HARRY Roque says the Palace does not have a policy of editing President Duterte’s speeches that are released to the public.
The denial came amid questions over the official version of the President’s July 13 speech in Jolo. It appears to have been edited to remove comments about the Lopez-owned ABS-CBN network, and two Metro Manila water firms.
The President was in Jolo to address the military following the death of four soldiers allegedly in the hands of policemen. It was there that the President declared he will die happy, knowing he had dismantled the country’s oligarchy without having declared martial law.
The President did not explain how dismantling an oligarchy can be the product of a martial law declaration, the same not being the invasion or rebellion apprehended by the Constitution.
But the fuller version of the speech gives us a clue of the President’s train of thought, as he clearly alluded to the parallel between ABS-CBN’s recent shutdown and the events that transpired in September 1972. Right after Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law, soldiers stormed the ABS-CBN Broadcast Center on Bohol Avenue to forcibly shut it down.
It was a subtle boast, as indeed the President might think he has one over Marcos who had to trifle with martial law to be able to manacle ABS-CBN.
In a peculiar way of rallying the troops, the President once again pooh-poohed human rights and belittled the powers of the “International Court of Justice” (sic). He said, “I am only answerable to a Philippine court. Bakit ako magharap dito mga ulol na to granadahin ko kayo buti pa. Bitawan ko sige sabay na tayo sa impyerno…”
When those words were uttered the world was about to celebrate International Justice Day. It was on July 17, 1998 when the United Nations conference of plenipotentiaries met in Rome and adopted a statute creating the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Philippines signed the statute on the same day.
When the President announced the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC it was in the context of the ICC Prosecutor commencing a preliminary examination of the war on drugs waged by the administration, and allegations of summary killings in its implementation.
To recall, government invoked Philippine law and claimed the statute was ineffective for lack of publication in the Official Gazette.
What was forgotten is that we are also governed by the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. Article 27 of that convention provides that a party “may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification of the failure to perform a treaty.”
The obvious must be said, i.e., that laws passed by the Congress of the Philippines intended to govern our internal affairs have no binding effect on the rest of the world. Non-publication in the Official Gazette, even if true, would be irrelevant.
Treaties are contracts between or among States. Article 2 (a) of the Vienna Convention provides that treaties are governed by international law. Philippine domestic law may not be cited to renege on obligations stipulated in treaties.
Nonetheless, the withdrawal is ineffectual with respect to acts while the Philippines was still a party to the Rome Statute. There continues to be an obligation to cooperate with the ICC respecting investigations “in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.”
The Philippine withdrawal was made in March 2018. Under the Rome Statute, such a withdrawal would take effect one year since the time it was made. This means that the ICC would continue to have jurisdiction over crimes committed until March 2019.
The ICC debacle apparently re-entered the President’s stream of consciousness following the UN High Commissioner’s calls last month for the Human Rights Council to “consider options for international accountability measures.”
ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has indicated that she would soon conclude her preliminary examination into the drug war and could seek to open a formal investigation. In her report made late last year, she said that her office had “significantly advanced its assessment” since a preliminary examination was initiated in 2018.
Will the Philippine government cooperate in the event a preliminary investigation is indeed conducted within the year?
Standard government response to prosecutions it had initiated is that citizens should trust that the system will only condemn the guilty and exonerate the innocent. Will the same level of trust permeate in the international scene?/PN
