Even if the petitions against the government’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC) was dismissed by the Supreme Court (SC) on account of mootness, a lawyers’ group still welcomed the High Court’s ruling.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), in statement, cited what it called as the SC’s declaration that “President Rodrigo Duterte and the Philippine government have the obligation to cooperate with the ICC even if the Philippines has withdrawn from the treaty, citing Article 127 of the Rome Statute of the ICC.”

“This means that President Duterte cannot threaten the ICC Prosecutor and prohibit their entry into the Philippines in violation of the government’s obligation under a treaty which it has previously ratified and agreed to,” NUPL said.

“In fact, any threat or prohibition is not only a violation of Art. 70 of the Rome Statute but also a violation of the constitutional right of the families of the victims of EJK (extrajudicial killings) to access to judicial remedies,” it added.

Thus, the NUPL called on families of EJK victims and other inhuman acts committed during the current administration “to participate in the process being conducted by the Victims Participation and Reparation Section (VPRS).”

“We ask them to submit their position supporting the opening of investigation to the VPRS on or before Aug. 13, 2021,” it said.

It also said: “We demand that President Duterte assure the security of the families of the victims and their witnesses so that they can participate in the ICC process which can no longer be stopped by the President.”

In dismissing the petitions against the withdrawal of the ICC, the SC said:

“The president, as primary architect of our foreign policy and as head of state, is allowed by the Constitution to make preliminary determinations on what, at any given moment, might urgently be required in order that our foreign policy may manifest our national interest.

“Absent a clear and convincing showing of a breach of the Constitution or a law, brought through an actual, live controversy and by a party that presents direct, material, and substantial injury as a result of such breach, this Court will stay its hand in declaring a diplomatic act as unconstitutional.

“On March 15, 2018, the Philippines announced its withdrawal from the International Criminal Court. On March 16, 2018, it formally submitted its Notice of Withdrawal through a Note Verbale to the United Nations Secretary-General's Chef de Cabinet.

“The Secretary General received this communication the following day, March 17, 2018. Through these actions, the Philippines completed the requisite acts of withdrawal. This was all consistent and in compliance with what the Rome Statute plainly requires.

“By this point, all that were needed to enable withdrawal have been consummated. Further, the International Criminal Court acknowledged the Philippines' action soon after it had withdrawn.

“This foreclosed the existence of a state of affairs correctible by this Court's finite jurisdiction. The Petitions were, therefore, moot when they were filed.

“The International Criminal Court's subsequent consummate acceptance of the withdrawal all but confirmed the futility of this Court's insisting on a reversal of completed actions.

“In any case, despite the withdrawal, this Court finds no lesser protection of human rights within our system of laws. Neither do we agree with petitioners' implied statements that without the treaty, the judiciary will not be able to fulfill its mandate to protect human rights.”

The unanimous full court decision was written by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen. It was promulgated last March 16 but the full text was posted on the SC’s website only last July 21.