Lawmakers: Draft reso seeking Duterte's return has no weight with ICC
Duterte was arrested on March 11 after arriving in Manila from a vacation in Hong Kong, pursuant to the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC)-issued arrest warrant over alleged crimes against humanity due to drug war killings during his presidency. He has been detained in Scheveningen prison in the Netherlands since March 14.
Party-list Representatives Leila de Lima and Terry Ridon of ML and Bicol Saro, respectively, made the comments in light of the subject Resolution being pushed for by at least three Duterte's allies in the Senate: Padilla, Ronald 'Bato' dela Rosa and Bong Go.
'Political posturing na lang 'yan kasi wala na ho sa kapangyarihan ng gobyerno natin na pabalikin siya [That is just political posturing because the Philippine government has no authority to bring him back here]. Kasi isang [Because an] international tribunal, which is the ICC, with competent jurisdiction over the alleged crimes, the crimes against humanity, at nakuha na nga siya kasi na-arresto nga siya legally, validly, ay nandun na sa kanila [which arrested him legally, validly, and is now in their custody],' de Lima, a former Justice Secretary and an ex-senator, told reporters.
'Hindi na nila [ICC] 'yan pakikinggan, kung ano man yung mga sasabihin na mga domestic authorities nila. They cannot grant [the goal of the Resolution]. Hindi nila pwedeng pagbigyan yung mga ganyang mga usapin na pabalikin nyo na. May proseso. Di ba? Meron silang pending application for interim release,' de Lima added.
(The ICC won't hear their plea because they cannot act on a mere resolution from local authorities. There is a process and in fact, Duterte's camp is already seeking an interim release.)
De Lima then said that the resolution could also mislead Duterte's supporters into thinking that the former President remains under the jurisdiction of the Philippine government.
'Parang pinapalakas lang ang loob ng mga supporters na huwag kayo mag-alala, baka pwede pa natin maiuwi iyong dating Pangulo. But in my opinion, it won't fly because ICC has rules,' de Lima added.
(They are just pandering to their supporters that there is still hope to bring the former President home, so they should not worry.)
Ridon, who served as the chairperson of the Presidential Commission on the Urban Poor during the first year of the Duterte administration from 2016 to 2017, agreed with de Lima that the case of Duterte is something that is out of the Philippine government's hands.
'We have to be very frank na there's nothing that the Philippine government can do today to bring the former president back home. Kasi ho talagang ICC na po yung magpapasya kung makakauwi ba o hindi ang dating pangulo and to be very clear meron hong batayan bakit ho nasa ICC si dating Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte. He is being made to answer for extrajudicial killings under the Duterte Drug war,' Ridon said in a separate interview.
(It is the ICC's call now if he can go home or otherwise. And to be very clear, there is a reason why the former president is facing the ICC.)
'Mabigat po ang nga paratang yun [These allegations are grave]. Of course, they can be free to do a Senate Resolution. But we have to be very frank. It is not within the power of the Philippine government to send the former President back home,' Ridon, also a lawyer like de Lima, added. — BM, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
3 minutes ago
- GMA Network
SC asked to reconsider ruling on VP Sara impeachment, hold oral arguments
Various individuals on Tuesday filed a letter-petition asking the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its ruling that declared the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional. The letter, addressed to Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, has more than 100 signatories as they also called on the High Court to hold oral arguments about the matter. 'Sa bigat ng impact ng desisyon ng korte, nararapat na magpatawag ng mga sesyon ang korte para sa publikong oral argument hinggil sa nasabing kaso, upang higit na mapagusapan ang iba't ibang perspektiba hinggil dito,' the petitioners said in the letter. (Due to the impact of the court's decision, the court should call for sessions for public oral argument regarding the said case so that the different perspectives on the matter can be further discussed.) 'Umaasa kami na sa pamamagitan ng publikong oral arguments, makakakita ng sapat na liwanag at bagong insights ang korte para baliktarin ang desisyon at bigyaang-daan ang kagyat na pagsasabalikat ng Senado sa konstitusyonal nilang tungkulin na agarang isagawa ang impeachment trial ni Vice President Duterte,' they added. (We are hoping that through public oral arguments, the court will gain new insights to overturn the decision and allow the Senate to immediately carry out its constitutional duty to immediately conduct the impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte.) Concerned citizens file a letter-petition asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling on the impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte — Joahna Lei Casilao (@joahnacasilao) August 5, 2025 They also expressed support for the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives last week. The House argued that it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case. In its ruling, the SC declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment. 'Pagpapahirap' In their letter, the petitioners argued that the House has the sole authority to begin all cases of impeachment. They also argued that the SC's ruling imposed additional requirements on the process that are not under the Constitution. 'Bunsod ng dagdag kahingian na wala sa Saligang Batas ay magiging mas mahirap at mas mabagal na ang takbo ng anumang impeachment complaint,' the letter read. (Due to the added requirements not found in the Constitution, the progress of any impeachment complaint will become more difficult and slower.) 'Ang ganitong pagpapahirap sa proseso ng impeachment ay maaring maituring na isang kaso ng conflict of interest dahil ang mga justice ng Katas-taasang Hukuman ay impeachable na mga opisyal din,' it added. (This kind of making the impeachment process more difficult can be considered a case of conflict of interest because the justices of the Supreme Court are also impeachable officials.) Aside from this, the petitioners argued that the rights of the public should have more weight in the impeachment process. 'Sa proseso at mekanismo ng impeachment sa Pilipinas, laging mas matimbang at dapat katigan ng korte ang karapatan ng sambayanang Pilipino na agad maalis sa pwesto ang impeachable na opisyal kaysa sa anumang teknikalidad,' the letter read. (In the process and mechanism of impeachment in the Philippines, the right of the Filipino people to immediately remove an impeachable official from office should always carry more weight and be upheld by the court than any technicality.) —VAL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
2 hours ago
- GMA Network
Risa, Kiko seek to remove presidential power to adjust rice tariff
Two senators have filed a joint resolution seeking to terminate the delegated authority of the President to modify tariff rates on rice in a bid to bring back its tariff to 'previous levels.' In filing Joint Senate Resolution No. 2, Senators Francis 'Kiko' Pangilinan and Risa Hontiveros asked both the House of Representatives and the Senate to strip the President of such powers, citing the negative impact of imposing lowered tariffs on imported rice. It also aims to revert the tariff rates on imported rice to the previous level of 35% from 15%, following the signing of Executive Order No. 62 in June 2024. '[T]his combination of lower tariffs and precipitous drops in global rice prices constitutes a 'perfect storm' that has severely devastated the Philippine agricultural sector,' the resolution read. While it acknowledged that Section 1608 of Republic Act No. 10863 or the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (CMTA) of 2016, delegates authority to the President to adjust tariffs, the joint resolution emphasized that 'this is not an absolute power' and that Congress has the authority to withdraw or terminate it. The resolution also directed the appropriate committees of both the Senate and House to hold caucuses to review the current state of the rice industry and propose specific legislation for the welfare of local farmers. Pangilinan, chairman of the Senate committee on agriculture, food, and agrarian reform, urged immediate action on the matter for the sake of local farmers. 'Wag natin patayin nang paunti-unti ang ating mga magsasaka. Ipaglaban naman natin ang karapatan nila na kumita ng sapat at maayos, na mabuhay ng may dangal,' he said in a statement. (Let's not kill our farmers little by little. Let's fight for their right to earn enough and properly, and to live with dignity.) GMA News Online sought a comment from Malacañang and will update this story once it responds. In June, the Department of Agriculture (DA) recommended to the Tariff Commission that any future increase in the rice import duty—from the current 15% back to the previous 35%—be implemented gradually to minimize its effect on both local and global markets. Agriculture chief Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr. had warned that an abrupt 20-percentage-point hike could disrupt the rice market. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
11 hours ago
- GMA Network
Romualdez sa inihain nilang mosyon sa SC: 'This is not an act of defiance. It is an act of duty'
Naghain ng apela ang Kamara de Representantes para baligtarin ng Korte Suprema (SC) ang nauna nitong desisyon na unconstitutional ang impeachment complaint laban kay Vice President Sara Duterte. Giit ni Speaker Martin Romualdez, hindi nila kinakalaban ang pasya ng mga mahistrado ng Kataas-taasang Hukuman, sa halip ay ginagampanan lamang nila ang kanilang tungkulin. Sa ulat ni Tina Panganiban-Perez sa GMA News Saksi nitong Lunes, sinabing ang Office of Solicitor General ang tumatayong abogado ng Kamara sa kanilang inihaing apela sa SC, ilang araw bago ang itinakdang deadline sa Agosto 9. 'This is not an act of defiance. It is an act of duty,' ani Romualdez. 'We do not challenge the authority of the Court. We seek only to preserve the rightful role of the House – the voice of the people – in the process of accountability.' Kasabay ng paggiit na malinaw umano sa Konstitusyon na ang Kamara ang may ekslusibong karapatan sa pag-initiate ng impeachment, sinabi ni Romualdez na sinunod nila ang Konstitusyon at ang mga nagdaang desisyon ng SC sa ginawang pag-impeach ng mga kongresista kay Duterte. Sa kanilang apela sa SC, iginiit ni Romualdez na isang impeachment complaint lang "initiated" kay Duterte, at hindi apat, gaya ng nakasaad sa desisyon ng SC. Paliwanag ng Speaker, inilagay lang sa archive ang tatlong naunang impeachment complaint nang maipadala na sa Senado ang ika-apat na complaint na pirmado ng 215 na kongresista. 'On February 5, 2025, the House transmitted the fourth impeachment complaint filed and signed by 215 Members to the Senate. Only after this transmittal did we archive the earlier three complaints. That sequence matters. It proves there was only one valid initiation, not four,' ayon kay Romualdez. Iginiit din ng lider ng Kamara na walang nakasaad sa Konstitusyon na kailangang pasagutin muna si Duterte kaugnay ng mga akusasyon laban sa kaniya bago ipadala sa Senado ang articles of impeachment. Ang paliwanag at sagot umano ni Duterte laban sa mga akusasyon ay dapat mangyari sa paglilitis na ng Senado bilang impeachment court--gaya ng ginawa sa ibang na-impeach na opisyal. Sinabi pa ni Romualdez na ang pagkakaroon ng mga bagong patakaran na nakasaad sa desisyon ng SC na biglang ipatutupad ay hindi lang umano "unfair" kung hindi "constitutionally suspect" din. Kabilang din kasi ang mga mahistrado ng SC sa mga impeachable officials na maaari umanong makinabang sa mga ipapataw nilang bagong kondisyon o patakaran. 'When the Court lays down rules for how it, or others like it, may be impeached, it puts itself in the dangerous position of writing conditions that may shield itself from future accountability,' ayon kay Romualdez. 'That is not how checks and balances work.' -- FRJ GMA Integrated News
