Wala pang epekto o anumang implikasyon ang naging deklarasyon ng Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte na pagkalas ng Pilipinas bilang signatory sa Rome Statute, ang kasunduang lumikha sa International Criminal Court o ICC.
Ayon kay Professor Ramon Casiple, isang political analyst, ito’y dahil merong batas na ipinasa ang Kongreso para sa implementasyon ng kasunduan at may proseso para tuluyang kumalas dito.
“Treaty ‘yan eh, ang process actually nasa Presidente ang unang step, but there are still some more steps, the Congress, particularly the Senate has to agree na umalis tayo.”
“The treaty itself stipulates na from the time na binigyan mo ng notice as a government, na mag-withdraw, one year pa ‘yan bago actually mag-withdraw.” Ani Casiple
Sinabi na Casiple na sa kasalukuyan ay mananatiling epektibo at ligal ang pagpapatupad ng nasabing tratado sa bansa sa kabila ng pahayag na pagkalas ng Pilipinas.
“Kung may mga mangyari within the year, that will still apply to the country, ibig sabihin mas important ‘yung ginawa ni President at ang intention rather than may actual force and effect kaagad.” Dagdag ni Casiple
Ibinahagi ni Casiple na isa ang Pilipinas sa mga bansang nanguna sa pagbuo ng tinaguriang Rome Statute.
Aniya isa ang yumaong senador na si Miriam Santiago sa mga nominado para irepresenta ang Pilipinas na maglilitis ng mga kaso sa ICC.
“She’s our nominee at tinanggap ‘yun pero hindi na siya nakapag-serve fully dahil nagkasakit na ang senadora.”
Binigyang diin ni Casiple na bagama’t hindi puwedeng pakialaman o pigilan ng anumang bansa ang desisyon ng Pilipinas na tuluyang mag-withdraw sa ICC ay kinakailangan pa ring dumaan ito sa tamang proseso.
“We have to determine that within our own, we willingly went into it, we should be willingly go out of it, nasa atin ang desisyon diyan.”
“Public opinion siguro or mga representation ng ibang gobyerno, or acts of Congress kasi ‘yung pag-alis natin has o be approved by the Senate, magbobotohan sila, ‘yun lang ang makakapagpigil unless the President himself changes his mind.”
Sa Article 127 ng Rome Statute na pirmado ng Pilipinas nakasaad ang prosesong dapat sundin ng isang bansang nais kumalas sa kasunduan.
“1. A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, withdraw from this Statute. The withdrawal shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification, unless the notification specifies a later date.
2. A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have accrued. Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.”
Hindi mag-uumpisa ang proseso sa deklarasyon lamang sa publiko na kakalas na ang Pilipinas sa ICC bagkus ay una, kinakailangang magpadala ng sulat o ‘letter of intent’ ang Pilipinas na naka-address sa Secretary-General ng United Nations, sa kasalukuyan, ito ay sa katauhan ni UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
Oras na matanggap na ng UN ang sulat, kinakailangang maghintay ng isang taon ang gobyerno ng Pilipinas para maging epektibo ang tuluyang pagkalas sa kasunduan.
Matapos ang isang taon ay tsaka lamang masasabing hindi na miyembro ng ICC ang bansa.
Gayunman binigyang diin sa kaparehong artikulo sa Rome Statute na ang anumang imbestigasyon na nasimulan bago pa man kumalas ang isang bansa sa kasunduan ay magpapatuloy pa rin.
Ang ICC ay may hurisdiksyon na mag-imbestiga sa mga indibiduwal para sa mga mabibigat na krimen katulad ng genocide o pagpatay ng lahi, crimes against humanity o mga krimen laban sa sangkatauhan tulad ng mass murder, rape at sexual slavery, war crimes o mga krimen sa digmaan tulad ng pag-torture sa mga sibilyan at paggamit sa kabataan bilang sundalo sa giyera, at crime of aggression o ang paggamit ng armadong puwersa ng isang bansa laban sa soberanya, integridad o kalayaan ng isa pang estado.
Layon ng hukuman ang pandaigdigang kooperasyon upang maprotektahan ang lahat ng tao mula sa paglabag sa karapatang pantao.
Sa kasalukuyan ay aabot sa 123 bansa ang sakop ng ICC treaty na nagsimula noong 2002.
Para naman sa dating Solicitor General na si Florin Hilbay, hindi maaaring magdesisyon ang Pangulo sa sarili lamang nito dahil ang ICC aniya ay niratipikahan ng Senado. Dagdag pa ni Hilbay, magiging epektibo lamang ang pagkalas ng Pilipinas sa pandaigdigang hukuman pagkatapos pa ng isang taon matapos itong ipahayag.
Pres. Duterte has no authority to withdraw from the ICC on his own. The ICC was ratified by the Senate. Withdrawal, as a constitutional matter, requires a similar concurrence.
Also, withdrawal from ICC takes effect 1 yr after notification & w/o prejudice to any pending matter. pic.twitter.com/ATGTAGIekt
— florin hilbay (@fthilbay) March 14, 2018
Ang sentimiyentong ito ay sinegundahan din ng Integrated Bar of the Philippines sa isang statement:
An important national decision such as the country withdrawing from the Rome Statute should undergo the same scrutiny, diligent study, and debate that the country’s prior decision of entering into the Rome Statute went through.
‘Highlights’ matapos mapabilang ang Pilipinas sa ICC
Niratipikahan ng Senado ang Rome Statue o ang kasunduan na lumilikha sa International Criminal Court o ICC. Ito rin ang nagbigay daan sa Pilipinas na maging ika-117 miyembro ng nasabing hukuman. Sa kapareho ring buwan ay ninomina ng Department of Foreign Affairs si Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago bilang isang posibleng maging hukom dahil sa expertise nito sa international law.
Naging isang ICC judge si Santiago kung saan ay nakakuha ito ng 79 na botong mula sa 104 casted votes sa naganap na eleksyon sa New York. Si Santiago ang naging kauna-unahang Pilipina na umupo sa tribunal na lumilitis sa mga kaso ng genocide, war crimes at crimes against humanity. Ayon kay Santiago, ang Pilipinas ang nanguna sa unang round ng botohan.
Pormal na sumulat si Santiago kay ICC President Sang-Hyun Song para iparating na magbibitiw na ito sa puwesto dahil sa iniindang sakit na Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Sa kabila nito, nagpahayag pa rin ng suporta si Santiago sa tratado.
Narito ang link transcript ng sponsorship speech ni Santiago bilang Chair ng Subcommittee on the Rome Statute. (Source: Senate of the Philippines)
Isa rin sa mga tahasang nag-lobby para sa pagratipika ng Pilipinas sa Rome Statute ay si Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque na kilala rin bilang isang human rights lawyer. Ayon kay Roque, ang pagkakabilang ng Pilipinas sa ICC ay isang malaking hakbang upang mabigyan ng hustisya ang mga naging biktima ng pagmamalabis noong mga nakaraang administrasyon.
Narito ang kabuuang pahayag ni Roque matapos maging signatory ang Pilipinas sa ICC:
“After eleven years of lobbying, the Philippine Senate yesterday gave its concurrence to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This will finally pave the way for the country to be the 117th state party to the International Criminal Court. Ironically, Commission on Human Rights chairman Loretta Ann Rosales rightfully observed that 117 is also reflective of the voting pattern yesterday at the Senate: one negative vote and 17 affirmative votes! It was Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile who cast the lone dissenting vote amidst his continuing concern that Philippine troops fighting real live insurgencies may be subject to nuisance suits before the court. This is a concern that is readily addressed by the Rome statute since the court will only exercise jurisdiction on the basis of “complementarity”: only when our domestic courts are unable and unwilling to do so. It was an afternoon of suspense, to say the least. Two days ago, I was at the Senate floor with no less than 100 supporters of the court to witness the much-awaited concurrence. We were disappointed. After the opening rituals, Senate Majority Floor leader Tito Sotto asked the senators to attend a caucus at the senators’ lounge. We thought that the caucus was about the citation for contempt against the LTA accountant who was believed to be lying through her teeth. Little did we know that it was about the ICC! In a last-ditch effort to stall our membership in the court, the Senate President apparently warned the senators about his perceived downside of membership in the court. Out of deference to their leader, the body then agreed to defer voting on the resolution for a day. That was the cliffhanger. At least three senators warned me that it would be difficult to pass a resolution that the Senate President opposed. It was hence a long day of lobbying with seemingly endless telephone calls and text messages to any senator who was willing to listen. In the end, one senator claimed, “concurrence was never threatened at any point”. Apparently, the one-day deferment was simply out of deference to Senator Enrile. The International Criminal Court was created to prosecute individuals who may commit the most serious crimes against the international community. These crimes include genocide, defined as an “intent to destroy in whole or in part, a nationality, ethnic or religious group of people”; war crimes, defined as “targeting protected individuals and resorting to prohibited means and methods of warfare”; crimes against humanity, defined as “widespread or systematic attacks against civilian populations knowing that it is being directed against civilian populations”; and aggression, or the act of waging war.
The court will prosecute individuals without regard to sovereign immunity as a defense, a fact that has enabled the court to issue two warrants of arrests against sitting heads of state: Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and Moammar Gaddhafi of Libya. Furthermore, it prosecutes individuals who are probably guilty of the foregoing crime on the basis of command responsibility. This principle provides that military commanders and sitting presidents may be held responsible for crimes committed by their subordinates where they knew about it and failed to prevent their happening. Furthermore, there is no prescription for these crimes. This explains why very old individuals are still being tried for crimes that they committed as long ago as World War II. The timely Senate ratification will also enable us to nominate a Judge to the court. Apparently, one seat is up for grabs for Asia in this year’s Assembly of State Parties election for Judges scheduled for December of this year. Had the Senate waited any longer, we would miss the deadline for nomination, which is already on September 2 of this year.
Of course we celebrated. Becky Lozada, Executive Director of the Philippine Coalition for the ICC, treated to a feast at a fusion Filipino restaurant at the trendy techno hub. But after the celebration, the reality set in that the task ahead are still challenging, if not daunting.
First, there is the procedure for nominating Judges. The Rome Statute provides that we must comply with the process of selecting Judges for our own Supreme Court, or through the Judicial Bar Council. Alternatively, we should comply with the process required for the nomination of judges for the International Court of Justice. The problem with both is the lack of time given the deadline of September 2.
Then there is the obligation under the Rome Statute to punish crimes cognizable by the ICC under domestic law and to do all acts necessary for a state party to cooperate with the Court. Fortunately, the recently enacted International Humanitariam Law is sufficient basis for our courts to exercise primary jurisdiction for purposes of complementarity. It is only in the area of cooperation that we have to pass further legislation, executive orders and even revisions to our rules of court. This is a challenge since the need now is to lobby all three branches of government to ensure that our domestic laws and procedure are in synch with the Rome statute.
To be candid, I never thought that membership in the ICC was possible, at least before I become geriatric. This is because of the many atrocities under both the Marcos and Arroyo regimes that remain unpunished. Well, it’s always a pleasure to be proven wrong. Here, credit should go to both the Senate and to President Benigno Aquino III. It was the latter who reversed the Arroyo policy of rejecting the ICC as a means of ending impunity. On behalf of all victims of impunity, I express my gratitude to both the Senate and Pnoy for finally granting the Filipino people an effective remedy to impunity.”
Samantala, sinusuportahan naman ni Roque ang desisyon ni Pangulong Duterte na kumalas sa ICC kung saan ay pinuna ang aniya’y malimit na paglabag ng nasabing hukuman sa complementary rule tulad ng ginawa nilang preliminary investigation sa Punong Ehekutibo.
Sa ilalim ng complementary rule, puwede lamang kumilos ang ICC kapag hindi na gumagana ang mga Korte sa isang bansa at wala nang ibang susulingan ang mga gustong magreklamo.
Ang ICC po, hindi po ‘yan ang court of first instance, ‘yan po ay binuo ng mga kasapi ng ICC kasama ang Pilipinas para maging court of last resort. Gagalaw lang po dapat ang ICC kapag ang mga lokal na hukuman ay hindi gumagana. Pahayag ni Roque sa press briefing sa Malacañang
Sa katunayan, dalawang beses na rin nagsalita si Roque sa assembly ng ICC para iparating ang obserbasyon niya sa paglabag nito sa complementary rule.
By Aiza Rendon and Ira Cruz