SOLGEN REFUSAL EXPOSES GOVT. CASE VS. ‘DIGONG’

THE refusal of Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra to defend the government before the Supreme Court on petitions questioning the arrest and extra-judicial rendition to The Hague of former president, Rodrigo ‘Digong’ Duterte, to face trial before the International Criminal Court (ICC) further eroded the credibility of its narrative that what happened has nothing to do with political expediency but merely in compliance with the country’s obligation to the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol).

The ICC itself, in its “public redacted” version of the Prosecution’s application for the warrant of arrest against the former president, bared that the Marcos administration, contrary to its public pronouncements, has been working closely with the court to effect his arrest, even suggesting the use of the Interpol as a conduit for the serving of the warrant.

In a manifestation before the Supreme Court last March 17, Guevarra, who is also justice secretary under the Duterte administration, refused to discharge the official duty of the OSG as lawyer for the government, in this case as lawyer on behalf of Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, Philippine National Police chief, Gen. Rommel Francisco Marbil, and Criminal Investigation and Detection Group director Maj. Gen. Nicolas Torre III.

Guevarra subsequently confirmed to the media that he filed a manifestation and motion for recusal from the three habeas corpus petitions filed by Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte, Rep. Paolo Duterte and Veronica Duterte, all children of the now detained former president.

In its motion, the OSG said the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019 had effectively extinguished its obligation to cooperate in ICC proceedings.

Interestingly, the press statement related to this stand issued by the OSG remains inaccessible up to now despite being posted in its website.

But from portions of the motion quoted by the mainstream media, Guevarra said:

“In steadfast adherence to this sovereign decision (withdrawal from the ICC), the OSG has consistently maintained, both in its submissions before the ICC and in its public statements, that the case of the Philippines was not admissible and that the ICC failed to timely exercise its jurisdiction.

“Considering the OSG’s firm position that the ICC is barred from exercising jurisdiction over the Philippines and that the country’s investigative, prosecutorial and judicial system is functioning as it should, the OSG may not be able to effectively represent Respondents in these cases and is constrained to recuse itself from participating herein.”

Following this, Guevarra also requested the SC to drop him in the list of respondents.

stressing that the Philippines is under no legal obligation to cooperate with the ICC.

He also told the media the next day that he now “leaves it to the President” to decide on his fate but stressed that, “The OSG represents the interest of the republic vis-a-vis the ICC and no other interest. Our recusal is not personal; it is institutional.

“The OSG’s position will remain the same irrespective of the personalities involved, it is the Republic’s position,” he added.

In filing the habeas corpus petitions, the Duterte siblings sought the release of their father from The Hague detention center in Scheveningen since his arrival on March 12.

Duterte was flown to The Hague on a private plane being personally used by President Marcos Jr. in his official trips, thus further implicating him in the plot to spring Duterte out of the country.

Officially, the government said its decision to deliver the former president to ICC’s jurisdiction based on the request of the Interpol, which was asked by the ICC to intercede with Malacañang for the serving of the warrant. The ICC issued the warrant in “secret” last March 7 and only made it public after Duterte’s arrival at The Hague.

The government also claimed it received a ‘Red Notice’ from the Interpol for the arrest of Duterte in connection with the ICC warrant.

However, a check at the Interpol website disclosed that no Red Notice was issued against the former president prior to his arrest and up to this time.

PH govt. suggests using Interpol

On paragraph 112 found on Page 53 of the 54-pages redacted report of the ICC Prosecution’s request for the issuance of the warrant against Duterte uploaded in the ICC website last March 13, it acknowledged there is “a realistic but time-limited possibility of securing Duterte’s arrest.”

But “in late 2024, the Government of the Philippines publicly announced—for the first time—that it may execute an ICC arrest warrant.

“In late January 2025, the Government publicly stated that it would execute an ICC arrest warrant if a request to do so is made through (the) INTERPOL,” the paragraph reads further.

Coming from the ICC itself, these statements completely demolished Malacañang’ claim that it was placed in a difficult position of not cooperating with the Interpol and risk not getting further help in the arrest of Filipino fugitives abroad, as stressed by President Marcos Jr.

As it turned out, it is the government which “suggested” for the ICC to use the Interpol as a conduit for the serving of the warrant against Duterte.