Imee Marcos Files ‘PRRD Act' to Ban Warrantless Transfer of Filipinos to Foreign Courts
The proposed Senate Bill No. 557, dubbed the 'President Rodrigo R. Duterte Act,' cites the arrest and handover of former President Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a 'form of abuse' that could also happen to others.
'What happened was an extraordinary rendition — a transfer without due process to a foreign jurisdiction,' Marcos said in her explanatory note.
She emphasized the need to legally bar such actions, calling them unconstitutional and grounds for punishment under the proposed law.
Under the measure, the following acts would be banned:
Turning over or detaining any individual for an international body without a local court order;
Assisting in investigations or arrests on behalf of foreign courts without proper authorization from the DOJ and DILG;
Transferring persons to a foreign state or tribunal without their consent or an applicable treaty.
The bill also seeks to:
Freeze assets of persons charged under the act;
Bar foreign agents from entering the country to carry out unauthorized probes or arrests;
Allow affected individuals to pursue legal remedies;
Require the Department of Foreign Affairs to facilitate the return of citizens subjected to 'extraordinary rendition.'
Marcos' proposal comes amid Duterte's detention in The Hague over ICC charges linked to drug war killings. He was arrested in the Philippines on March 11 by local authorities acting on an ICC warrant.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
41 minutes ago
- Gulf Today
Fearful of Trump's wrath, Congress abdicates its authority
Carl P. Leubsdorf, Tribune News Service The first six months of President Donald Trump's second administration have brought an unprecedented expansion of presidential power. They've also brought an unprecedented abdication of congressional authority. Fearful of incurring Trump's wrath — and perhaps primary opposition — Republican lawmakers have voted to confirm unqualified nominees, and rubber-stamped Medicaid cuts they acknowledged would hurt their constituents, often after proclaiming publicly they would never do so. Oversight committees, which are supposed to police the executive branch's management of legislation, are ignoring the administration's unconstitutional dismantling of statutory agencies and programmes — and complaining about the federal judges who are seeking to protect them. Some members who represent swing districts or states with thousands of Medicaid recipients may face the wrath of voters next year. All of them should. There's no question which member of Congress put on the year's most hypocritical legislative performance. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri spent two months righteously condemning pending GOP proposals to cut Medicaid, noting it serves over one million Missourians. For Republicans 'to build our 'big, beautiful bill' around slashing health insurance for the working poor,' he wrote in The New York Times, 'is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.' He then voted for it, citing a modest addition funding rural hospitals. Then, he introduced a bill to repeal some of the Medicaid cuts, an empty gesture destined never to see the light of day — or the Senate calendar. Hawley was not the only GOP senator casting a damaging vote while expressing reservations. Sen. Lisa Murkowski gained some concessions for her Alaska constituents, then voted for the Trump package while expressing doubts about what she was doing. 'While we have worked to improve the present bill for Alaska,' she said, 'it is not good enough for the rest of our nation — and we all know it.' To be clear: the Senate would have rejected it had either Hawley or Murkowski voted on their stated principles. There was even less GOP resistance when the administration asked Congress to cancel $9 billion it had previously voted for, most for health and food aid to poor countries, the remainder for public radio and television. Though the cuts will shut small public radio outlets in many states, most Republican senators kept silent as Democrats denounced their impact. Only two, Maine's Susan Collins and Murkowski, opposed the measure, safe votes since the administration had enough support without them. The Senate's hypocrisy was matched in the House. Sixteen Republicans vowed resistance to the Medicaid cuts drafted by the House Budget Committee. 'Protecting Medicaid is essential for the vulnerable constituents we were elected to represent,' they wrote GOP leaders. 'Therefore, we cannot support a final bill that threatens access to coverage or jeopardizes the stability of our hospitals and providers.' Signatories were Reps. David Valadao and Young Kim, Ca.; Juan Ciscomani, Az.; Rob Bresnahan Jr., Pa.; Chuck Edwards, NC; Andrew Garbarino, Michael Lawler and Nicole Malliotakis, NY; Jen Kiggans and Robert Wittman, Va.; Jefferson Van Drew, NJ; Don Bacon, Ne; Dan Newhouse, WA.; Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Ia.; and Jeff Hurd, Co. But all 16 subsequently backed it after gaining an increase in the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, which benefits mainly middle- and upper-income taxpayers. All 16 later acquiesced in even more sweeping Medicaid cuts added by the Senate. Legislative issues were not the only places where GOP senators abandoned stated principles amid administration pressure. Senators Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Joni Ernst of Iowa cast the decisive votes to confirm the two most manifestly unqualified Trump Cabinet secretaries after obtaining promises the two nominees abandoned once approved. Cassidy said Secretary of Health and Services-nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr., if confirmed, 'will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' recommendations without changes.' Soon after taking office, Kennedy removed all 17 panel members, replacing some with outspoken critics of government-mandated immunization for the nation's children. Ernst expressed concern about Secretary of Defense-nominee Pete Hegseth's stated opposition to women in combat roles and sought a commitment to having a senior-level military official dedicated to sexual assault response and prevention. 'Women will have access to ground-combat roles, given the standards remain high,' Hegseth testified. While he has not reversed the Obama administration's decision placing women in combat roles, he announced a review of physical fitness standards that could have that effect. Hegseth has not yet announced an official to monitor sexual assault issues, but he has continued his purge of high-level women officers, most recently removing the US Naval Academy's first female superintendent. Both Cassidy and Ernst face re-election races in 2026, and both feared Trump-endorsed primary challenges. In fact, some Trump supporters sought to pressure Ernst before she backed Hegseth — including a column by a potential primary foe, Iowa state Attorney General Brenda Bird. GOP-led congressional committees have been no better. The principal House investigative committee, which spent the last two years unsuccessfully trying to find a way to impeach Joe Biden, has switched its focus to whether the former president's declining health led aides to exercise his duties, despite the lack of evidence they did. Rather than probe the current administration's manifest irregularities, they're investigating hearsay about the prior one. One thing the past six months have shown is that, when casting votes or confirming nominees, there is little difference between so-called 'conservative' Republicans and so-called 'moderate' ones. When it comes to backing Trump, they are all on board.
Filipino Times
2 hours ago
- Filipino Times
Trump to Visit Manila for 2026 ASEAN Summit
United States President Donald Trump has confirmed his attendance at the 44th ASEAN Summit to be hosted by the Philippines in 2026, Philippine Ambassador to the U.S. Jose Manuel Romualdez revealed in an interview with NewsWatch Plus. The commitment came during a conversation between the two following an official luncheon held in Washington as part of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s recent visit to the United States. Romualdez recalled asking Trump directly if he would attend the summit in Manila. 'Yes, I will definitely go,' Trump reportedly replied, according to the ambassador. Trump had previously stated in the Oval Office during a media engagement, 'If I'm invited, I'll go.' President Marcos formally extended the invitation, solidifying expectations that Trump will visit the country as part of the summit. The Philippines is set to host the 44th ASEAN Summit in 2026, which will coincide with two major milestones in PH-U.S. relations—the 80th anniversary of diplomatic ties and the 75th year of the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). The high-level summit will serve as a platform to strengthen regional cooperation and reaffirm longstanding alliances among member states and key partners like the United States. In his arrival statement from Washington, President Marcos described Trump's anticipated visit as a 'reaffirmation of our historic alliance.' He emphasized the importance of U.S.-Philippine relations, noting that the Mutual Defense Treaty remains a key pillar of the country's security framework. 'The United States is our oldest and only treaty ally,' Marcos said. 'This visit and summit will mark another chapter in our shared strategic interests.' Ask ChatGPT
The National
a day ago
- The National
In the absence of formal accountability for Gaza atrocities, it's critical to shout the truth loudly
July 17 marked International Criminal Justice Day – commemorating the 1998 adoption of the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). For those of us working in the field of accountability – pursuing war criminals and justice for survivors – it should be a day of reflection and progress. Yet in 2025, it feels like an act of resistance just to believe that justice is possible. The odds are stacked against us. Criminals often walk free, shielded by powerful states. We see images of children in Gaza dying from malnutrition – victims of Israel's starvation policy as found by ICC prosecutors – while our mechanisms to stop it are blocked at every turn. The ICC Office of the Prosecutor has launched an investigation into Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the deliberate targeting of civilians and the use of starvation as a method of warfare. But progress is painfully slow. The Court has no jurisdiction over the US or Israel, and both actively obstruct it. During the 1998 Rome negotiations, the US refused to join, citing fears of 'politically motivated' prosecutions. Israel claims its military operates within the laws of war. Earlier this month, Mr Netanyahu travelled to Washington to meet with US President Donald Trump, defying international pressure. In retaliation for the ICC investigation, the US imposed sanctions on ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan – restricting his travel and freezing assets. The US has also targeted Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur, on the occupied Palestinian territories, who continues to speak out despite pressure. Journalists, investigators and human rights workers must keep the pressure high. It worked in Bosnia. It worked in Kosovo. It can work again While Mr Khan has remained largely silent, Ms Albanese has not. On the same day she was sanctioned, she condemned Italy, France, and Greece — ICC member states — for allowing Mr Netanyahu's aircraft to cross their airspace instead of arresting him. Meanwhile, the UN's top court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has issued orders for Israel to allow humanitarian aid and halt military actions that risk genocide. Yet these rulings rely on enforcement by the Security Council—where the US has repeatedly used its veto to protect Israel from accountability. Still, the evidence grows. Just last week, renowned genocide scholar Omer Bartov, an Israeli Jew and former Israeli soldier, published an op-ed in The New York Times arguing that Israel is committing genocide. It was a watershed moment, not just for the clarity of his language but for where it was published. But even as the case against Israel strengthens, we must confront the painful truth: the very systems designed to deliver justice are being blocked or undermined. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has issued some of the strongest statements I've seen from a UN leader, and his adviser Melissa Fleming continues to condemn Israel's attacks on civilians. Still, several Security Council votes calling for a ceasefire have been vetoed by the US. On July 20, the General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a resolution, drafted by Spain, condemning the use of starvation as a method of warfare. Yet even as that resolution passed, Israeli forces bombed a Catholic church in Gaza and continued killing hundreds daily, many of them women, children and people waiting at feeding stations. In short, it would appear that Mr Netanyahu is mocking international justice. But it is not hopeless – if we accept that justice is a long game. Since the Second World War, alternative pathways for accountability have evolved. This is where civil society must lead. My team at The Reckoning Project focuses on creative approaches to accountability. We combine international courts, third-state prosecutions, UN mechanisms, and civil society pressure. Justice is rarely linear, but it is possible. Everything hinges on political will. Countries such as Spain and Ireland are stepping up. But when the US, UK and Germany actively block legal mechanisms, they become complicit. Britain continues arms transfers to Israel, and recent revelations show it is also sharing battlefield intelligence. This is where advocacy matters. Journalists, investigators and human rights workers must keep the pressure high. It worked in Bosnia. It worked in Kosovo. It can work again. The ICC case can and must be strengthened – with robust documentation, clear evidence chains, and legal submissions under Article 15. We must link Netanyahu directly to command decisions and demonstrate intent. Countries with universal jurisdiction, such as Germany, Belgium, South Africa, and Argentina, can open domestic cases. These can be reinforced by the ICJ's initial findings and ongoing proceedings in the genocide case. Targeted sanctions, such as Magnitsky-style bans – that is, laws providing for governmental sanctions against foreigners who have committed human rights abuses or been involved in corruption – should be imposed by countries such as Norway, Ireland and Spain. But this depends on political will. Which brings me to the most powerful tool we have: the court of public opinion. The truth must be told, clearly and relentlessly. In the case of Gaza, the horror doesn't need exaggeration as the facts speak for themselves. Free press can drive public protest and shift political inertia. The alternative is complicity in what has been described by legal experts as genocide, and as shown in the mounting evidence before the ICJ. I have witnessed three genocides in my lifetime. I cannot remain silent as another unfolds. To look away would be to abandon our shared humanity.
