SC thumbs down petitions vs PH withdrawal from ICC

THE Philippine Supreme Court has thrown out two petitions questioning Pres. Duterte’s decision to withdraw the country’s membership with the International Criminal Court.

SC spokesperson, Brian Hosaka, in a statement last March 16, 2021, said the vote among the justices was unanimous in a decision penned by Associate Justice Marvin Leonen.

The petitioners in the case were the minority bloc in the Senate led by Sen. Francisco Pangilinan and another group, the Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court (PCICC) led by former Commission on Human Rights (CHR) chair Loretta Ann Rosales.

Respondents in the petition were former Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) secretary Alan Peter Cayetano, Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, then United Nations (UN) Ambassador Teodoro Locsin Jr. and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo, who were represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) led by SolGen. Jose Calida.

The court said the petition has become moot and academic as the country is already officially no longer a member of the ICC.

The High Court’s decision came two years after the country’s withdrawal of its membership from the ICC took effect on March 17, 2019.

Pres. Duterte has made it known earlier in his term that he would not allow the ICC to meddle in the country’s internal affairs by allowing it to be used by the communists and their allies in the political opposition to prosecute him on the basis of manufactured human rights violation arising from his campaign illegal drugs.

He then initiated the country’ withdrawal from the ICC, a court that is not also being recognized by the United States.

“The decision acknowledged that the President, as primary architect of foreign policy, is subject to the Constitution and existing statute.

“Therefore, the power of the President to withdraw unilaterally can be limited by the conditions for concurrence by the Senate or when there is an existing law which authorizes the negotiation of a treaty or international agreement or when there is a statute that implements an existing treaty,” reads part of Hosaka’s statement.

The high court also assured that despite the development, allegations and complaints of gross human rights violations against Filipinos can still be addressed by the courts, citing RA 9851 or the “Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity” that took effect in 2009.

Presidential Legal Counsel, Salvador ‘Sal’ Panelo, in a separate statement, said the high court’s ruling should “put to rest the debate on the authority of the President to withdraw from treaties and international agreements.

“As the petitions, according to sources, were dismissed based on mootness (i.e., the withdrawal already took effect), the ruling of the Supreme Court effectively upholds the validity and force of the withdrawal without the concurrence of the Senate,” Panelo added.

“It should be clear to some members of the upper chamber of Congress that their participation in treaties or similar instruments is limited to their concurrence for ratification, and not for any other undertaking,” Panelo said, adding:

“It is about time for foreign elements not to meddle in the affairs of our state and unchain their imperialist assault on our sovereignty, even as the citizens of this country assert our independence against external forces that seek to trample upon our fundamental sovereign rights and institutions.”