Dela Rosa eyes SC help vs possible ICC warrant

[Mike J]

It will be interesting to see if/how the supreme court rules if a warrant is issued by the ICC.

MANILA, Philippines — Amid reports that a warrant for the arrest of former president Rodrigo Duterte by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is on the way, Sen. Ronald dela Rosa said yesterday he will turn to the Supreme Court (SC) for help to thwart any move by the Marcos administration to help enforce an arrest order.

“That is our last resort, once the ICC issues the warrant of arrest, and if government agencies cooperate with the ICC in implementing the warrant despite lack of jurisdiction,” Dela Rosa said in an interview with dwIZ yesterday.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), meanwhile, said it has not yet received any information or update on the supposed release by the ICC of warrants of arrest against Duterte, and possibly against Dela Rosa.

Retired SC Associate Justice Antonio Carpio earlier hinted that the ICC arrest warrants may come out sometime in September.

“The Supreme Court would only act on it once a warrant of arrest is issued. The ICC is beyond our jurisdiction and control, so we have to wait if they will indeed issue a warrant,” Dela Rosa said.

Duterte, Dela Rosa, and retired Gen. Oscar Albayalde are facing ICC investigation for their role in the killings of mostly defenseless and poor drug suspects in the previous administration’s brutal narcotics crackdown.

The others suspects named in the case are PNP Northern Luzon Command chief Maj. Gen. Romeo Caramat Jr., PNP Drug Enforcement Group chief Brig. Gen. Eleazar Matta, and National Police Commission Commissioner Edilberto Leonardo.

Dela Rosa had maintained he would not cooperate with the ICC and that he would not flee to escape possible prosecution. He also urged the Senate to pass a bill banning extradition of Filipino suspects to the ICC – a move seen by critics as self-serving.
Dela Rosa expressed hopes President Marcos would keep his word not to let ICC investigators in the country. Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra and Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla earlier said that while the government would not cooperate with the ICC, it would also not stop investigators from continuing their probe and the Interpol from implementing the warrant.

Meanwhile, DOJ Undersecretary Raul Vasquez said that while the department continues to monitor developments in the case, it is not aware of reports that the ICC may issue an arrest warrant by September.

“We have no information on the matter. Reason is simple: we are no longer part of the ICC and thus not bound by any of its processes. We continue to monitor the developments,” he told The STAR in a text message.

Remulla and Guevarra both confirmed that the ICC has requested assistance from the government to facilitate an interview of five incumbent and former officials of PNP on their alleged involvement in the drug war killings.

However, Remulla said they only took note of the request but would not act on it favorably since the government no longer has any obligation to cooperate with the tribunal following its withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019.

[scott h]

42 minutes ago, Mike J said:

we are no longer part of the ICC

While nothing is certain in this country, the above pretty much answers your question, for now. But if a certain lady is put in power in the ole US of A, I will almost bet that any future aid to the Philippines will be contingent on rejoining the icc. 

[Joey G]

The Philippines could quit the ICC... the USA never joined 

 

 

 

 

[scott h]

1 minute ago, Joey G said:

the USA never joined

Thank all that is holy

[GeoffH]

1 hour ago, scott h said:

Thank all that is holy

I don't mind countries choosing not to join the ICC but I've observed that sometimes the US likes to have thier cake and eat it too.

IMHO it's disingenuous to both call out countries for not following ICC rulings whilst simultaneously refusing to take part in the ICC.

Far from the worst thing a country has ever done of course but democracies are supposed to be setting an example.

 

[scott h]

32 minutes ago, GeoffH said:

IMHO it's disingenuous to both call out countries for not following ICC rulings whilst simultaneously refusing to take part in the ICC.

Agreed, the main reason the US does not join is they would continually be called to the mat. Every time the US does something that is lauded by the world community, killing Bin Lauden, sending a missile to take out a terrorist (and some bystanders get killed) sinking a Somali pirate, pretty much name any action taken in the last 60 years were the US has used force as the "world's policeman", someone, somewhere would cry human rights violation. From the pilot shooting the missile to the commander in chief could be taken to court.

[hk blues]

2 hours ago, scott h said:

Agreed, the main reason the US does not join is they would continually be called to the mat. Every time the US does something that is lauded by the world community, killing Bin Lauden, sending a missile to take out a terrorist (and some bystanders get killed) sinking a Somali pirate, pretty much name any action taken in the last 60 years were the US has used force as the "world's policeman", someone, somewhere would cry human rights violation. From the pilot shooting the missile to the commander in chief could be taken to court.

Whilst I agree with your comments,  in a sense IF the USA was hauled before the ICC then surely that's the kind of check and balance we should want to see in place? Reasonable action and reasonable reaction to that action.

Yes, I'm making the ICC's reasonableness do a lot of heavy lifting in that premise.

We kind of do need something to police the police after all.

 

 

[Possum]

Some countries don't recognize the ICC. China, India, Russia, Israel and the USA among them. Notice a pattern?

[earthdome]

1 hour ago, hk blues said:

Whilst I agree with your comments,  in a sense IF the USA was hauled before the ICC then surely that's the kind of check and balance we should want to see in place? Reasonable action and reasonable reaction to that action.

Yes, I'm making the ICC's reasonableness do a lot of heavy lifting in that premise.

We kind of do need something to police the police after all.

 

 

And who do get to police the police who police the police? Hmmm?

[Mike J]

18 hours ago, Possum said:

Some countries don't recognize the ICC. China, India, Russia, Israel and the USA among them. Notice a pattern?

Those who carry the "big stick".