Duterte was right to withdraw from ICC

For average law-abiding citizens their main concern is to protect individual rights and live in peace and order within the community. Duterte’s move to leave the ICC was necessary for the strong government expected of him when he was elected in 2016 by an overwhelming mandate.

Leaving the ICC is an act of leadership. He had to respond to ICC’s announcement that it would investigate “crimes” committed by his government is not justified. If he allowed it he will not be able to pursue his program of peace and order. That does not mean that there would be instances when ICC can be justified. In particular countries at particular times. That is not so with the Philippines.

Genocide prompted the making of ICC to investigate countries where it was happening. In the Philippines that is not the case. It is about his political rivals, the Yellowtards (the unlamented followers of Aquino III who are using the ICC mandate to disempower and ultimately remove Duterte). It cannot be but a weapon to use an “international organization” to attack Philippine sovereignty.

We need only look for the background on why the ICC was created. We must remind human rights advocates that the international criminal court was prompted by the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals for Nazi and Japanese war crimes. It was established in 1998 by an international treaty in Rome so it does not happen again.

To allow ICC to “investigate” the Philippine government is tantamount to accepting guilt similar to what was committed by these countries. A pity that ICC has descended into a political tool. But Duterte saw through that. The withdrawal from ICC was necessary with recent moves by strong Western countries to use “international organizations” to remove him from power because he promised a government that will follow what is in the best interest of Filipinos.

Even merely allowing ICC to investigate “suspicion of unjustified punishment of crime” would already be an assault on our sovereignty. The ICC cannot make judgments without specific accusations toward what cannot be proven by the rules of evidence in a court. And yet that is what it will do.

It is being used for political ends rather than the punishment of crime. In my opinion Duterte was right to leave it before it could be used for political motives. It is a ploy to dominate the country and we should not give them the opportunity. It was in the best interest of the country to preempt by not giving ICC the power to do so.

A number of international organizations are used against specific countries particularly in Africa and the Middle East. Western countries use such organizations to assert their dominance of the world. It is a modern version of colonialism.

In principle, it was established in 2002 to ensure that crimes against humanity and mass atrocities do not occur with impunity. National governments often have capable systems to enforce laws, but not on occasions of mass atrocity. This is not the case of the Philippines. These incidents in other countries to which it applied fall far outside the capacities of most legal systems or even the system itself becomes compromised.

“Historically, in cases like Nuremberg for example, the international community responded to mass atrocities to prosecute individuals accused of such crimes. The ICC is formed out of that legacy with the goal of ending impunity for mass atrocities and bringing justice to crimes that warrant international attention.”

Established in 1998 by an international treaty in Rome, the ICC was created to provide justice for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when national systems fail. The ICC depends heavily on the goodwill of the UN Security Council.

Bobi Tiglao, a columnist in another newspaper has pointed another factor: the incompetence of judges in ICC.

“Many even doubt the qualifications of its chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, who announced last month that she was examining Sabio’s complaint against Duterte and his officials.

Other than being ICC deputy prosecutor from 2004 to 2012, Bensouda’s experience has been as Attorney General and Minister of Justice as well as Chief Legal Advisor to the President and Cabinet of Gambia, a tiny, poor country of two million in West Africa that was given its independence by the United Kingdom only in 1965. Her master’s degree is in international maritime law.”

By announcing the Philippines’ withdrawal as a signatory to the treaty that set up the ICC, Duterte disarmed the Yellowtards (the followers of the discredited Aquino administration). But we should do more than that. If ICC is being used as a propaganda tool against Duterte it should be pointed out to the world at large.

The accusers Sen. Antonio Trillanes and an unknown lawyer named Jude Sabio do not have the moral character necessary to be believed. It is ICC’s credibility that suffers from entertaining such characters against Duterte.

The accusations filed against Duterte and 11 officials of his government with the help of their foreign supporters were for alleged “mass murder” committed during the president’s anti-crime and anti-drug campaign. It includes alleged killings in Davao City more than a decade ago when Duterte was mayor there.

So what is the “ICC” or “the Court”)? It is a permanent international court established to “investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.” none of which apply to Duterte’s program for peace and order.

“In 1948, when the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the need for a permanent international court to deal with the kinds of atrocities which had just been perpetrated.”

“On 17 July 1998, a conference of 160 States established the first treaty-based permanent international criminal court. The treaty adopted during that conference is known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Among other things, it sets out the crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICC, the rules of procedure and the mechanisms for States to cooperate with the ICC. The countries which have accepted these rules are known as States Parties and are represented in the Assembly of States Parties.”