Why ICC is off limits

“Pseudo-rights groups with known bonds with the yellow liberals... have sought Mr. Duterte’s downfall to install a marionette, which follows Western norms.

“The

top court of the land indicated that its intervention is not required in a situation where it is not required to do so.

The persistent meddlers are back and have twisted the Supreme Court (SC) ruling dismissing the petitions against the decision of President Rodrigo Duterte to bolt the International Criminal Court (ICC) by withdrawing from the Rome Statute that created the war crime body.

Amnesty International (AI) said the ruling was actually about the obligation of the Duterte administration to cooperate with the ICC rather than the dismissal of the challenges to the authority of the President of the Republic over international agreements.

In its view, the SC was also trying to protect the judiciary since one of the grounds for the ICC to proceed with the investigations is a defective court system that makes it impossible to prosecute cases involving state actors.

An investigation of the ICC on the war on drugs will not look good on the judiciary, which has wrestled with allegations of corruption and being painfully slow in dispensing justice.

The High Court noted the judiciary has enough powers and is capable of protecting human rights contrary to speculations raised by petitioners of the case.

“President’s discretion to withdraw is qualified by the extent of legislative involvement on the manner by which a treaty was entered into or came into effect,” according to the ruling.

“The exercise of discretion to withdraw from treaties and international agreements is susceptible to judicial review in cases attended by grave abuse of discretion, as when there is no clear, definite, or reliable showing of repugnance to the Constitution or our statutes, or in cases of inordinate unilateral withdrawal violating requisite legislative involvement.”

“Nevertheless, any attempt to invoke the power of judicial review must conform to the basic requisites of justiciability,” the Supreme Court said.

“Such attempts can only proceed when attended by incidents demonstrating a properly justiciable controversy,” it said.

Thus, the top court of the land indicated that its intervention is not required in a situation where it is not required to do so because of the fully-functioning system of government.

Using the same rationale, the SC may have mentioned the need for the Duterte administration to cooperate with the ICC, but the requirement for it to intervene is not present.

“Although assistance from the government would be preferable, the ICC will find ways to conduct its investigation with or without the direct cooperation of the Philippine authorities,” according to AI, which only highlights the hidden agenda of the ICC if ever it pursues the probe.

Meeting the supposed obligations before the ICC despite the country’s withdrawal from the body is redundant.

Presidential spokesman Harry Roque, who specializes on international law, argued the part of the resolution requiring the government’s cooperation with the ICC was mere “obiter dictum,” or an opinion of the judge who wrote the decision, who is Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

The SC decision was issued amid a request of outgoing ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda for a probe into alleged crimes against humanity, which the Palace rejected.

Since the start of the term of President Duterte, pseudo-rights groups with known bonds with the yellow liberals who have influence and inexhaustible financial resources have sought Mr. Duterte’s downfall to install a marionette, which follows Western norms.

Their desire, nonetheless, always clashes with the interest of Filipinos who have accorded Mr. Duterte their full confidence through the years.