Duterte admin's rejection of UNHRC probe is flawed —Lagman

President Rodrigo Duterte administration's rejection of a looming probe by the United Nations Human Rights Council into possible rights violation under the war on drugs is erroneous in many respects.

In a statement on Saturday, Albay Representative Edcel Lagman said the administration's aversion to a possible probe by the UNHRC has no ground to stand on, because safeguarding human rights is a concern that goes beyond national national territories, domestic policies, and sovereign prerogatives.

Besides, Lagman said, the Philippines is a member of the UNHRC.

"If the Duterte administration has nothing to hide and its drug war campaign is legal, then it must not fear the international investigation," he added.

As a signatory to the UNHRC, the Philippine government is impelled to allow the UN body to freely investigate the alleged extrajudicial killings (EJKs) related to the war on drugs for the following reasons:

• the Philippines is not exempt from the UNHRC’s mandate to “address situations of violating human rights.
• as a state party to eight out of nine related core international instruments, like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment  the Philippines has voluntarily agreed to abide by the provisions of these agreements on monitoring by appropriate UN bodies of the member countries’ compliance.
• the results of the independent inquiry would validate or invalidate contrasting reports, allegations, and assertions of both the government and the victims and their families and civil society organizations on the violations of human rights.

ICC probe

Earlier, Duterte's administration also opposed the planned prove into the war on drugs by the International  Criminal Court.

Last April, Malacañan Palace reiterated  its position that the ICC cannot conduct any investigation into President Duterte's war on drugs.

Presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo said, "There is therefore no basis under the Rome Statute for the ICC to proceed with any of its activities relative to the President’s programs against illegal drugs," citing Article 127 of the Rome Statute.

Article 127 of the Rome Statute states in part: “a 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."

Panelo argued: "This is the case supposing that we were once a State Party to the Rome Statute.  Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Rome Statute became enforceable in the Philippines, the ICC can still no longer exercise its powers over the country as, in such hypothetical case, our withdrawal already became effective last month (March)."

"Clearly, it is only when a criminal investigation has commenced prior to the effective date of the withdrawal that the ICC can continue with the case initiated," he pointed out.

Early in March 2019, the Duterte administration expressed its intention to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the ICC.

Duterte has not backed track from the withdrawal and on Mach 17, the exit was deemed in effect. —LBG, GMA News