(2nd UPDATE) On March 9, PCO Secretary Jay Ruiz says, ‘We’ve heard that an arrest warrant has been issued by the International Criminal Court against former President Rodrigo Duterte for crimes against humanity,’ adding that the government is ‘prepared for any eventuality.’
An arrest warrant has been issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against former president and Davao City mayor Rodrigo Duterte, informed sources told Rappler. At the time of writing, the warrant was said to have been issued on March 8 (Philippine time), but could not be independently verified. (We later got confirmation that the warrant was dated March 7. The ICC had made no official announcement at that time but later released a copy on its website on Wednesday, March 12.)
A plane carrying the former president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, has left Manila after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant accusing him of crimes against humanity over his deadly “war on drugs”.
He was taken into police custody shortly after his arrival at the capital’s international airport from Hong Kong on Tuesday morning.
Duterte, 79, contested his detention but within hours was on a chartered jet en route to The Hague in the Netherlands, where the ICC sits. Current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr said the country was meeting its legal obligations.
During Duterte’s time in office, thousands of small-time drug dealers, users and others were killed without trial.
Marcos said his predecessor would face charges relating to what he described as Duterte’s “bloody war on drugs”.
“Interpol asked for help and we obliged,” President Marcos told a press conference. “This is what the international community expects of us.”
…Duterte’s arrest marks the “beginning of a new chapter in Philippine history”, said political scientist Richard Heydarian. “This is about rule of law and human rights.”
Heydarian added that authorities had arrested Duterte promptly instead of letting the matter take its course through the local courts to “avoid political chaos”.
The Duterte and Marcos families formed a formidable alliance in the last elections in 2022, where against the elder Duterte’s wishes, his daughter Sara ran as Marcos Jr’s vice-president instead of seeking her father’s post.
The relationship unravelled publicly in recent months as the two families pursued separate political agendas.
Marcos initially refused to co-operate with the ICC investigation, but as his relationship with the Duterte family deteriorated, he changed his stance.
The demand for justice in Duterte’s drug war goes “hand in hand” with the political interests of President Marcos, Mr Heydarian said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9ykn85401o
—Joel Guinto and Jonathan Head, “Philippines ex-leader Duterte on plane to The Hague after arrest,” BBC, March 11, 2025
What is the fate of brutal dictators? It’s not the same for all. Some die infamously—Hitler, Stalin. Others escape justice and retribution—Mao, Marcos. What will happen to the devil from Davao and his paragon, Putin?
The
universe is a mystery, indeed.
Photo courtesy of Free Malaysia Today
ReplyDeletehttps://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/world/2017/04/05/trust-ratings-of-duterte-fall-slightly-poll-shows/
Gonzalinho
MORE POLITICAL THAN LEGAL
ReplyDelete…even if, [presumably,] the Philippines has no obligation to surrender Duterte to the ICC, it is still the discretion of President Marcos whether to cooperate or not, Colmenares said.
And apparently, the President made a decision to hand over his predecessor, he added.
Colmenares also said the government has the duty and power to surrender Duterte under Section 17 of Republic Act No. 9851, which states that “In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable under this Act if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime.”
Duterte is charged at the ICC with crimes against humanity for his administration’s alleged extra-judicial killings (EJKs) during his bloody war on drugs. As such, he may be surrendered by the Philippines “in the interest of justice,” said the ex-ex-congressman.
“The assertion of Sen. [Imee] Marcos that there was no warrant of arrest or that Duterte was not allowed counsel is untrue. A warrant of arrest has been validly issued by the ICC and Pres. Duterte has Atty. Salvador Medialdea when arrested. His retaining of Medialdea as counsel in the first ICC hearing only proves that he was actually his counsel of choice," he said.
“It is clear that Pres. Marcos personally decided to cooperate with the ICC, and Sen. Marcos’ assertion that the Philippines has no obligation to cooperate with the ICC is now irrelevant because even if this were true, any state, whether a member or not, can still cooperate with the ICC in its discretion—even without a red notice from Interpol,” he added.
https://mb.com.ph/2025/3/28/colmenares-tells-imee-duterte-s-arrest-is-legal
—Joseph Pedrajas, “Colmenares tells Imee Marcos: Duterte's arrest is legal,” MB125, March 28, 2025
Imee is banking on the support of Duterte’s large political base in Mindanao and the Visayas.
Her casuistic arguments are legalistic. The controlling factor in the outcome of the ICC case is political. It looks like Duterte will be trapped there for years.
Gonzalinho
SENATE PANEL INITIAL FINDINGS: ‘GLARING VIOLATION’ OF DUTERTE’S RIGHTS IN ARREST
DeleteBy HANA BORDEY, GMA Integrated News
Published March 27, 2025 11:55am
Updated March 27, 2025 1:51pm
Senate foreign relations committee chairperson Imee Marcos released on Thursday the preliminary findings of the panel’s investigation into the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte.
Disclosing the preliminary report at a press conference, Marcos said the committee found that there were “glaring violations on the rights” of Duterte.
“The Constitutional safeguards guaranteeing liberty and due process of law were not observed. No warrant was issued by a Philippine court. The arrest did not fall within the exceptions to a warrant arrest,” Marcos said.
“The Constitutional safeguards guaranteeing for the liberty [and] abode were also disregarded. No court order was issued mandating that the former president be taken out of the Philippines against his will,” she added.
It likewise concluded that the Philippines had no legal obligation to arrest Duterte and turn him over to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Further, Marcos found that Duterte was deprived of the right to be visited or have conferences with immediate members when CIDG Chief Nicolas Torre III did not allow Vice President Sara Duterte to visit her father while in Villamor Airbase which she said is contrary to Republic Act 7438.
Marcos also cited Article 59 of the Rome Statute when she reported that Duterte was denied the right to be brought to judicial authorities.
Apart from this, Marcos said the former president was denied the right to apply for an interim release under the same Article of the Rome Statute on the right to apply for bail under prevailing jurisprudence on extradition.
It likewise concluded that the Philippines had no legal obligation to arrest Duterte and turn him over to the International Criminal Court.
The Marcos-led panel derived its conclusion from the admission that the Philippine government only received a diffusion notice and not a red notice from the International Criminal Police Organization or the Interpol.
“No verification by the Interpol whether the request complied with Article 3 of their constitution, forbidding Interpol from undertaking any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious, or racial character,” Marcos said.
“Under the terms of the Diffusion Notice, there was no obligation on the part of the Philippines to turn over Former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte to the ICC, absent any request for extradition or request for surrender,” she added.
Marcos pointed out in the panel findings that “there is no indication” that the ICC even requested for the surrender or extradition of the former president after his provisional arrest.
“The argument of Secretary of Justice [Jesus Crispin] Remulla is deeply flawed. In as much as International Humanitarian Law, customary law cannot apply. He is accused of crimes against humanity not war crimes. IHL refers to war crimes,” she said.
“IHL is international customary law, but the jurisdiction of ICC cannot be considered customary under IHL,” she added. …
Read more: https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/940711/senate-panel-findings-duterte-arrest-icc-imee-marcos/story/
“In practice law is not a well-wrought urn but the purveyor of tortuous vagaries.”
https://poetryofgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/07/politics.html
Gonzalinho