The Supreme Court (SC) has required former president Rodrigo R. Duterte’s children to traverse or rebut the plea of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to dismiss their habeas corpus petitions “for being moot and for lack of merit.”

Davao City Mayor Sebastian Z. Duterte, Veronica A. Duterte, and Rep. Paolo Z. Duterte filed separate petitions for a writ of habeas corpus last March 12, a day after the arrest of their father.

The SC required the respondents, led by Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, to justify in 24 hours the arrest, detention, and turnover of Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands to face charges for crimes against humanity.

With the recusal of the Office of the Solicitor General in a manifestation filed by Solicitor General Menardo I. Guevarra, Executive Secretary Bersamin authorized the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file a consolidated compliance for all respondents to the show cause order issued by the SC.

In a press briefer, the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson said the SC received the DOJ’s consolidated compliance on Monday, March 17.

After its special full court session on Tuesday, March 18, the SC required the Duterte children “to personally file a traverse in response to the Consolidated Compliance within a non-extendible period of five days from receipt of notice.”

Upon the filing of the traverse, the SC is expected to hold another special session to tackle the habeas corpus petitions.  The SC is on recess until March 31.  But under its rules, the SC can conduct special sessions to tackle cases of transcendental importance.  Special full court sessions are called by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.

The consolidated compliance was filed by the DOJ which was represented by its Undersecretary Officer-in-Charge Nicholas Felix L. Ty.

In its compliance, the DOJ said “the petition for writ of habeas corpus is already moot because respondents no longer have legal and physical custody of former president Rodrigo R. Duterte (FPRRD).”

It said that “at the time the instant Petitions were filed, FPRRD was no longer in the custody of Philippine authorities and was on his way to The Hague, Netherlands, where he was ultimately detained at the ICC Detention facility. This was subsequently confirmed by the ICC through the issuance of a Transfer of Custody.”

It also said that Section 2, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, provides that a writ of habeas corpus is only enforceable within the Philippines. 

“In light of FPRRD being already in Netherlands, there is physical impossibility of the writ being implemented in the first place. Clearly, therefore, since the relief prayed for could no longer be granted, the Consolidated Petitions are already moot and academic, warranting their outright dismissal by the Honorable Court,” the compliance stated.

Also, the DOJ said “the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus will also not lie as there was a warrant of arrest issued against FPRRD.”

“The ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve a person from unlawful restraint. The writ exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint and as an effective defense of personal freedom. It is issued only for the lone purpose of obtaining relief for those illegally confined or imprisoned without sufficient legal basis. It is not issued when the person is in custody because of a judicial process or a valid judgment,” it told the SC.

It pointed out that “the transfer of custody issued by the ICC readily shows that FPRRD was the subject of ‘a warrant of arrest issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC).’ The implementation of said warrant domestically was proper and sanctioned by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9851.”

It said that Section 17 of RA 9851 “expressly provides that ‘in the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable therein if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime. Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court, if any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties.’”

Thus, it said “in surrendering FPRRD to the ICC, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP), in the public interest, has opted to dispense with the investigation or prosecution of the alleged crimes against humanity against him and allow the ICC to continue the proceedings in an impartial and fair manner.”

It pointed out: “This action of the GRP all the more becomes more relevant in light of the several pronouncements of FPRRD as to his willingness to submit to the ICC's investigation into his war on drugs. These statements were made during the House of Representatives Quad Committee Meeting held on 13 November 2024….”

At the same time, the DOJ told the SC that “even if not rendered moot by subsequent events, the instant Petitions would also fail considering that there was no unlawful restraint, illegal confinement or imprisonment without sufficient legal basis, of FPRRD, as the implementation of the ICС Warrant was in line with Section 17 of RA 9851.”

It also stressed that “the cooperation extended by the GRP to the INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) in the service of the warrant of arrest against FPRRD is outside the scope of judicial review for being a political question.”

“In our system of government, the President, being the Head of State, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country's sole representative with foreign nations,” it said. 

“As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country's mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations,” it also said.

It added: “As a general proposition, a controversy is justifiable if it refers to a matter which is appropriate for court review. It pertains to issues which are inherently susceptible of being decided on grounds recognized by law. Nevertheless, the Court does not automatically assume jurisdiction over actual constitutional cases brought before it even in instances that are ripe for resolution. One class of cases wherein the Court hesitates to rule on are ‘political questions.’”

"The reason is that political questions are concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality, of a particular act or measure being assailed. Moreover, the political question being a function of the separation of powers, the courts will not normally interfere with the workings of another co-equal branch unless the case shows a clear need for the courts to step in to uphold the law and the Constitution,” it said.

The DOJ emphasized that “in extending assistance to the INTERPOL, the GRP, led by the President, is merely complying with its international obligations and performing his role as the chief architect of the country's foreign policy.”

“This, naturally, is well within the President's discretion to do so, and the exercise thereof is patently a political question, which is beyond the review power of the courts,” it added.

“All told, and considering the law, jurisprudence, the applicable provision of the Rules of Court, as well as the facts of the case, the instant Petitions must be outrightly denied,” it stressed.