Warrant of arrest vs. Rodrigo Duterte legitimate —experts

The warrant of arrest issued against former President Rodrigo Duterte by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is legitimate, legal experts said Thursday.

FULL TEXT: The ICC warrant of arrest against Rodrigo Duterte

“I don’t think there’s a question about the validity of the warrant. Pursuant to the exercise of that jurisdiction, of course, they can issue the warrant for the arrest of the subject or the accused in this particular case,” said Ralph Sarmiento, Dean of the College of Law at the University of St. La Salle Bacolod, in Maki Pulido’s report in “24 Oras.” 

Duterte was arrested Tuesday morning for alleged crimes against humanity and is now in The Hague.

When he was president, Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, when the court began its investigation in 2018. The withdrawal took effect in 2019. However,  the ICC said it retains jurisdiction with respect to alleged crimes that occurred on the territory of the country while it was a state party to the Rome Statute, or from November 1, 2011 up to and including March 16, 2019.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the Philippines remains obligated to cooperate with ICC proceedings provided that the process was started before the Philippines’ withdrawal and that the alleged crimes happened at a time when the Philippines was still a member nation.

According to the Article 59 of the Rome Statute, the accused must be presented before a competent judicial authority or court. This did not happen when Duterte was arrested. 

“Ang rule ng competent judicial authority na ‘yan, itse-check niya, 'Okay, ito bang taong dinampot ninyo siya talaga yung napangalanan sa warrant of arrest? Pangalawa, nasunod ba yung tamang proseso? Pangatlo, na-respeto ba yung mga karapatan niya?'” said international law expert Michael Tiu. 

(According to the rules of the competent judicial authority, they will first check if, okay, is the person arrested really the one named in the arrest warrant? Second, was the right process observed? Third,  were his rights respected?) 

But Sarmiento said that Article 59 does not apply anymore to the case as the Philippine government pulled out its membership in 2019. What should only be considered now is that the accused’s rights will not be violated. 

“Yung mga [The] fundamental rights pursuant to the international convention on civil and political rights,” he said. 

Meanwhile, Joel Butuyan, one of the five ICC-accredited lawyers, said that the Rome Statute notes that Philippine laws will still prevail in enforcing the warrant of arrest. 

“Dinetermine naman ng mga pulis na siya si President Duterte. Binasahan siya ng Miranda rights. Peaceful naman yung pag-aresto sa kanya, so yung basic rights niya were actually respected,” he said. 

(The police determined that it was President Duterte indeed. His Miranda rights were read before him. His arrest was actually peaceful, so his basic rights were respected.) 

During Duterte’s initial appearance before the court, the ICC said that it will conduct the confirmation of his identity and the language he will use for the proceedings. 

Further, Sarmiento said that the ICC sought Interpol's assistance in the issuance of the arrest warrant. 

Because of the agreement between the Interpol and the Philippines, the government has the obligation to enforce it. 

“In the future, if we’ll be the ones who need assistance from Interpol, baka di rin nila tayo pagbigyan [they might not give us a chance],” said Sarmiento. 

Duterte’s children filed petitions before the Supreme Court, but some legal experts said that these are pointless as the High Court does not have jurisdiction over the ICC. — Vince Angelo Ferreras/BM, GMA Integrated News