THE COMMITTEES on Justice and Human Rights of the House of Representatives have adopted resolutions calling on the Marcos government to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in investigating drug war killings in the Philippines while it was still a signatory to the Rome Statute.
The period covered is 2011 up to 2019 when the withdrawal from the ICC effected by Rodrigo Duterte became effective.
The killings implemented by the Davao Death Squad within the period are effectively under investigation.
***
Remarkably, Vice President Sara Duterte became the youngest mayor of Davao City in 2010 – a term that she served until 2013 when she relinquished the post to her father.
She became mayor again in 2016 when Rodrigo Duterte became president. She was reelected in 2019, and three years later ran for vice president alongside Bongbong Marcos.
Right before the House resolutions were adopted by the committees hearing them, the VP wrote to urge the Department of Justice (DOJ) to refrain from cooperating with the ICC in its investigation of the war on drugs.
Is her latest action in consciousness of the stark possibility that she might be among the personalities who are in the crosshairs of the ICC prosecutor?
***
Pangilinan v. Cayetano was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in March 2021.
Among the notable statements made in that decision is the following:
“Even if it has deposited the instrument of withdrawal, it shall not be discharged from any criminal proceedings. Whatever process was already initiated before the International Criminal Court obliges the state party to cooperate.
“Until the withdrawal took effect on March 17, 2019, the Philippines was committed to meet its obligations under the Rome Statute. Any and all governmental acts up to March 17, 2019 may be taken cognizance of by the International Criminal Court.”
***
The decision, though written by Justice Leonen, was adopted unanimously by the court en banc. Only Chief Justice Peralta and associate Justice Perlas-Bernabe have in the meantime left the Court after retiring.
In his testimony in the House, Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra downplayed that portion of the Supreme Court ruling as mere obiter dictum, or a non-binding opinion, because the petition was dismissed for being moot and academic.
Assuming that the statement is indeed obiter, does the Solgen expect 13 members of the Court to change their minds two years after the opinion was rendered?
***
The solicitor general appears to be the only hold-out in the pivot to government cooperation in the ICC investigation.
Even the DOJ is coasting along, not truly resisting this sudden burst of energy to honor human rights.
Can Guevarra be expected to be dispassionate in this discourse considering that he was deputy executive secretary and subsequently DOJ secretary when the bloody war on drugs was being waged by the Duterte administration?
Indeed, is he, at the very least, a witness who can tell on the past administration’s skeletons and is therefore not so happy about the prospect of working with ICC investigators?/PN
