Challengers of ICC withdrawal quizzed on legal standing

Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen on Tuesday questioned the standing of the coalition challenging the Duterte-decided withdrawal of the Philippines' membership from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

During Leonen's interpellation at the oral arguments on the case, Ray Paolo Santiago, counsel for the Philippine Coalition for the ICC, admitted he has suffered no direct injury as a consequence of the pullout.

"I would have to concede that there is no direct injury on my part," Santiago told Leonen, who had asked him if he has personally experienced genocide and crimes against humanity, the nature of cases cognizable by the ICC.

Standing, or locus standi, is a person's "right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question." It is more than a "generalized grievance" and is instead a "personal and substantial interest in a case," according to the SC.

But Santiago, who said his standing was anchored on his being a Filipino citizen and a taxpayer, said the Philippine Coalition for the ICC's case was not "premature" despite the absence of actual injury on his part.

The coalition he represents is challenging the legality of President Rodrigo Duterte's unilateral move to pull the country out of the ICC without the concurrence of the Senate, which ratified its establishing treaty, the Rome Statute, in 2011.

Six senators are similarly questioning the withdrawal but were a no-show at Tuesday's oral arguments, citing a need to decide the issue of who will represent them at the proceeding.

Meanwhile, Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza asked Santiago to specify which right was violated when the government withdrew the country's membership from the ICC.

Santiago asserted the right to effective remedies, but conceded, under Jardeleza's questioning, that the said right is not explicitly stated in the 1987 Constitution.

However, he said the "best textual support" for his claim was Section 1 of the Bill of Rights, which says "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Jardeleza asked Santiago to convince the SC in the petitioners' memorandum that the right to effective remedies is an extension of the rights to life, liberty and property.

The oral arguments were suspended early Tuesday evening and will resume on September 4. — BM, GMA News