Palace dismisses as ‘utter disrespect’ ICC insistence to probe PH drug war
Credit to Author: Catherine S. Valente, TMT| Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 13:08:55 +0000
MALACAÑANG on Saturday insisted that the International Criminal Court (ICC) should not open an investigation into President Rodrigo Duterte’s war against drugs, as it has no jurisdiction over the Philippines.
In a statement, Palace spokesman Salvador Panelo said the ICC’s insistence to investigate the government’s drug was an “utter disrespect” to the Philippines, an “independent country” that has a working justice system.
“The Philippines as an independent State, through its duly constituted authorities, must not be waylaid by any force, internal or external, in going about its task of serving and protecting the Filipino people,” Panelo said.
“Any resort therefore to a foreign tribunal relative to the management of our country’s state policies is utter disrespect, and any complainant who does it who is a citizen of the Republic, is an infidel to the sovereign aspirations of this Republic,” he said.
Panelo made the statement after the ICC, in its “preliminary examination activities” report for 2019, noted that it intended to conclude its initial review of Duterte’s drug war by 2020 to determine the possible necessity to conduct a full-blown investigation into the Philippines’ campaign against the narcotics trade.
READ: UPDATE: ICC may wrap up preliminary examination on Duterte drug war by 2020
The Philippines became a party to the Rome Statute, which created the ICC, on Nov. 1, 2011.
The country, however, officially cut ties with ICC on March 17, 2019, exactly a year after Duterte submitted a formal notice of revocation of its membership from the international tribunal because of its ” brazen display of ignorance of the law.”
The ICC’s preliminary examination of Duterte’s drug war launched by prosecutor Fatou Bensouda pushed through in February 2018, as it noted that it has jurisdiction over the possible crimes perpetrated during the period the Philippines was a state party to the Rome Statute.
Panelo, who also serves as Duterte’s top legal counsel, said the false allegations of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines “do not fall within the ICC’s definition of crimes against humanity.”
“This Government does not sanction nor condone any unlawful act resulting in the loss of lives. Neither does it allow any widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population,” Panelo said.
“The deaths occurring in the course of legitimate police operations come about because the criminal suspects subject of these law enforcement activities resort to violence that imperils the lives and limbs of the police officers,” he added.
The Palace official said Bensouda should instead rule that the ICC has “no jurisdiction” over the Philippines and the international body’s preconditions for its exercise of jurisdiction “have not been met.”
He also said there was no need for the ICC to intervene, as it has to observe the “principle of complementarity.”
“The admissibility of any case before the ICC must also pass the test of complementarity, in that the Philippines should first be unable or unwilling to prosecute the alleged crimes against humanity in our jurisdiction,” Panelo said.
“There is no evidence that this Administration is unable or unwilling to prosecute crimes against humanity. The opposite is true. The government is pursuing vigorously its campaign against all kinds of crimes,” he added.
Panelo also insisted that while the Philippines may have been a signatory to the Rome Statute, its membership did not place it under the jurisdiction of the ICC.
He said the creation of ICC did not comply with the publication requirement to pass the due process test imposed by the 1987 Constitution, “especially because the instrument is penal in nature.”
“A contrary interpretation would be antithetical to the demands of due process, constitutionally protected under our Bill of Rights,” Panelo said.
“Hence, the ICC never acquired jurisdiction over the Philippines, the latter’s membership thereat being void ab initio (invalid from the outset). Necessarily, it did not give birth to any legal effect,” he said.
Meanwhile, Panelo said ICC’s dismissal of the communication against Chinese Xi Jinping was consistent with its previous stand that the filing of the complaint was a futile exercise since the ICC has no jurisdiction over both the Philippines and China.
He said former Foreign Affairs secretary Albert del Rosario and Former Supreme Court justice and ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales resorted to an ineffective process in resolving the maritime dispute in the South China Sea.
“Apparently wanting to still milk the issue for media mileage to advance their pretended nationalism, they are still bent in pursuing their wrong tact despite the rejection of their complaint,” Panelo said.
“In resolving the conflict of the South China Sea, the President has chosen an effective mode accepted under International Law of directly engaging the People’s Republic of China in bilateral negotiations to resolve the dispute in a peaceful, expedient and efficacious manner,” he added.
Since assuming presidency, President Rodrigo Duterte has sought to downplay Manila’s maritime dispute with Beijing in exchange for improved ties with the world’s second largest economy.
Duterte has also refused to flaunt the Philippines’ victory against China in a United Nations-backed arbitration court in 2016 which invalidated Beijing’s expansive claims to the waters.
But the President defended his approach, saying Manila cannot yet stand up to Beijing, whose military and economy were far superior.
The Philippines claims parts of the South China Sea within its exclusive economic zone and calls it the West Philippine Sea.