Azcuna: Duterte arrest was legal, but ICC referral wasn't.

The Philippine government’s surrender of former president Rodrigo Duterte to The Hague was illegal even though the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant was valid. This was according to former Supreme Court justice and constitutional framer Adolfo Azcuna, who attended the resumption of the Senate foreign relations probe on Duterte’s arrest on Thursday (April 10). Azcuna said the Philippine government’s cooperation with the ICC through Interpol was based on a domestic law, the Republic Act 9851 or the “Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity.” Section 17 of the law states that the Philippine government may surrender or extradite a crimes against humanity suspect to a foreign tribunal where there is already a pending investigation or prosecution. But the said provision has a caveat “pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties,” which could refer to the ICC founding treaty Rome Statute. For Azcuna, the domestic law “brought back” the applicability of the Rome Statute, citing “residual obligations” to it even though the Duterte administration withdrew from the treaty in 2018. “I believe we have residual obligations even after withdrawal. The question therefore, whether or not the warrant of arrest issued by the ICC after our withdrawal is something we have to cooperate with – in my view, yes,” Azcuna said. “Therefore in my view, the warrant of arrest is legal. But I believe the surrender is not,” he added. In explaining why the surrender was illegal, Azcuna said it’s because the Rome Statute can still be used in Duterte’s favor because of its applicability under the Philippine crimes against humanity law. The Rome Statute states that an arrested person should be “brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State” before he is surrendered to the ICC. This was not done in Duterte’s case, because the former president was forced on a chartered jet to The Hague upon his arrest. “The surrender must be pursuant to a treaty. Our own law brought back the Rome Statute. Because it requires that a surrender must be pursuant to the applicable treaty – and in this case, the applicable treaty remains to the Rome Statute – thus , we have to follow Article 59, which requires that the custodial state, namely the Philippines, must first bring the arrested person to a local court to determine two things – whether or not the person is really the one name in the warrant, and whether or not the person has been informed of the charges against him or her,” Azcuna said. “This was not done. Therefore, in my view, there was a violation in the act of surrender,” he added. Related Posts Read Full Story