12/03/2025
𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗲 (𝗲.𝗴., 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲 𝗮 𝗧𝗥𝗢) 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲’𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁? 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲, 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝗶𝗻?
By Dean Ralph Sarmiento
Yes, the Philippine Supreme Court can intervene to prevent former President Duterte's arrest or surrender to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if it finds that such actions violate Philippine law or the Constitution. The Court's power of judicial review allows it to determine the legality of executive actions, including cooperation with the ICC.
𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗧𝗥𝗢
The Supreme Court has the authority to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent irreparable harm while it deliberates on the merits of a case. In BAYAN MUNA v. ROMULO, G.R. No. 159618 (2011), the Court emphasized its power to review executive agreements and actions for compliance with domestic law and constitutional principles. Similarly, in PANGILINAN v. CAYETANO, G.R. No. 238875 (2021), the Court clarified that it retains jurisdiction to resolve justiciable controversies, even in matters involving foreign affairs, provided that constitutional rights or domestic laws are implicated.
In this case, Duterte's petition for a TRO would likely argue that the government's cooperation with the ICC violates his constitutional rights, particularly his right to due process and protection against unlawful arrest and detention. The Court could issue a TRO if it finds prima facie evidence of a legal violation or a risk of irreparable harm.
𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗹
The Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute, which took effect in 2019, does not absolve the country of obligations incurred while it was a State Party. Article 127 of the Rome Statute explicitly states that withdrawal does not affect the ICC's jurisdiction over crimes committed during the period of membership. This principle was acknowledged in PANGILINAN v. CAYETANO, G.R. No. 238875 (2021), where the Court noted that withdrawal from a treaty does not extinguish liabilities for acts committed before the withdrawal took effect.
Thus, the Supreme Court would need to determine whether the ICC's ongoing investigation and warrant for Duterte's arrest are valid consequences of obligations incurred while the Rome Statute was in force.
𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝗡𝗼. 𝟵𝟴𝟱𝟭
Republic Act No. 9851, also known as the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, provides a domestic legal framework for prosecuting international crimes. Section 17 of the law recognizes the principle of complementarity, which allows the ICC to exercise jurisdiction only when the Philippines is unwilling or unable to prosecute such crimes domestically.
If the government cooperates with the ICC, it implicitly acknowledges that domestic mechanisms are insufficient to address the alleged crimes. However, Duterte could argue that RA 9851 does not authorize the surrender of Philippine citizens to the ICC, particularly after the Rome Statute withdrawal. The Supreme Court would need to interpret RA 9851 in light of the Constitution and the country's treaty obligations.
𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀
While Duterte is no longer immune from suit as a former President (De Lima v. Duterte G.R. No. 227635 (2019)), he retains the right to challenge actions that infringe on his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the protection of individual liberties, even in cases involving international obligations. For example, in BAYAN MUNA v. ROMULO, G.R. No. 159618 (2011), the Court emphasized that executive actions must comply with domestic law and constitutional safeguards.
𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗲𝘀 𝗕𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗕𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀
The judiciary serves as the final arbiter in disputes between the executive and individuals, particularly when constitutional rights are at stake. Even if the government consents to ICC cooperation, the Supreme Court retains the power to review the legality of such actions. As noted in PANGILINAN v. CAYETANO, G.R. No. 238875 (2021), the Court's role is to ensure that executive actions comply with the Constitution and domestic laws.
