Ex-lawmaker tapped as counsel for ICC withdrawal orals

MANILA, Philippines — Opposition senators challenging the Duterte administration’s withdrawal of the country’s membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC) have tapped a new counsel for oral arguments at the Supreme Court (SC) on their petition.

After the high court rejected with finality their plea for detained Sen. Leila de Lima to be given furlough to represent them in the oral arguments that started last Tuesday, the members of the Senate minority decided to have former lawmaker Barry Gutierrez argue for them.

“Former Akbayan party-list Rep. Barry Gutierrez formally enters appearance as counsel for petitioner-senators in the case they filed before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” the senators said in a statement yesterday.

De Lima was joined by Sens. Francis Pangilinan, Franklin Drilon, Paolo Benigno Aquino IV, Risa Hontiveros and Antonio Trillanes IV in filing the petition last May.

Pangilinan, Drilon and Aquino were supposed to attend the oral arguments hearing last Tuesday but failed to do so. Their representative, lawyer Anne Marie Corominas, asked the SC for more time to decide how they would proceed with the case, given the SC’s denial of their request for De Lima to represent them in the oral arguments.

The SC, now under Chief Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, has granted the request and gave the senators until the next hearing on Tuesday, Sept. 4, to get their counsel and present their arguments.

Only the other petitioner, the Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court (PCICC) led by former Commission on Human Rights (CHR) chair Loretta Rosales, was able to present their arguments before the high court.

In a nutshell, they alleged that Malacañang’s action violated the Constitution, which requires ratification of treaties and international agreements by the Senate.

Petitioners specifically cited Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that “entering into a treaty or an international agreement requires participation of Congress, that is, through concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.”

They argued that 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 the concurrence of the Senate.

The opposition senators added that the Rome Statute is a treaty validly entered into by the Philippines which has the same status as a law enacted by Congress.

Because of this status, they stressed that withdrawal from the Rome Statute would require the approval of Congress.

Petitioners further alleged that the respondents committed usurpation of legislative powers which is punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

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

In its diplomatic note to the UN secretary general, the government explained that the “decision to withdraw is the Philippines’ principled stand against those who politicize and weaponize human rights, even as its independent and well-functioning organs and agencies continue to exercise jurisdiction over complaints, issues, problems and concerns arising from its efforts to protect the people.” – With Evelyn Macairan