Three children of former president Rodrigo R. Duterte reiterated before the Supreme Court (SC) their pleas to grant their petitions for a writ of habeas corpus to pave the way for the return of their father to the Philippines from The Hague, Netherlands.
Davao City Rep. Paolo Duterte, Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte and daughter Veronica Duterte refuted the government’s position that the issue has become moot and academic.
Former president Duterte was arrested last March 11 and on the same day was turned over to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity.
The petitions by the Duterte children were filed separately on March 12 when the former president was already on his way to Netherlands.
Earlier, published news reports stated that only judges of the ICC can order the release of former president Duterte.
The reports stated that ICC Spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah refused to comment on the petitions filed before the SC.
But the reports also stated that Abdallah said: “For the ICC, the release of a suspect can only be ordered by the ICC judges themselves so any request to that effect has to be submitted to them and then we will see what are the reasons that are in this request and the judges will make a decision on.”
Acting on the petitions filed by the Duterte children, the SC consolidated the three petitions and required the respondents, led by Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, to comment.
When the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the government’s chief counsel, recused from the petitions, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed the consolidated compliance to the SC’s order.
With the DOJ’s compliance, the Duterte children were ordered by the SC to file their traverse or a rebuttal.
They reiterated their claim that their father was “kidnapped” and illegally handed over by the Philippine government to the ICC.
In Congressman Paolo’s traverse, he told the SC: “It must be stressed that claiming a case become moot and academic due to supervening events does not automatically deprive the courts of authority to decide the same.”
He cited a previous SC decision which ruled that the court may still decide on cases considered as moot and academic “if there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.”
All the circumstances cited in the previous decision exist in their petitions for a writ of habeas corpus for the SC to decide on the merits, he pointed out.
In his traverse, Mayor Sebastian said the absence of his father from the country does not automatically impede the enforcement of the writ of habeas corpus.
He pointed out that their petitions are directed against the respondents in the Philippines and not against the ICC which was not impleaded in the petitions.
He insisted that the SC still has jurisdiction over the respondents whom it can compel to enforce the writ of habeas corpus and produce the former president before it in person.
“Even if the former President is detained abroad, the petitioner maintains that because his arrest was unlawful, the acquisition of jurisdiction by the ICC may be questioned. Consequently, this Honorable Court retains the authority to compel his eventual return to the Philippines,” he added.
At the same time, the Duterte children rebutted the respondents’ arguments that their father made several pronouncements that he is willing to submit himself to the ICC investigation on his war on drugs.
“Utterances made by FPRRD do not have any bearing on the validity or invalidity of the enforcement of the warrant of arrest. Whatever statement he made does not validate the illegality of his arrest,” they said.
They also said the arrest of their father violated Article 59 of the Rome Statute, which created the ICC.
Article 59, they said, mandates that “a person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State which shall determine, in accordance with the law of that State.”
“Allowing arrests based solely on warrants issued by the international bodies like the ICC or enforcement requests from Interpol (International Criminal Police Organization) -- without review, validation, or judicial authorization by a Philippine court -- would create a dangerous exception to our constitutional framework,” pointed out Mayor Duterte in his traverse.
“It would effectively allow the deprivation of liberty without the judicial oversight required under our laws, eroding both national sovereignty and the individual’s right to due process,” he added.
In her traverse, Veronica told the SC:
“It is respectfully submitted that this Honorable Court has not lost jurisdiction simply because of the executive's exploitation of geographical borders.
“On the contrary, this Honorable Court must retain jurisdiction when the government acts unlawfully, especially when such actions extend beyond our territory. For if the executive can remove a person from this Honorable Court's supervision by the simple expedient of moving them outside the country, there is a serious threat to the rule of law.”
Aside from Executive Secretary Bersamin, the other respondents named in the consolidated petitions are Interior and Local Government Secretary Jonvic Remulla, Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Gen. Francisco Marbil, PNP-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CID) Director Gen. Nicolas Torre III, Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra, Foreign Affairs Secretary Enrique Manalo, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Romeo Brawner Jr., Executive Director of the Philippine Center on Transnational Crime (PCTC) Undersecretary Lt. Gen. Antonio Alcantara, Capt. Johnny Gulla and the Bureau of Immigration (BI).