A turning point for justice

I was in the premises of one of the European embassies housed at the RCBC Plaza in Makati last Tuesday, March 11, when my companions and I heard about the arrest of former president Rodrigo Duterte by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber. I was there with civil society colleagues to engage in conversations on human rights in the country, particularly in relation to a case I’m handling.

On my flight back to Cebu that evening, I was already anticipating possible delays after reading the news that a private chartered plane was on standby to fly the former president to The Hague, Netherlands, where he would be turned over to ICC custody to face charges of crimes against humanity. Fortunately, our flight departed on time. Drama was still unfolding both outside and inside Villamor Air Base, where Duterte was temporarily held. The air base is adjacent to Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), the country’s main international gateway, and they share the same runway.

Like many Filipinos, particularly critics of Duterte’s war on drugs, I was ecstatic at the news that the former president is finally being made to answer for the thousands of deaths resulting from alleged extrajudicial killings, not only during his tenure as the country’s president but also during his time as mayor of Davao City.

However, saying that he should be held accountable for those deaths does not mean he is already guilty. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber has determined that there is sufficient basis to hold him for trial, and I am confident that this upcoming trial will be fair and will afford him the due process any accused individual deserves --something that was denied to the thousands of drug suspects and collateral victims of the so-called drug war.

Former president Duterte is not as popular anymore, but he still has a considerable and, at times, rabid following. Since Tuesday, my social media feed has been flooded with pro-Duterte posts from relatives and friends. Thus, allow me to remind everyone, especially those who are happy about the recent developments, to take this opportunity to reach out in person to those with opposing views and to share useful information and nuanced statements online.

I can still see statements online that tend to mock Duterte die-hard supporters or that make them look stupid. I admit feeling also annoyed at Duterte supporters who share fake news including those on Tuesday who shared there was reportedly a TRO from the Supreme Court. Times like these really show who are gullible online and prone to easily share false news.

Yet, there are many Duterte supporters right now who are genuinely hurting. The narrative built around the Duterte brand by trolls and social media influencers apparently is so successful that many people, including relatives and friends I care about, are angry or hurt with what happened to their idol former leader. The danger is that if we who have contrary views are not discerning and modest enough, we will miss that opportunity for a meaningful national discourse.

We may, for example, take this opportunity of Duterte’s arrest and trial to learn more about the ICC and the foundational principles of international law. The other day I was interviewed by the Philippine Information Agency on the issue of whether or not referral of Duterte’s case to the ICC is an admission of the weaknesses of our justice system. I said that while our justice system is a work in progress, I see the ICC case as an opportunity to push the Philippine justice system to strengthen its application of RA 9851, which defines and penalizes crimes against humanity and war crimes.

I also emphasized that any attempt to discredit the ICC process by describing it as foreign interference is misleading and flawed. The ICC process should be seen as an opportunity for our people to learn about foundational principles of international law including the Rome Statute and our domestic laws as well, like RA 9851.

One foundational principle in international law is that while states have absolute control over their internal affairs, states also have obligations to humanity. That means when it comes to issues concerning human rights, humanitarian law, and crimes against humanity, sovereignty is not absolute. We signed into that, and it is likewise incorporated in our own 1987 Constitution.