Petitioners quizzed on ICC withdrawal
MANILA — Associate Justice Marvic Leonen on Tuesday grilled petitioners on their basis for saying Senate concurrence is for withdrawal from the International Criminal Court.
At the resumption of the oral arguments on the consolidated cases, Leonen asked Sen. Francis Pangilinan— one of the petitioners in the case—on the status of the Senate resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that its nod is needed to withdraw from treaties — the Senate has yet to adopt the non-binding resolution.
“It may be adopted at some point in future... unfortunately other pending resolutions, bills had to be addressed or tackled by the Senate, so this was not officially acted upon,” Pangilinan said.
He also said that 17 treaties contain a specific provision requiring Senate concurrence for withdrawal.
The senator conceded that the Statute of Rome, the treaty creating the ICC, does not contain the same.
REQUIREMENT CLEARLY IMPLIED
Turning to the senators' representative, lawyer Barry Gutierrez, Leonen asked if the provision had been left out of the Rome Statute by mistake.
“You are saying that all this is an oversight?” Leonen said. “Not an oversight, Your Honor, but a clear case where the implication is so clear that there was no need for an explicit rule on withdrawal,” Gutierrez replied.
On the first day of the oral arguments, Leonen quizzed the other petitioners in the case—the Philippine Coalition for the ICC—on their legal standing.
“Principally, it must be shown that there is a personal, substantial, direct injury. What is your injury?” the justice asked during the debate held last August 28.