Legal tangles in former Filipino president's arrest
Former president of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte has been arrested in Manila on Tuesday, and preparations are underway to fly him to The Hague, where the International Criminal Court (ICC) is, to face trial for extra-judicial killings of thousands of people accused of being drug-peddlers and drug-users, during his term in office between 2016 and 2022.
Duterte's lawyers had filed an appeal before the country's Supreme Court to stop the arrest. Duterte's lawyesr are arguing that the ICC had no jurisdiction over the Philippines because the Philippines had withdrawn from the Treaty of Rome which had set up the court, in 2018.
The withdrawal came when the ICC started investigating the allegations against Duterte. The ICC's assertion is that it has jurisdiction over the Philippines for the period when it was a member of the treaty. The court was set up in 2002. Many of the big countries like the United States, China are not members of the ICC and therefore do not come under the purview of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is to set a date for hearing even as Duterte is under custody.
Duterte has been quite defiant about his ruthless campaign against the drug menace in the country. He was pursuing a zero tolerance policy even when he was a prosecutor and mayor of Manila, and continued to do so during his presidency.
He asserted that he would not mind 'rotting' in prison if he can end the drug addiction in the Philippines. Most Filipinos did agree with his campaign against drugs, the peddlers and the addicts. But the use of extreme violence and violation of judicial norms to kill the alleged offenders alienated the people, and even antagonised them. But Duterte was unapologetic.
The Philippines has a tradition of feisty defenders of human rights during its post-World War II history. There was fierce resistance to Ferdinand Marcos, the dictator who ruled the Philippines for 20 years, and who forced his political opponents into prison or into exile. It was in 1986 that Marcos was forced out of power and into exile after Benigno Aquino, the opposition leader was assassinated when he returned to the country in 1983.
Ironically, it is Marcos' son, Ferdinand Marcos Jr who is the president of the country, and who has won the presidential election in 2022. Another president, film star-turned-politician, Joseph Estrada, was pushed out of the presidency and into prison on charges of corruption by then Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in 2001. So, controversies and imprisonment have not been a stranger to the office of the Philippine's presidents.
Duterte's case is both important and controversial. One of the tenets of a democracy is that the rule of law prevails, and that criminals should be punished according to law. Outrage and revenge have no place in dealing with crime and criminals.
Duterte had ignored this basic requirement of the judicial process. He seemed to have believed that his outrage and his violent reaction to drugs was justified because it was for a right cause. One of the problems of this attitude is that criminals do not get a fair deal which is their rightful due in a legal system in a democracy.
And Duterte had also ignored the caution that was required that no innocent person should be punished. It showed an authoritarian streak in Duterte, and it also revealed a streak of cruelty in his personality that is associated with authoritarian rulers. This does not however close the moot point whether Duterte should be tried for his 'crimes against humanity' in a court in the Philippines or in the ICC.
The Philippines has not yet been re-admitted to the ICC. The ICC it would seem wants to assert its authority beyond its reach. It is an issue that needs to be debated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
14 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Could David Cameron be prosecuted for threatening the ICC?
David Cameron, the former British foreign secretary, may be liable for prosecution under international law and within the UK for his attempts to obstruct the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC), experts have said. Middle East Eye revealed on Monday that Cameron privately threatened Karim Khan, the British chief prosecutor at the ICC, in April 2024 to defund and withdraw from the ICC if it issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. "A threat against the ICC, direct or indirect, is an obstruction of justice," Francesca Albanese, the UN's special rapporteur on Palestine, told MEE's live show on Tuesday. "It's incredibly serious that someone in a position of power might have had the audacity to do that." And Professor Sergey Vasiliev of the Open University of the Netherlands reacted: "If the reports are confirmed, David Cameron did cross the legal line when he threatened the Prosector with all kinds of consequences for applying for the warrants. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "This is a serious matter that shows Cameron's utter lack of respect for the ICC's judicial and prosecutorial independence." What did David Cameron do? Cameron, then foreign secretary in Rishi Sunak's Conservative government, made the threat on 23 April 2024 during a heated phone call with Khan. Cameron told Khan that the UK would "defund the court and withdraw from the Rome Statute" if the ICC issued warrants for Israeli leaders. At the time, Khan and his team of lawyers were preparing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his then-defence minister, Yoav Gallant, as well as for Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh and Mohammed Deif. Khan's office applied for warrants on 20 May, less than a month after the phone call. 'Per the reported dialogue, David Cameron clearly seeks to pressure the ICC Prosecutor's decision regarding whether to pursue warrants for Israeli officials' - Professor Tom Dannenbaum Six months later, on 21 November, the warrants were approved by a panel of judges, officially charging Netanyahu and Gallant with war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza since October 2023. MEE revealed details of the call based on information from several sources, including former staff in Khan's office familiar with the conversation and who have seen the minutes of the meeting. Cameron, a former British prime minister who was appointed foreign secretary by Sunak in November 2023, told Khan that applying for warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant would be "like dropping a hydrogen bomb". He said Khan was "on the brink of making a huge mistake" and that "the world is not ready for this". The report has drawn condemnation from British MPs who called for an investigation into Cameron's actions. Cameron has not responded to multiple requests for comment. Approached by MEE for a response to the exchange with Cameron, Khan said on Monday: "I have no comment to make at this time." What's the background to David Cameron's demands? The Conservative government was accused last year of being behind the delay in the ICC's issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli and Hamas officials, after filing a request with the pre-trial chamber to challenge the court's jurisdiction on Israeli nationals. The request prompted dozens of submissions from other states, but was later dropped by the Labour government, which came to power in July 2024. The revelations about Cameron came after the administration of US President Donald Trump said last week that it would sanction four ICC judges for investigations into the US and its ally Israel. In February, Khan was the first ICC official to be the target of US sanctions, carried out under an executive order issued shortly after Trump took office. The revelations also follow Khan's decision to take a leave of absence pending a UN-led investigation into alleged sexual misconduct, an accusation denied by his lawyers. What are the legal risks for Cameron? The ICC, established by the Rome Statute in 2002, is the only permanent international court that prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It has 125 signatories, including the UK and all EU countries, though Hungary has officially begun the withdrawal process. Leading international law experts have told Middle East Eye that Cameron's behaviour is an attack on judicial independence, and is prohibited under the Rome Statute and British law as an obstruction of justice. Professor Tom Dannenbaum of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy said that, in general, the UK is entitled to withdraw from the ICC, and, upon exit, would then cease its financial contribution. Exclusive: David Cameron threatened to withdraw UK from ICC over Israel war crimes probe Read More » Additionally, as a state party to the Rome Statute, the UK can advocate budget cuts within the Assembly of States Parties, the court's governing body, without having to pull out. But, he said, the issue here arises before any such withdrawal or defunding. "The problem here is David Cameron's reported threat to condition possible UK action or inaction in those respects on the decisions of the ICC Prosecutor regarding whom to investigate and prosecute," said Dannenbaum. "That threat is deeply concerning. The rule of law depends on prosecutors' insulation from political pressure in their identification of individuals for investigation and prosecution,. That is true at the ICC just as it is in domestic systems of criminal justice." Under what law could Cameron be charged? The four experts MEE spoke to said the ICC could charge Cameron, given the nature of the phone call with Khan, based on Article 70 of the Rome Statute, which prohibits offences against the administration of justice. These include "impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties; and retaliating against an official of the Court on account of duties performed by that or another official." Dannenbaum argued that Cameron's threat to withdraw the UK from the ICC and defund the court may amount to "corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of … persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties". Although this particular provision has never been litigated before the ICC, Dannenbaum said, the relevant offence of "corruptly influencing a witness" has. "That case law indicates that 'corruptly influencing' includes 'pressuring' the protected person in a way 'capable of influencing the nature' of their contribution and thereby 'compromising' it, with the term 'corruptly' signifying the aim of 'contaminating' the person's contribution," Dannenbaum explained. "Per the reported dialogue, David Cameron clearly seeks to pressure the ICC Prosecutor's decision regarding whether to pursue warrants for Israeli officials. It is possible that this pressure would be understood to have been designed to 'contaminate' the Prosecutor's decision, although that concept may be less clear here than it is in the context of witness testimony. "Considerations regarding state withdrawal and budget cuts are plausibly 'capable' of influencing such decisions, albeit that the Prosecutor appears to have resisted the pressure in the case at hand." Given the above points, Dannenbaum concluded that Cameron's conduct may be consistent with the prohibited offences against the administration of justice listed under Article 70. The court has jurisdiction over Article 70 offences, irrespective of the nationality or location of the accused. What penalty could Cameron face? If successfully charged, Cameron is likely to face an arrest warrant by the court and, if convicted, could be sentenced to up to five years of imprisonment in The Hague or a fine. However, given the vulnerability of the ICC, with Trump's sanctions and Khan's leave of absence, Vasiliev suggested that Cameron's prosecution in The Hague would be "rather unlikely. "The ICC could in principle open the investigation into these allegations under Article 70 or request the UK to do so (or the UK could do so on its own). Whether this will in fact be done, is a big question." Could Cameron be prosecuted in the UK? Toby Cadman, a British barrister and international law expert, said that if the allegations are substantiated by clear evidence, then Cameron could be investigated at an international and domestic level "provided there's political will". Francesca Albanese: David Cameron could be criminally liable for threatening ICC Read More » In the UK, an investigation could be opened for the common law offence of obstruction or perverting the course of justice or the common law offence of misconduct in public offence, he said. An investigation in the UK can be carried out in accordance with Section 54 of the ICC Act 2001, which is based on Article 70 of the Rome Statute. The attorney general's consent would be required for any prosecution to go ahead. "It is quite clear that the allegation is serious and if the UK is committed to maintaining a system based on the rule of law with full respect for the state's international treaty obligations it should open an investigation and if the evidence supports it, bring charges," Cadman told MEE. Could Cameron be prosecuted outside the UK? But Vasiliev suggested that Cameron's prosecution before the courts of other states would be precluded by his functional immunity - the protection granted to senior officials if an alleged offence was committed during their official duties. "Cameron has a functional immunity for that act as he uttered those threats in the exercise of his official functions, and there is no exception to such immunity applicable in foreign courts for offences against the integrity of judicial system," Vasiliev argued. "The prosecution authorities of other states parties therefore will not eagerly pursue such a case."
Middle East Eye
19 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Francesca Albanese: David Cameron could be criminally liable for threatening ICC
On Monday, Middle East Eye revealed that former British Foreign Secretary David Cameron privately threatened to defund and withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) if it issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. Cameron, then foreign secretary in Rishi Sunak's Conservative government, made the threat in April 2024 in a heated phone call with Karim Khan, the British chief prosecutor of the court. Since then, 10 British MPs have commented on the revelation. Some have called for a parliamentary investigation, while others have urged the Labour government to distance itself from Cameron's actions. On Tuesday afternoon, Humza Yousaf, who was Scotland's first minister when Cameron made the threat, said that it was "shameful that Lord Cameron allegedly threatened the ICC for having the audacity to do their job". Now, legal experts say there is a serious risk that Cameron, who sits as a Tory peer in the House of Lords, could be criminally liable. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Francesca Albanese, the prominent legal scholar and UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, weighed in on Tuesday evening in an exclusive interview with MEE. Albanese, an expert in international law, was careful to note that she is not conversant with all the details of the Cameron story. She caveated her comments by saying, "if this occurred and there is evidence". The UN rapporteur explained that if Cameron acted as MEE's sources said he did, the former foreign secretary and prime minister has committed a "criminal offence under the Rome Statute". The Rome Statute criminalises those who attempt to prevent war crimes from being prosecuted. Article 70 awards the ICC jurisdiction over those responsible for "impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties". According to MEE's sources in The Hague, Cameron told the ICC prosecutor that if the ICC issued warrants for Israeli leaders, the UK would "defund the court and withdraw from the Rome Statute". Cameron did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 'The court can take action' "A threat against the ICC, direct or indirect, is an obstruction of justice," Albanese told MEE. "It's an action aimed at preventing the court from carrying out an investigation. So it's a violation of the principle of judicial independence. "It's incredibly serious that someone in a position of power might have had the audacity to do that." Exclusive: David Cameron threatened to withdraw UK from ICC over Israel war crimes probe Read More » Albanese pointed out that "any form of intimidation, retaliation, or interference with court officials is an offence in itself". Significantly, she said that the "court can take action against a person who misbehaves or obstructs proceedings." Cameron could also face potential repercussions under British domestic law. Section 54 (1) of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 notes: "A person intentionally committing any of the acts mentioned in article 70.1 (offences against the administration of justice in relation to the ICC) may be dealt with as for the corresponding domestic offence committed in relation to a superior court in England and Wales." Albanese said that if Cameron was still in politics, "there would be condemnations from other states, probably diplomatic or retaliatory measures. "Now, I don't know the UK system enough, but in normal systems, had he still been in office, there could have been an investigation, legal challenges by civil society - surely something that will happen. "And again, I don't know. One needs to see the UK legislation, but surely there could be something that is along these general principles." 'Cameron must be investigated' In the call on 23 April, Cameron told Khan that applying for warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant would be "like dropping a hydrogen bomb". He said Khan was "on the brink of making a huge mistake" and that "the world is not ready for this". According to MEE's sources, the foreign secretary spoke aggressively and repeatedly shouted over Khan, who had to ask to be able to complete his points. 'Any form of intimidation, retaliation, or interference with court officials is an offence' - Francesca Albanese Labour MP Naz Shah called the news "shocking" and said she would be "raising this matter directly" with the Foreign Office. Labour MP Zarah Sultana said on social media platform X that "David Cameron - and every UK minister complicit in arming and enabling Israel's genocide in Gaza - must be investigated for war crimes." Independent MP Ayoub Khan told MEE: "I urge the relevant parliamentary standards committees to investigate this matter with the seriousness it deserves." Emily Thornberry, a senior Labour MP and the chair of parliament's foreign affairs select committee, said: "I've always believed that when making difficult decisions, international law must always be our guide." Approached by MEE for a response to the exchange with Cameron, Khan said on Monday: "I have no comment to make at this time."
Khaleej Times
2 days ago
- Khaleej Times
Philippine Senate returns VP Sara Duterte's impeachment case to lower house
Philippine senators on Tuesday voted to return an impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte to the lower house to clarify its constitutionality, in a surprise move just hours after convening a trial that could end her political career. After heated debates among members that included efforts by a Duterte ally to dismiss the case, the senators agreed not to terminate the trial, but first send it back to the lower house to certify that its handling of the process had been lawful. The impeachment of the daughter of firebrand former President Rodrigo Duterte follows an acrimonious falling out last year with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, with whom she ran on a joint ticket that won the 2022 election in a landslide. The Senate's late-night move could provide a lifebuoy for presidential contender Duterte in her make-or-break trial and impact the policy agenda and succession plans of former ally Marcos. . Marcos is limited to a single term in office and has created a powerful enemy in Duterte. He is expected to try to retain influence and protect his legacy by grooming a successor capable of fending off his rival in the next election should she be acquitted. "I think we have upheld our oath to be politically neutral," said Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, a Duterte loyalist who presented the motion to return the case to the House of Representatives. The lower house in February voted to impeach the vice president for high crimes and betrayal of the public trust, alleging budget irregularities, amassing of unusual wealth and a threat to the lives of Marcos, his wife, and the house speaker. She has denied all allegations. The unprecedented move by the Senate could add fuel to fierce public debate on what is already an emotionally charged issue in the Philippines, with the spectre of discord in the bicameral legislature and more legal action to try to dismiss the case against the popular Duterte. The trial will officially proceed, according to senators, who issued a summons to Duterte to respond to the charges, despite sending the case back to the lower house until a time when a Congress newly-formed after last month's midterm elections is "willing and ready" to pursue the impeachment complaint. Duterte will have 10 days to comply. A new Congress will convene at the end of July. Duterte's office late on Tuesday reiterated an earlier statement that said she was ready to "expose the baselessness of the accusations". "The impeachment process must never be weaponised to harass, silence, or eliminate political opponents," it said. Duterte is the fifth top official in the Philippines to be impeached, only one of whom, Renato Corona, a former Supreme Court chief justice, was convicted.
