Oral arguments pleaded in 3 SC petitions vs ex-Pres Duterte’s arrest, turnover to ICC

The Supreme Court (SC) was asked to set for oral arguments the three consolidated petitions for habeas corpus which challenged the arrest and turnover to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands last March 11 of former President Rodrigo R. Duterte.

The former president has been charged with crimes against humanity in connection with his operations against illegal drugs and the ICC ordered his arrest. 

The plea for oral arguments was contained in a motion filed on Monday, April 7, by Duterte’s daughter, Veronica, through the Panelo Law Office.

Aside from Veronica, those who filed separate petitions last March 12 were the two other Duterte’s children – Davao City Mayor Sebastian and Davao City Representative Paolo.

They pleaded the SC to grant their habeas corpus petitions and nullify the arrest and turnover to the ICC of their father.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is a citizen’s legal remedy against alleged illegal arrest and detention.

The SC had required the respondents in the petition, led by Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, to file their comments.

With the recusal of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in the petitions, 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 seeking the holding of oral arguments, Veronica cited Rule 49, Section of the Rules of Court which states that “at its own instance or upon motion of a party, the court may hear the parties in oral arguments on the merits of a case….”

She also told the SC that the rule also applies “to original petitions for habeas corpus before this Honorable Court (SC) pursuant to Rule 56, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.”

She cited five grounds to justify the holding of oral arguments, namely:

1. Exigent constitutional issues “including but not limited to whether or not the respondents violated the constitutional rights of former President Duterte under Article III of the 1987 Constitution in arresting and transferring him to The Hague, Netherlands without prior authority from a Philippine court, and whether or not the respondents violated the separation of powers in recognizing the jurisdiction of, or conferring jurisdiction on the ICC.
2. Novel legal questions on whether “the petitions presented unprecedented issues regarding the scope of writs of habeas corpus” like “can the respondents strip this Honorable Court of its power to issue a writ of habeas corpus by simply transferring the person illegally arrested and detained outside the Philippine territory?”
3. Matter of transcendental importance and significant public interest as the arrest and surrender of any Filipino to an international court “touches on critical issues such as national sovereignty, rights of individuals to due process, international obligations and the intersecting powers of the three branches of government.
4. Conflicting legal arguments and public statements “since the petitioners and respondents have presented sharply divergent positions,” with “petitioners asserting the Duterte’s arrest and surrender to ICC were illegal, and that the petitions are not moot as the court retains authority over the respondents, and in contrast respondents argue that the case is moot since Duterte is no longer in domestic custody, and that the government’s actions were lawful.’
5. Precedential value and guidance since “given the high-profile nature of the consolidated petitions and the importance of the legal and constitutional questions involved, this Honorable Court’s ruling will likely serve as a landmark decision."

The SC was also told: “Conducting oral arguments would ensure that all angles are thoroughly explored, enhancing the quality and legitimacy of the final resolution of this Honorable Court. This is particularly important in a case such as this one that could redefine our laws on judicial remedies of individuals, and the Executive’s obligations with respect thereto.

The motion was signed by lawyers Salvador S. Panelo, Salvador Paolo R. Panelo Jr., Carlo Inigo D. Soriano, Carmelle Therese A. Palillo, and Katherene Christiana Racasa-Amoroso.

Earlier in its consolidated compliance, the DOJ asked the SC to deny the habeas corpus petitions for being moot and for lack of merit.

The DOJ said the ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is “to relieve a person from unlawful restraint.”

It told the SC: “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 of a judicial process or subject of a valid judgment.”

It pointed out that “the petition for writ of habeas corpus is already moot because respondents no longer have legal and physical custody of former president Duterte.”