Opposition senators skip oral arguments on ICC withdrawal

MANILA, Philippines — Opposition senators challenging the administration’s withdrawal of the country’s membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC) failed to appear at yesterday’s oral arguments of the Supreme Court (SC) on their petition.

After the high court rejected their plea to be represented by detained Sen. Leila de Lima in the case, the minority senators who were supposed to appear at the oral arguments – Francis Pangilinan, Franklin Drilon and Paolo Benigno Aquino IV – skipped the first hearing and instead sent lawyer Anne Marie Corominas.

Corominas explained that the senators wanted more time to decide how they would proceed with the case given the SC’s denial of their request to let De Lima represent them at the oral arguments.

“Petitioner senators respectfully move that they be given until the next session of the oral arguments within which to decide an appropriate course of action with the issue of representation of these proceedings,” Corominas asked the Court.

The SC then proceeded to hear the argument of the other petitioner, Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court (PCICC) led by former Commission on Human Rights chair Loretta Rosales.

Lawyers of PCICC from Center Law International asked the SC to issue an order compelling the executive branch to revoke the notice sent last March for withdrawal of the Philippine government’s signature from the Rome Statute.

They argued the withdrawal violated the 1987 Constitution, which requires Senate concurrence in withdrawal of the ICC membership.

“A treaty requires Senate concurrence and the Rome Statute is a treaty... The unilateral withdrawal is interference, a violation of the separation of powers,” lawyer Romel Bagares explained.

Petitioners cited Article VII Section 21 of the Constitution, which states that “entering into treaty or international agreement requires participation of Congress, that is, through concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.”

They argued the Office of the President and the Department of Foreign Affairs committed grave abuse of discretion in withdrawing the country’s membership in the ICC without concurrence of the Senate.

But during interpellation, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen questioned the legal standing of PCICC in filing the case.

“Principally it must be shown that there is personal, substantial and direct injury suffered by petitioners to have legal standing. What is your injury?” Leonen asked, to which lawyer Ray Paolo Santiago replied, “I have no direct injury as of yet.”

Leonen stressed that petitioners are also not victims of crimes against humanity to be able to seek relief from the Court.

The oral arguments will continue next week for the arguments of the senators and the answer of the solicitor general for the respondents.

President Duterte announced last March the government’s withdrawal of its ratification of the Rome Statute, a United Nations treaty creating the ICC.

Duterte cited “baseless, unprecedented and outrageous attacks” against him and his administration as the reason for his withdrawal as a state party.

The move came after ICC special prosecutor Fatou Bensouda started a preliminary examination on the alleged human rights violations in connection with the Duterte administration’s intensified war on drugs. – With Christina Mendez, Alexis Romero, AP