Wazzup Pilipinas!?
The recent Senate hearing on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte has sparked controversy, with some claiming that it exposed incompetence within the government. However, a deeper analysis reveals that this narrative is based on flawed reasoning, misinterpretation of legal processes, and a disregard for established laws.
The Philippines’ Withdrawal from the ICC and Its Implications
One of the key issues often overlooked in the debate is the legal standing of the ICC in the Philippines. While former President Duterte withdrew the country from the ICC in 2019, the Rome Statute—the treaty that established the ICC—states that withdrawal does not affect ongoing investigations that started before the withdrawal took effect. The ICC had already begun its preliminary examination of Duterte’s alleged crimes before the withdrawal, which means it retained jurisdiction over these cases.
To argue that the Marcos administration “allowed” the ICC arrest to happen is legally inaccurate. The ICC operates independently, and its actions are based on international law, not the approval or disapproval of any sitting head of state. The claim that Bongbong Marcos had “sole authority” over foreign policy and that the arrest “could not have happened without his approval” ignores the fact that the ICC acts on its own mandate.
The Difference Between a Red Notice and a Diffusion Notice
The hearing raised concerns about the difference between an Interpol Red Notice and a Diffusion Notice. Some claim that since there was no Red Notice, the arrest lacked legal basis. This is misleading.
A Diffusion Notice is an urgent request for cooperation issued by Interpol directly to member countries. It allows for immediate action without waiting for a formal Red Notice. Countries are not obligated to act on either a Red Notice or a Diffusion Notice, but the choice to acknowledge them falls under domestic laws and international obligations.
Furthermore, a Diffusion Notice being acted upon does not automatically mean incompetence on the part of Philippine authorities. Rather, it demonstrates adherence to legal processes—something critics ironically accuse the government of ignoring.
Senate Hearing or Political Theater?
Some argue that the hearing “exposed” government incompetence, but the real question is: did it truly reveal incompetence, or was it merely a platform for political maneuvering?
The claim that 7,000 police personnel were deployed for Duterte’s arrest before the ICC warrant was officially issued lacks concrete evidence. No independent verification has been provided beyond Senate testimonies, and no legally admissible documents confirm this assertion. Mere allegations, even if repeated multiple times, do not constitute proof.
Additionally, the Senate’s role in this issue is questionable. The ICC operates independently, and the Philippine Senate does not have jurisdiction over its decisions. The real purpose of the hearing seems to have been less about uncovering the truth and more about shifting public perception in favor of Duterte.
The DOJ’s Role and Legal Interpretations
The accusation that DOJ Secretary Crispin Remulla is positioning the DOJ as “above the law” is misleading. The DOJ’s role is to interpret and implement Philippine laws, not to dictate ICC processes. The claim that Remulla is disregarding jurisprudence lacks specifics—what exact legal precedents did he ignore? Which landmark cases contradict his stance?
It is easy to make broad accusations, but without citing actual laws, cases, or legal doctrines that were violated, such claims remain speculative at best.
The Marcos Administration’s Alleged “Downfall”
The notion that this issue marks the “beginning of the Marcos administration’s downfall” is purely speculative. The Philippines has faced numerous political controversies, and while this issue is significant, it is not the singular event that will determine the administration’s fate.
If anything, the hearing could have unintended consequences for Duterte’s camp. While some argue that it strengthened his defense, it also brought renewed attention to the ICC’s case against him. The more this issue is discussed in public forums, the more the alleged human rights violations under his administration are scrutinized.
Conclusion: Separating Facts from Political Spin
The Senate hearing did not expose incompetence; it exposed the willingness of some politicians to manipulate legal arguments for political gain. The ICC arrest did not happen because of Bongbong Marcos’ approval—it happened because of established international legal procedures. The distinction between a Red Notice and a Diffusion Notice does not invalidate the arrest. And the claim that the DOJ and PNP are “liars” lacks concrete evidence beyond political rhetoric.
Rather than accepting dramatic claims at face value, it is crucial to analyze the situation based on legal facts and logical reasoning. The ICC operates beyond the influence of any single government, and its actions are not dictated by the Philippine Senate, the DOJ, or even the sitting president.
Ultimately, this entire issue is less about exposing incompetence and more about controlling the narrative. And if there’s one thing that history has taught us, it’s that legal truth cannot be buried under political spectacle.
Ross is known as the Pambansang Blogger ng Pilipinas - An Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Professional by profession and a Social Media Evangelist by heart.
.jpg)
Post a Comment