ICC public counsel rebuts Duterte’s bid to void court’s jurisdiction

Former President Rodrigo Duterte (SCREEN GRAB FROM ICC)

MANILA, Philippines —The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) has formally requested that former President Rodrigo Duterte’s claims regarding the tribunal’s non-jurisdiction over the Philippines be dismissed.

In a 27-page document dated June 9, Principal Counsel Paolina Massida — who was appointed to represent the collective interests of potential victims — submits that the defense challenge should be dismissed.

Massida was referring to the 38-page “Defense Challenge with Respect to Jurisdiction,” dated May 1, questioning the ICC’s jurisdiction over the ex-chief executive’s arrest for alleged crimes against humanity.

This reason was used by Duterte’s team to appeal that he be released immediately and the case against him be nullified forthwith.

The document, which came from Duterte’s team, stated that there is no legal basis for the continuation of the proceedings against the former president.

However, this was countered by OPCV.

“The principal counsel submits that the defense challenge should be dismissed,” the office said.

“The wording of articles 12 and 127 of the Rome Statute (the “Statute”) is crystal clear and thus, the Republic of the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Statute has no legal effect upon the already established jurisdiction of the Court, especially since the Prosecutor’s preliminary examination had commenced before the said withdrawal became effective,” it explained.

It likewise mentioned that victims have expressed “great concern” at the possibility that proceedings against Duterte could be halted if the defense challenge is successful.

“They consider that the jurisdiction of the Court is well established and that it can exercise its jurisdiction over the present case. Concluding otherwise would mean upholding impunity and depriving victims of justice,” OPCV adds.

Victims fear Duterte case termination

In the same document, OPCV detailed that Massida failed to personally meet with the victims of Duterte’s drug war due to the security situation and time constraints.

But the office noted that the principal counsel was able to contact the lawyer representing some of the victims, as well as organizations supporting victims in the Philippines.

“Victims expressed their concern about the possibility that the proceeding against Mr. Duterte could be terminated,” the document states.

“They expressed the view that if the Court chooses to uphold the overly restrictive reading of the statute proposed by the defense, and the suspect is returned to the Philippines as a result, they will have no judicial recourse and no hope of pursuing justice,” it pointed out.

“Moreover, they indicated that they could face threats from the suspect and his supporters,” the paper added.

The OPCV also emphasized that accountability must be a certainty, and that if the defense’s interpretation is accepted, “the consequences of such impunity would be dire in the absence of any possibility to obtain justice at the national level.”

With this appeal, the victims’ principal counsel requested that the ICC dismiss the defense challenge.

The defense’s argument regarding jurisdiction runs opposite to the ICC’s earlier explanation that while the Philippine government’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute took effect on March 17, 2019, the Court retains jurisdiction concerning alleged crimes that occurred in the territory of the Philippines while it was a State Party – from November 1, 2011 up to and including March 16, 2019. /apl