would give to Duterte.
Not to be outdone, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada submitted on Feb. 23, 2023 the Senate Resolution 492, expressing the same objections, thoughts, and resolve as the House resolution’s. The two resolutions said the ICC “lacked” jurisdiction over the Philippines, citing the 2019 withdrawal from the Rome Statute, a move initiated unilaterally by Duterte without consultations with lawmakers and other political leaders. The two resolutions neither gained support nor traction in the two congressional chambers. They were not adopted and died naturally.
These were not all. Duterte’s allies launched their media campaign to make it appear that Duterte and his cohorts did not have responsibility because the Philippines has already withdrawn its membership in the Rome Statute. Ronaldo dela Rosa, Francis Tolentino, Christopher Lawrence Go, and Robin Padilla issued separate statements containing what could be regarded oversimplistic statements that since the Philippines has withdrawn unilaterally from the Rome Statute, Duterte and cohorts are no longer responsible on those EJKs.
They obviously did not read the provisions of the Rome Statute. Neither they have read the Supreme Court decision. Neither did they understand what they said. On the contrary, they are equally responsible for Duterte’s state-sponsored terrorism. The following pertinent provision of the Rome Statute makes sense:
Article 127 Withdrawal 1. A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, withdraw from this Statute. The withdrawal shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification, unless the notification specifies a later date. 2. A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have accrued. Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.
Changes in the congressional initiatives occurred when the ICC Appeals Chamber, which serves as the chamber of last resort, or a sort of supreme court in the ICC, rejected on July 18, 2023 the second appeal the Philippine government lodged to delay the formal probe on the charges against Duterte and his cohorts. It appears to be the final decision on the issue.
The Philippine Government did not risk becoming the laughing stock in the world community by lodging a third appeal. It did not indeed lodge a third appeal. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. announced the Philippines would stop communicating with the ICC. It was his way to end the issue with the ICC. It was Duterte and his cohorts, who had a hard time understanding his statement, as they have kept twisting it to their favor.
It was a close decision, 3-2, by the Appeals Chamber. But how the decision would appear in its final form does not matter anymore because in the end, the Philippine Government has lost all efforts to stop the formal investigation. Quietly, the ICC, as reported without fanfare or any official confirmation, went into its business of formal probe of Duterte and his cohorts’ involvement in the bloody but failed war on drugs. His subalterns, mostly lawmakers, who hardly have stature and credibility, continued to make noises, but they were hardly successful. Neither did they create any traction in the public mind.
The first change appeared when Resolution 1393 was filed at the House of Representatives. It asked the Marcos administration to cooperate with the ICC in its probe on the alleged crimes against humanity against Duterte and ilk on the ill-fated war on drugs. The lawmakers filed other resolutions on Nov. 21, 2023 seeking to allow the ICC entry into the country. On Nov. 23 , they were read on first reading and referred to the House committee on rules, after which they were sent to the justice committee.
A week later, two House committees approved and consolidated resolutions that encouraged the President to allow the Philippines to cooperate in the ICC’s probe into Duterte’s war on drugs. Through a voice vote, officials and members of the joint committee on justice and human rights adopted House Resolution 1477 of Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr., chair of the House committee on human rights, and 1-Rider Party List Rep. Ramon Gutierrez, a young and upcoming lawmaker, consolidated it with House Resolution 1482 of Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, the veteran House Minority Leader.
The Senate took an indifferent stance. It neither approved nor opposed the formal investigation on Duterte and his cohorts by the ICC, but watched nonchalantly the dynamics at the House. There is no way to look at it, but conclude that it was leaving everything on the other chamber on this ticklish issue. What it had were the four or five senators, who kept talking on the issue without understanding its complexity because they neither read nor understood the nuance of the Supreme Court decision and other pertinent literature on the issue. Or they twisted their meaning to promote the perverted interpretation of the Duterte camp.
