Septuagenarian Notes: POWER DYNAMICS IN PHL POLITICS

By Ba Ipe

PRO-BBM politicians knew their politics. They were prescient to know and understand that Misfit Sara could be vicious and uncontrollable. They have to rein her if they want to keep her in the ruling coalition. But she is not an asset. She is an underachiever. The best and only political option is to get rid of her.

They know her weakness. They know how to handle her. Actually, she is not difficult to isolate in the coalition. The funny thing is that she does not know the scheming that went without her slightest knowledge. Pinapasok siya sa bitag.

She has fondness for big confidential funds. All through her six years as mayor of Davao City, she enjoyed the biggest amount of confidential fund at her disposal. Davao City had the following confidential fund: P144 million in 2016; P260 million in 2017; P420 million in 2018; and P460 million each in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022.

Surprises of all surprises, Davao City had the biggest confidential fund nationwide during her incumbency as its mayor. At the time of her incumbency, father Rodrigo was the country’s president. She got what she wanted. She never had it so good.

She brought her greed to the national level. Misfit Sara enjoyed a total of P612 million in confidential fund as the incumbent vice president. Of the amount, P500 million went to the OVP and P112 million, Deped, of which she was the secretary for almost two years.

It would have been fine if she has remained part of the ruling coalition. Had she remained in the ruling coalition, nobody would have noticed the misuse of the confidential fund given her. But the political wind has changed and upon scrutiny, the probing lawmakers discovered what is now emerging to be a grand design to maraud public funds.

It is yet to establish the fate of her confidential fund, but the damning pieces of evidence emerging in the congressional investigation is the deplorable possibility that she could have plundered the confidential amount. If the trajectory of the congressional probe goes to its rightful conclusion, she faces an impeachment complaint. Where or when is something Congress will decide.

On a closer look, political elements opposed to Misfit Sara knew her weakness. She has special fondness for confidential fund. They knew what she did to the massive confidential fund given to Davao City during her six years of incumbency.

They gave her the confidential fund for the OVP and Deped without much hassles. They let her dug her own grave, so to speak. She wrongfully believed that what was given as confidential fund was hers alone to decide. She could either spend it or keep it in any way that pleases her..

Misfit Sara never knows fully what has hit her. She has her suspicions but she could not exactly determine the totality of the political tsunami that is now bringing her down. She does not know the scheming hyenas in her midst. The funny thing is that she may or may not have her downfall without knowing her tormentors or nemesis.

Septuagenarian Notes: CHAPTER 3 ROME STATUTE AND ICC

NOTA BENE: The audacity of Rodrigo Duterte and his Davao City criminal syndicate to launch a deadly war on drugs premised on extrajudicial killings stemmed mainly on their collective ignorance that an international criminal justice system has evolved and is continue to evolve.I asserted that n my book, "KILL KILL KILL Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines; Crimes Against Humanity v. Rodrigo Duterte Et Al." Duterte and his cohorts hardly knew that the International Criminal Court (ICC) and that the Philippines was a member of that international tribunal when he was elected. This chapter explains what the ICC is and how it has evolved to be the champion of international justice.

CHAPTER 3

ROME STATUTE AND ICC

 “Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.” - Robert H. Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg Trials of 1945-46                                                                                           

“The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.”- Aesop

SINCE the Nuremberg Trials of 1945, the world has known and understood the necessity for profound changes to prevent the repetition of the two extremely bloody global wars. In his closing arguments at the end of the Nuremberg Trials, Chief Prosecutor Robert H. Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court magistrate, who took a leave of absence in the High Court to prosecute the top Nazi war criminals, described the first half of the last century as unprecedented in destruction in human history. Unless we recover in the second half, human civilization would be doomed, according to Jackson. Waxing an unparalleled combination of eloquence and wisdom, Justice Jackson said:

“The present century will not hold an admirable position, unless its second half is to redeem its first. These two-score years in this Twentieth Century will be recorded in the book of years as one of the most bloody in all annals. Two World Wars have left a legacy of dead, which number more than all the armies engaged in any war that made ancient or medieval history. No half-century ever witnessed slaughter on such a scale, such cruelties and inhumanities, such wholesale deportations of peoples into slavery, such annihilation of minorities. The Terror of Torquemada pales before the Nazi Inquisition. These deeds are the overshadowing historical facts by which generations to come will remember this decade. If we cannot eliminate the causes and prevent the repetition of these barbaric events, it is not an irresponsible prophecy to say that this Twentieth Century may yet succeed in bringing the doom of civilization.”

Robert H. Jackson, the magistrate whom U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt named to represent the U. S. in the postwar prosecution of the Nazi war criminals, worked for the enactment of the London Agreement of 1945, which set up the International Military Tribunal and laid down its charter.1 Jackson succeeded in the prosecution of the initial top-ranked Nazi war criminals in the 1945 Nuremberg Trials, leading to the decision that called for the hanging of a dozen top Nazi war criminals. They included Hermann Goehring, Hitler’s second in command, although he committed suicide before his scheduled execution. In brief, Jackson was among the legal luminaries, who had led in laying down the philosophy and due process in criminal prosecution of the war criminals.2

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. A few years after the Nuremberg Trials, Jackson had a heart attack and subsequently died  after several months of illness, adversely affecting his call for the proposed international criminal justice system.  It was the diminutive but little-known Benjamin Berell Ferencz, who initially picked up the pieces and led in the advocacy to create an international criminal tribunal. Ferencz proposed this court to prosecute and conduct trials for leaders, who commit crimes of aggression, genocide, and crimes against humanity. His consistent campaign for the creation of the world court contributed in a span of five decades to the successful drafting by the International Law Commission (ILC) of the Rome Statute that has given rise to the 2002 creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Ferencz is the son of a pair of poor Hungarian Jewish immigrants, who avoided persecution by the rising Nazi forces in Europe and settled in New York when he was an infant. A number of advocates emerged from the scene and followed Ferencz’s intellectual leadership and advocacy. Ben Ferencz is the gifted centenarian known in history to have successfully prosecuted Nazi war criminals. After finishing his law degree at Harvard University in 1943, Ferencz became a soldier and went to war in the European theater. He was discharged as a sergeant in 1945. He returned to New York after the war but his superiors told him to go back to Germany to work as part of the legal staff of Telford Taylor, a lawyer, who made a name in the first Nuremberg Trials.

At 27, he was named to be the lead prosecutor of what was described “the biggest murder trial in history.” It was his first trial as a lawyer. It involved the notorious Einsatzgruppen, the roving Nazi extermination squads, which were responsible for more than a million deaths of Jews and other “lesser” mortals (homosexuals, Gypsies, persons with disabilities, mentally challenged, among others)  during World War II. Ferencz told his colleagues at the postwar tribunal that the Nazi officers, who led the liquidation squads and functioned as virtual killing machines, had to be put on trial. They agreed on the condition that he served as the chief prosecutor. He succeeded in the sense he was able to get convictions for the leaders of those killing machines. At least four were hanged while most were given jail terms ranging from ten to 20 years.3

His experience at Nuremberg has left lasting impressions on him, prompting him to propose the creation of an international criminal tribunal as his lifetime advocacy. It was not easy because the Cold War between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union prevented its creation for at least fifty years. Ferencz had kept the issue alive amid the bipolar struggle for world domination. The breakup of the former Yugoslavia and the “ethnic cleansing” that took place in the 1990s in the Balkan led to the drafting of the Rome Statute, the multilateral treaty that has created the International Criminal Court. Many seminal ideas that have contributed to its creation came from Ferencz’s fertile mind. Ben Ferencz was one of the advocates, who worked for the ICC’s creation.

‘TOKYO TRIALS.’ Seeking justice from war criminals was not limited in the 1945 Nuremberg Trials. Gen. Douglas McArthur, supreme commander of the Allied forces that defeated Japan, issued a special proclamation on Jan. 19, 1946 to form the International Military Tribunal in the Far East to prosecute and conduct a trial on 28 top leaders of wartime Japan, including current and former prime ministers, foreign ministers, and military commanders. Known as the “Tokyo Trials” or the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, this body convened on April 29, 1946 to conduct trials on the Japanese leaders for crimes against peace, conventional war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It was patterned after the Nuremberg Trials, which prosecuted senior Nazi officials. While the Nuremberg Trials engaged on  top Nazi officials responsible for the European theater of the Second World War, the Tokyo Trials covered the top Japanese officials responsible for the war in the Asia-Pacific theater.

The Tokyo Tribunal conducted a trial that lasted for two and a half years. It had 11 judges, who came from 11 countries which were at war with Japan: Australia, Canada, China, France, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, the former Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. President Sergio Osmena Sr., who replaced Manuel Quezon, who died while in exile  in the U.S. in 1944, sent as the Philippine judge in the military tribunal a prominent prewar lawyer and military officer named Col. Delfin Jaranilla. He was also a former Supreme Court magistrate and solicitor general, who served in the prewar government when the Philippines was a U.S. colony. Jaranilla was also a reserve officer, who was called to duty to defend the Philippines when the war broke out. He fought in Bataan during the early stages of the war and walked in the infamous 1942 “Death March” upon surrender of the combined U.S. and Philippines forces to the Japanese invaders. The Philippines sent Pedro Lopez as one of the prosecutors in the tribunal. Lopez perished with President Ramon Magsaysay in the plane crash in 1957.

‘DEATH MARCH.’ For his part, Jaranilla successfully raised before the tribunal the two main events, where the Japanese forces committed massive atrocities, murder, and other violations of the war laws: the 1942 Bataan Death March and the 1945 Battle of Manila. In the Battle of Manila, the  Japanese forces committed mass violence to civilians in retaliation to the advancing American Liberation forces. The American forces, divided into two army groups: one from the south and another one from the north of Luzon, were to meet in Manila in a pincer movement. But Japanese forces felt desperate due to the impending defeat and committed mass atrocities that killed over 100,000 civilians in the Battle of Manila during the first quarter of 1945. Jaranilla said he lost his home in a fire that gutted a big part of the Manila districts of Ermita, Malate, and Tondo.4

Defense lawyers questioned his presence in the tribunal, saying he would not be a fair judge because of his experience in the Death March. Jaranilla voluntarily excused himself and did not appear and participate during the presentation of evidence related to the Death March. At the end of the trial, Jaranilla submitted a separate concurring opinion, in which, although he agreed with the majority opinion to punish the Japanese war criminals, disagreed with the nature of the punishment, which he described as “too lenient,” when compared to the magnitude of the mass atrocities of the Japanese forces. After his appearance at military tribunal, Jaranilla retired quietly from public service in his home province of Iloilo and died in 1980, aged 97. 

Although the trial took a much longer time than the Nuremberg’s, it had sustained the decisions and lessons that were learned in the Nuremberg Trials. For instance, the Tokyo Trials rejected the arguments raised by the defense counsels that no crimes were committed by the defendants because the alleged crimes imputed against them were non-existent before and during the course of the war. It dismissed their calls to dismiss the cases because the charges had no legal bases to stand. To continue the trials would be unfair, unjust, and impartial, the defense lawyers claimed. Continuing the trials was “victor’s justice,” where the war winners punish the losers.

The military criminal tribunal ended its trial on Dec. 12, 1948, meting out death penalty for seven defendants, including wartime prime minister Hideki Tojo, and imprisonment for 16 others, and acquittal for one defendant, who became mentally unfit to stand trial. Nevertheless, the Tokyo Trials have firmed up the lessons learned in the Nuremberg Trials. It confirmed that the Japanese forces indeed committed many war crimes like massacres, mass starvation, human experimentation, rape, and massive abuses to civilians. These atrocities would not go unnoticed and unpunished under the international law. They were the sad refrain in every war. Japan had issued – and keep on issuing until very recently – numerous apologies for these crimes.5

***

YUGOSLAV WARS

BECAUSE of the Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the clamor for the creation of an international criminal tribunal took a backseat. The Cold War lasted for over 50 years, relegating the proposed world court to discussions mostly in the academic community and intellectual journals. But it did not mean the issue died. On the contrary, its advocates had kept the issue alive. The disintegration of the former republic of Yugoslavia into separate states and the outbreak of the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s were antecedents to stimulate new discussions. The United Nations Security Council, for instance, saw the ultimate necessity to create an international criminal tribunal. This was after Slobodan Milosevic, a key political figure in the old Yugoslavia, was charged with various war offenses in connection with its breakup and the outbreak of the Yugoslav wars.

Milosevic was president of Serbia, a component state of the former Yugoslavia from 1989 until 1992. Milosevic became president too from 1997 until 2000 of Yugoslavia, the synthetic state of six nations - Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and the autonomous states of Vojvodina and Kosovo in Serbia. It was under his rule the Yugoslav wars broke out, leading to its disintegration. Milosevic was a player in Yugoslav politics; in fact, he dominated it. But it was Milosevic, who stirred  Serbian nationalism, which led to the inevitable – “ethnic cleansing” or genocide of the Islamic population in Bosnia and Kosovo to ensure political domination of the Serbian Christian nationalists.

INDICTMENT. In 1999, Milosevic faced indictment before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for allegedly committing 66 counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide for his role in the decade-long strife that led to Yugoslavia’s breakup and more than 100,000 deaths, displacement of millions,and disintegration of the cultural bond that existed for hundreds of years.6 The ICTY was a new world court because it was created as an ad hoc judicial body by the United Nations Security Council to handle Milosevic’s trial. At first, Milosevic resisted, claiming he would not go to trial under ICTY because it was not officially sanctioned by the United Nations. But when he lost in the 2000 elections, his successor surrendered him to the ICTY in 2001. He became a prisoner in the ICTY temporary headquarters at The Hague in the Netherlands.

Slobodan Milosevic was the second head of state, who underwent trial by a world court for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The first was Admiral Karl Doenitz, who became Nazi Germany’s head of state after Adolf Hitler named him as his successor shortly before he committed suicide at the closing days of Second World War. Doenitz led Nazi Germany’s formal surrender to the Allied Forces composed mainly of the U.S., United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland), the former Soviet Union, and France. Although a footnote now in history, Doenitz  was among the two dozen Nazi leaders charged in the first Nuremberg Trials . The International Military Tribunal sentenced him 20 years of imprisonment for his role in the Nazi German Navy’s participation in the war.

Milosevic resisted attempts to put him into trial But on April 1, 2001,  he was arrested despite a reported 36-hour armed standoff between police and his bodyguards at his Belgrade villa. The U.S. was reported to have pressured his successor President Vojislav Kostunica to extradite him to the ICTY to face trial, warning Belgrade it would lose financial aid from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Koštunica opposed Milosevic’s extradition, saying such a move would violate the Yugoslav constitution. But Kostunica’s second in command, Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic ordered Milosevic’s extradition to the ICTY. On 28 June, 2001, a helicopter took Milošević from Belgrade to a US airbase in Tuzla in Bosnia and Herzegovina and from there he was then flown to The Hague.

FINANCIAL AID. His extradition to ICTY triggered political turmoil in the old Yugoslav federation. Koštunica denounced as “illegal and unconstitutional” his extradition, while the Djindjic coalition left the government in protest. Despite the political turbulence, it was reported that a group of donor-nations, mostly Europeans, had pledged $1 billion in financial aid to Yugoslavia and a possible membership for Serbia in the European Union. This was a big comeon for Serbian leaders to surrender Milosevic, whom they felt  did not have any  relevance and use in Serbian politics due to what was widely considered his bloody record.

The trial, which started on February 12, 2001, was a global spectacle. It was widely covered by many news outfits from many countries. In a show of combined bravado and bravura with an air of a braggadocio, Milosevic did not appoint a defense counsel, choosing to defend himself. The trial did not end as expected. It did not reach any decision because Milosevic died of a heart attack while in custody in 2004, ending the trial abruptly. It was a trial that was rich in lessons and they proved to be important to establish a more permanent world court.

***

WORLD COURT FOR TYRANTS

THE global attention on Milosevic’s indictment and trial renewed calls to create a permanent world court for criminal-leaders, who used their powers to oppress people with impunity. World leaders and legal luminaries felt it was time to create a permanent judicial body to stop tyrants from engaging in abuses of their power against their own people. It was an idea that had come of age, they claimed. Hence, the United Nations, through the International Law Commission (ILC), one of its specialized bodies,  came out with the draft of the Rome Statute, a multilateral treaty that has sought the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The Rome Statute was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome on July 17, 1998. The Rome Statute has become enforceable on July 1, 2002 leading to the establishment of the ICC.  The Rome Statute sets the ICC's functions, jurisdiction, structure, and operational details. It establishes four core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Under the Rome Statute, the ICC can only investigate and prosecute the four international crimes in situations where states could not do so themselves, or their domestic legal systems and courts have failed.7

Under international law, states have a responsibility to investigate and appropriately prosecute (or extradite for prosecution) suspected perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other international crimes. The ICC does not shift this responsibility. It is a court of last resort. Under what is known as the “principle of complementarity,” the ICC may only exercise its jurisdiction when a country is either unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate and prosecute these grave crimes. After an investigation has been opened, states and individual defendants can still challenge the lawfulness of cases before the court based on the existence of national proceedings. At least 123 countries have signed the Rome Statute.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Timeline

•           July 17, 1998 - The Rome Statute is adopted by 120 states, informally establishing the permanent ICC. Seven members of the United Nations vote against the statute: the United States, China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen.

•           July 1, 2002 - The Rome Statute enters into force after ratification by 60 countries.

•           October 12, 2016 - Burundi votes to withdraw from the ICC, but is still listed as a party.

•           October 21, 2016 - South Africa announces it is withdrawing from the ICC, saying parts of the Rome statute conflict with the country's own laws which give heads-of-state, particularly ones they're trying to reach peace and stability with, diplomatic immunity. In March 2017, South Africa officially cancels its withdrawal.

•           November 10, 2016 - Gambia notifies the ICC that it is withdrawing, citing bias against Africans. Gambia cancels its withdrawal in February 2017.

•           November 16, 2016 - Russia says it will withdraw its signature from the ICC treaty, under a directive signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

•           October 27, 2017 - Burundi effectively withdraws from the ICC, becoming the first member state to do so.

•           March 14, 2018 - Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte says in a statement that the country has given notice that it will withdraw from the ICC. The announcement follows the ICC's February 8 statement that it has started an inquiry into Duterte's controversial war on drugs. The action goes into effect on March 17, 2019.

Source: CNN International Website8

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 CORE CRIMES. The Rome Statute has identified at least four core crimes that fall under its jurisdiction: genocide, war crimes, war of aggression and crimes against humanity. It defines these crimes on the basis of international precedents, pacts,  and conventions, which codify them. The Rome Statute, for instance, defines genocide as an act with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group by killing or physically harming the members of these groups. It includes act deliberately intended to impoise conditions for their destruction, prevent births within groups, or forcibly transfer the children of these groups to other groups. 

Broadly, a war crime, according to the international law, violates the laws of war, giving rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by the combatants such as intentionally killing and torturing prisoners of war, taking hostages, destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, the conscription of children in the military, granting of no quarter despite surrender, and flouting the legal distinctions of proportionality and military necessity. The Rome Statute provides an expanded definition to include willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, torture or inhumane treatment to prisoners of war, wanton destruction or appropriation of property, forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power, depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial, unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer, taking hostages, and directing attacks against civilians

In many instance, core crimes under Rome Statute overlap in their scope. A war crime could be a genocide as well. The Rome Statute says crimes of aggression involve invasion, occupation, annexation by the use of force, bombardment, and military blockade of ports by one state to ano the territory of another. It punishes the persons who are engaged in the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of such attack by one state to another state. The crimes of aggression was a latecomer in the ICC core crimes. It was only include only in the first Review Conference on the Rome Statute on May 31 - June 11, 2010 in Kampala, Uganda. The conference has defined the crimes of aggression for inclusion within ICC’s jurisdiction.

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. Many existing literature say crimes against humanity are acts committed as wholly or part of a big systematic policy against civilians either in times of war or peace. They differ from war crimes because they are not isolated acts committed by individual soldiers but are acts committed to advance a state or organizational policy. The first prosecution for crimes against humanity took place in  the 1945 Nuremberg trials. Appalled by the official existence of the Holocaust, which showcase the murder of six million Jews, persons with disability, homosexuals, Gypsies, among others.

According to the Rome Statute, criminal acts committed directly against civilians in war or in peace are called crimes against humanity and they usually involve vast infringements of what is now defined as human rights. Basically they are committed to advance state or organizational policy and crimes against humanity include murder, massacres, dehumanization, genocide, ethnic cleansing, deportations, and unethical human experimentation. The Rome Statute includes extrajudicial punishments including summary executions, use of weapons of mass destruction, state terrorism or state sponsoring of terrorism, death squads, kidnappings and forced disappearances, and use of child soldiers,

Moreover, crimes against humanity include unjust imprisonment, enslavement, torture, rape, political repression, racial discrimination, and religious persecution. Other human rights abuses may reach the threshold of crimes against humanity if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.

ICC STRUCTURE. According to its webpage, the ICC is governed by the Assembly of States Parties, which is made up of the states that are party to the Rome Statute. The Assembly elects officials of the Court, approves its budget, and adopts amendments to the Rome Statute. The Court itself, however, is composed of four organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registry.

According to an ICC primer, the President is the most senior judge chosen by his or her peers in the Judicial Division, which hears cases lodged by various parties worldwide before the Court. The President serves as the ICC chief executive. The Office of the Prosecutor is headed by the Prosecutor, who is empowered under the Rome Statute to investigate crimes and initiate criminal proceedings before the Judicial Division. The Registry is headed by the Registrar and is charged with managing all the administrative functions of the ICC, including the headquarters, detention unit, and public defense office. The primer said the ICC employs over 900 personnel from 100 nations and conducts proceedings in English and French.

The ICC has been criticized by several governments and civil society organizations for perceived bias against African states since a number of those public officials indicted came from poor, underdeveloped African nations. It has been criticized for the fairness of its case-selection and trial procedures. They have expressed doubts about its effectiveness.

Existing literature say The Presidency is responsible for the administration of the ICC as a court. It is composed of the President and the First and Second Vice-Presidents,  three judges of the Court who are elected to the Presidency by their fellow judges for a maximum of two three-year terms. Its website says that, as of March 2021, its President is Piotr Hofmański of Poland, who took office on 11 March 2021, replacing Chile Eboe-Osuji of Nigeria. His first term will expire in 2024. Its website says The Presidency oversees the activity of the Registry and organizes the work of the judicial divisions. It also has some responsibilities in the area of external relations like negotiating agreements on behalf of the Court and promoting public awareness and understanding of the institution.

Existing literature says The Judicial Divisions consist of the 18 judges of the Court, organized into three chambers, which are the Pre-Trial Chamber, Trial Chamber and Appeals Chamber. They all implement the judicial functions of the Court. Judges are elected to the ICC by the Assembly of States Parties. They serve nine-year terms and they are not generally eligible for re-election. All judges must be nationals of state parties to the Rome Statute. No two judges may be nationals of the same state.They must be "persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices."

The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) is responsible for conducting investigations and prosecutions. It is headed by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and he is assisted by one or more Deputy Prosecutors. The Rome Statute provides that the Office of the Prosecutor shall act independently; as such, no member of the Office may seek or act on instructions from any external source, such as states, international organisations, non-governmental organisations or individuals.

Under the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor may open an investigation under three circumstances: when a situation is referred to him or her by a state party; when a situation is referred to him or her by the United Nations Security Council, acting to address a threat to international peace and security; or when the Pre-Trial Chamber authorizes him or her to open an investigation on the basis of information received from other sources, such as individuals or non-governmental organizations.

RATIFICATION. The Philippines, through then Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York Enrique Manalo, signed the Rome Statute on December 28, 2000. According to Norberto Gonzales, who served as defense secretary and national security adviser of the Gloria Macapagal Arroyo administration, the Department of Foreign Affairs submitted the Rome Statute to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. In accordance with the constitutional provisions on treaties, pacts, and agreements, the Arroyo Cabinet discussed it thoroughly. The late Justice Secretary was among those who pushed passionately for its approval.

The Arroyo Cabinet intensely debated on the pros and cons of the Rome Statute. The big question was the non-approval of the United States of this treaty. The Arroyo Cabinet voted to approve it, but the political campaign in the 2010 presidential elections stopped its submission for concurrence by the Senate. It was not concurred under the Arroyo administration. It was the administration of Benigno Aquino III that submitted it to the Senate for appropriate action. Aquino submitted it after Rep. Jerry Trenas, chair of the House committee on good government and public accountability, filed House Resolution 638 asking the Executive to submit the Rome Statute for Senate concurrence.9

The Senate approved on third and final reading the resolution concurring in the ratification of the Rome Statute creating the ICC, the world's first permanent tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It garnered on August 23, 2011 at least 17 “yes”votes, one negative vote and no abstention. Although Rodrigo Duterte took the unilateral move for the Philippines to withdraw from the ICC on March 14, 2018 and it became official a year later or on March 17, 2019, it could not be said that it is final and executory. There have been legal views that what Duterte did was his own and did not reflect the entire Philippine government. It has been argued in some legal quarters that his unilateral move needed the ratification of the Philippine Senate so that what it earlier ratified could be finally withdrawn.

The issue has continued to plaque the government of Ferdinand Marcos, who was elected in 2022 to replace Duterte at the end of his term. The Marcos government has not made any statement or stand on the issue presumably to avoid clashing with Duterte, who has stood pat that the Philippines has indeed withdrawn its membership from the ICC. This is an issue that has remained unclear. The ICC has not made any statement but stressed that it is empowered to look into the alleged crimes against humanity committed by the government of Rodrigo Duterte until March 17, 2019.

 

ENDNOTES:

1.         The London Agreement reached on August 8, 1945 set down the rules and procedures by which the Nuremberg trials were to be conducted. It served as a template for the Tokyo Charter issued months later against Japanese war criminals. Section 2, Article 6 said: “The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

2.         The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation" or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing: (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; (c)  CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement,  deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, ·racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.1 Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan

3.         This is a feature article on Ben Ferencz: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-last-surviving-nuremberg-prosecutor-has-one-ultimate-dream/2016/08/31/3b1607e6-6b95-11e6-ba32-5a4bf5aad4fa_story.html

4.         NHK, Japan’s main broadcast network, had a mini-series on the Tokyo Trials. It was shown in 2016. U.S.-based Filipino actor Bert Matias appeared as Col. Delfin Jaranilla in the military tribunal.

5.         It should be noted the defense panels hardly raised the “tu quoque” (you did it too) argument during the course of the trials. Neither did they raise the “we’re just following orders from our superiors” argument. These two arguments were rejected in the Nuremberg Trials. The defense counsels knew they stood to be rejected too.

6.         Armatta, Judith, Twilight of Impunity: The War Crimes Trial of Slobodan Milosevic, Duke University Press, 2010

7.         This is an article written by Sang-Hyun Song, president of the International Criminal Court, and published in the United Nations’ UN Chronicle website (https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/role-international-criminal-court-ending-impunity-and-establishing-rule-law:

“On 24 September 2012, the United Nations General Assembly held a High-level Meeting on the Rule of Law at the National and International Levels during which numerous delegates spoke about the importance of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In the Declaration adopted at the meeting, States recognized ‘the role of the International Criminal Court in a multilateral system that aims to end impunity and establish the rule of law.’ In my remarks to the Assembly on 1 November 2012, I welcomed this statement, which echoed many earlier characterizations of the Court's role.

“The crux of the ICC role lies in enforcing and inducing compliance with specific norms of international law aimed at outlawing and preventing mass violence. Confronted with the extensive perpetration of unspeakable atrocities after the Second World War, the international community articulated an unparalleled call for justice. It sought to put an end to such crimes through, inter alia, the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the four Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles.

“However, in the absence of credible enforcement mechanisms, violations of international humanitarian law continued with glaring impunity. In response, the international community decided to take joint action by creating an interconnected system of international justice to prevent impunity for the worst atrocities known to mankind. On 17 July 1998, this vision materialized when States adopted a multilateral treaty called the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, under the auspices of the United Nations. With the entry into force of the Rome Statute on 1 July 2002, the first permanent international criminal court, the ICC, came into being.

“The ICC contributes to the fight against impunity and the establishment of the rule of law by ensuring that the most severe crimes do not go unpunished and by promoting respect for international law. The core mandate of the ICC is to act as a court of last resort with the capacity to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when national jurisdictions for any reason are unable or unwilling to do so. As of November 2012, the ICC is seized of 14 cases in seven country situations, involving a total of 23 suspects or accused. Three of the investigations in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic resulted from referrals made by the States themselves; two situations in Darfur, Sudan and Libya were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council, and the last two investigations in Kenya and Côte d'Ivoire were initiated by the Prosecutor proprio motu, with the authorization of the Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC. In addition, the Prosecutor is currently conducting preliminary examinations into eight situations.

“The Rome Statute and the ICC have made particular advances in combating impunity in relation to crimes against children and women. The Rome Statute extensively codifies such acts and requires the organs of the ICC to have particular expertise on violence against women and children. In fact, gender crimes were featured in the vast majority of ICC cases to date.

“The ICC's first verdict was issued on 14 March 2012 and the first sentence on 10 July 2012 in the Lubanga case,6 where child soldiers under the age of 15 were conscripted, enlisted and used to actively participate in hostilities in the DRC. Charges relating to the use of child soldiers are also featured in several other ICC cases, and the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict has assessed that "these indictments serve as a useful deterrent against child recruitment in situations of armed conflict".

“As the then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated in 2004, the ICC makes an impact by ‘putting would-be violators on notice that impunity is not assured.’ Where tensions arise, announcing publicly that the ICC is following the situation can be a powerful way to warn any potential perpetrators that they could be held liable for their actions. Moreover, it can draw local as well as international attention to the situation and induce the relevant national and other stakeholders to take necessary action to defuse the crisis. Not long ago, a minister from one of the States Parties to the Rome Statute told me that the possibility of an ICC intervention was a major factor that helped prevent large-scale violence in the context of the country's elections.

“Even where the ICC's intervention is required, it does not necessarily have to lead to trials before the ICC. An ICC investigation may instead prompt the relevant national authorities to investigate the alleged crimes in an expeditious manner and to prosecute the suspected perpetrators in domestic courts.

“The ICC reduces impunity not only by punishing perpetrators, but also by allowing victims to participate in the judicial proceedings and to apply for reparations.9 These are novel, progressive features in international criminal proceedings that empower victims and bring retributive and restorative justice closer together. As of November 2012, the ICC has received more than 12,000 applications for participation in the proceedings, the majority of which have been accepted. Its first decision on reparations for victims was issued on 7 August 2012.

“A related and innovative aspect of the Rome Statute system was the creation of the Trust Fund for Victims, which has the dual mandate of implementing court-ordered reparations as well as providing assistance to victims and their families irrespective of judicial decisions. Currently, over 80,000 beneficiaries receive assistance from the Trust Fund and its local and international partners. In responding to the particular needs of victimized individuals by enabling them to regain their place within their communities and to rebuild sustainable livelihoods, the Trust Fund is becoming an increasingly visible presence on the nexus between justice and development.1

The Rome Statute created not only a court, but also a new international legal system consisting of the ICC as well as the national jurisdictions of each State Party. Within this system, States have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute Rome Statute crimes. In his 2004 report, Mr. Annan noted that "the Court is already having an important impact by [.] serving as a catalyst for enacting national laws against the gravest international crimes".12 Indeed, the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute has repeatedly stressed the importance of national implementation of the Statute and of strengthening the capacity of national jurisdictions and has considered ways to achieve those goals. Recently, discussions on these issues, under the Rome Statute concept of complementarity, have been multiplied in many forums among a wide range of stakeholders, notably the United Nations, interested States and civil society.

“Without the rule of law, impunity reigns. By punishing violations of international legal norms and by promoting adherence to these norms, the ICC and the wider Rome Statute system play an important part in advancing the rule of law, thereby reducing impunity. This role is critical given the nature of the specific norms that the Rome Statute concerns—norms aimed at preventing crimes which "threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world".13 The acts and omissions which fall under its jurisdiction are so heinous, so destructive, that every effort towards their prevention is worthwhile. Accountability is important not only for the sake of the past, but for the future as well. Where impunity is left unaddressed, it provides fertile ground for the recurrence of conflicts and repetition of violence.

“In order to effectively perform its mandate, the ICC needs the support and cooperation of States.14 The international community has, on multiple occasions, declared its determination to end impunity for the gravest crimes, and cooperation with the ICC is a concrete way to give effect to that objective. As the ICC has no police force of its own, it requires States' cooperation for the enforcement of its orders and is entirely reliant upon them for the execution of its arrest warrants. Unfortunately, several suspects subject to ICC arrest warrants have successfully evaded arrest for many years, defying the international community's attempts to establish the rule of law at the international level. Political will to bring these persons to justice is crucial.

“The Rome Statute system has changed the way the world looks at grave crimes under international law. With the arrival of a permanent international court to prosecute such crimes, national jurisdictions have simultaneously been encouraged and empowered to prevent impunity. As of 1 July 2012, the Rome Statute has 121 State Parties that have fully endorsed the new justice paradigm centred on the ICC. An additional 32 States have signed, but not yet ratified the Statute. I wholeheartedly endorse the General Assembly's call upon States not yet party to the Rome Statute to consider joining the ICC.15 The universality of the Rome Statute would not only extend its legal protection to people everywhere, but it would also increase the equality of perpetrators before the law.

“The long-term value of the ICC and the Rome Statute system lies in both the punishment of perpetrators and the prevention of future crimes. There is already evidence that it has made a significant contribution in this regard. As it enters its second decade, the ICC remains firmly committed to bringing an end to impunity and upholding the rule of law, inspired by the common values of humanity that the Court shares with the United Nations.”

8.         https://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/18/world/international-criminal-court-fast-facts/index.html

9.         Rep. Jerry Trenas, chair of the House committee of good government and public accountability, issued a press statement in 2011 re the necessity for Senate concurrence of the Rome Statute.  Read: https://www.congress.gov.ph/press/details.php?pressid=4723

Septuagenarian Notes: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ANTI POLITICAL DYNASTY OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION DOES NOT NEED ENABLING LAW

 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS INTRAMUROS, MANILA

RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE, MATTHEW MARCOS MANOTOC, MARTIN GOMEZ ROMUALDEZ, CYNTHIA AGUILAR VILLAR,

PETER C. CUA, and all similarly situated

candidates.

SPA No.

For: DISQUALIFICATION AS CANDIDATES

X-----

Respondents,

--x

PETITION TO DISQUALIFY AS CANDIDATES

FOR BEING DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES UNDER THE LAW

Petitioners, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Commission, respectfully state that:

PREFACE

Is the spouse, child, parent or sibling (immediate family members) of an incumbent but graduating Mayor or Governor prohibited and DISQUALIFIED from running for the same elective positions to replace and succeed their incumbent relatives?

Are they disqualified under Article X, Section 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, in relation to Article II, Section 26 thereof?

Is the spouse, child, parent or sibling (immediate family members) of an incumbent but graduating Congressman or District Representative prohibited and DISQUALIFIED from running for the same elective position to replace and succeed their incumbent relative?

Are they disqualified under Article VI, Section 7 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, in relation to Article II, Section 26 thereof?

Many of the incumbent Mayors, Governors, and District Representatives and their families have CONTINUOUSLY occupied the same elective posts for more than 15 years, some for more than 20 years.

Are they not CLEARLY AND PLAINLY political dynasties, and therefore already covered by the constitutional prohibition against political dynasties under Article II, Section 26?

Is legislation from Congress still necessary to declare these political families as political dynasties since they are CLEARLY AND PLAINLY political dynasties?

NATURE OF THE PETITION

1. This Petition is filed pursuant to RULE 25, Section 1 of COMELEC

Resolution No. 95231 which provides:

"Section 1. Grounds. Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party, is declared by final decision of a competent court, guilty of, or found by the Commission to be suffering from any disqualification provided by law or the Constitution." (Emphasis Supplied)

1 IN THE MATTER OF THE AMENDMENT TO RULES 23, 24, AND 25 OF THE COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PURPOSES OF THE 13 MAY 2013 NATIONAL, LOCAL AND ARMM ELECTIONS AND SUBSEQUENT ELECTIONS

2. As discussed hereunder, the respondents should be disqualified from seeking the respective elective offices they sought in violation of ARTICLE X (LOCAL GOVERNMENT), SECTION 8, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE II, SECTION 26 OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION.

THE PETITIONERS

3. Under Section 2 of Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 9523 promulgated on 25 September 2012, a verified Petition to Disqualify a Candidate may be filed by any registered voter or any duly registered political party, organization or coalition of political parties.

4. ALL herein Petitioners are natural persons, Filipino citizens, of legal age, and members of the multisectoral coalition ANIM or Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Mamamayan.

5. They are likewise all concerned citizens, taxpayers and registered voters in the country representing the interest of the Filipino People and are filing the present petition that raises an issue of Transcendental Significance or Paramount Importance to the people due to the inaction of the state in prohibiting a clear disregard violation of our Constitution.

6. Petitioner JOSE COLIN M. BAGAFORO is the incumbent Bishop of the Diocese of Kidapawan. He is a registered voter at Barangay Balindog, Kidapawan City.

7. Petitioner GERARDO A. ALMINAZA is the incumbent Bishop of the Diocese of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental. He is a registered voter at Barangay San Julio Subdivision, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental.

8. Petitioner WILFREDO D. FRANCO is a retired Police Major General. He is a registered voter at Barangay Camp 7, Baguio City.

9. Petitioner NOEL O. DELOS REYES is a retired Police Brigadier General. He is a registered voter at Barangay Sun Valley, Paranaque City.

10. Petitioner REYNALDO V. REYES is a retired Major General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. He is a registered voter at Barangay Tambo, Lipa City.

11. Petitioner GUILLERMO G. CUNANAN is a retired Colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. He is a registered voter at Barangay Sun Valley, Paranaque City.

12. Petitioner ROBERTO D. YAP is a resigned Captain of the Philippine Army. He is a registered voter at Barangay Bel Air, Makati City.

13. Petitioner LUISITO DIEZ REDOBLE, is a registered voter at

Barangay Pilar, Las Pinas City.

14. Petitioner ALEXANDER L. LACSON is a registered voter at Barangay White Plains, Quezon City.

15. Petitioners are represented in this petition by ATTY. ALEXANDER L LACSON, with office address at Unit 2303, 23rd Floor, Tycoon Centre, Pearl Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City (Tel Nos. 470.2120; address email alexlacson12@gmail.com), where they may be served with summons, notices, orders and other processes of this Honorable Commission.

and

RESPONDENTS

16. Respondent RODRIGO DUTERTE is running for Mayor of Davao City. His residential address is at No. 458 Taal Road, Centra Park Subd., Talomo Proper, Davao City.

17. Respondent MATTHEW MARCOS MANOTOC is running for Governor in Ilocos Norte. His address is at the Governor's Office, Provincial Capitol, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte.

18. Respondent MARTIN GOMEZ ROMUALDEZ is running for Congressman of First District, Leyte. His address is at Office of the Speaker, House of Representatives, Batasan Compound, Batasan Hills, Quezon City.

19. Respondent CYNTHIA AGUILAR VILLAR is running for District Representative of the lone district of Las Pinas. Her address is at Room 523 & 13, New Wing, 5th Floor, GSIS Building, Financial Center, Diokno Blvd., Pasay City.

20. Respondent PETER C. CUA is running for Governor of the Province of Catanduanes. His residence address is at Barangay San Roque, San Andres, Catanduanes.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

AND CAUSES OF ACTIONS

I: THE CASE OF RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE

21. Rodrigo Roa Duterte has filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Davao City for the 2025 elections. His biological son, Sebastian Duterte, the incumbent Mayor of the City, has filed his own certificate of candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Davao City.

22. The family of Respondent Rodrigo R. Duterte has occupied the position of Mayor of Davao City for a total of 33 years in the last 37 years, and has ruled Davao City CONTINUOUSLY in the last

years since 2001. Please see table below.

MAYOR of DAVAO CITY

YEAR

February 1988 - November 12, 1990

Rodrigo R. Duterte

Dominador B. Zuno (Acting

November 12, 1990 - January

Mayor)

11, 1991

Rodrigo R Duterte

January 11, 1991 - March 1998

Benjamin C. De Guzman (Acting March 19, 1998- May 30, 2001

Mayor)

Rodrigo R. Duterte

Sara Z. Duterte

Rodrigo R. Duterte Sara Z. Duterte

Sebastian Z. Duterte

June 30, 2001 - May 30, 2010

June 30, 2010 - May 30, 2013

June 30, 2013 - May 30, 2016

June 30, 2016-May 30, 2022 June 30, 2022 - Present

LO

23. Respondent RODRIGO and SEBASTIAN DUTERTE are father and son who are running in tandem for Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Davao City.

24. If they both win, there will be concentration of political power in the hands of members of their family. There will monopoly of pollical power in the hands of their family.

25.Is Respondent RODRIGO DUTERTE disqualified from running for Mayor of Davao City, for being a member of a political dynasty, since he is replacing his son for the position, and considering that he and his family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past 23 years since 2001, and for 33 years in the past 37 years?

II: THE CASE OF MATTHEW MARCOS MANOTOC

26. For the 2025 elections, respondent MATTHEW MARCOS MANOTOC has filed his certificate of candidacy for Governor of the province of Ilocos Norte.

27.Respondent Manotoc is the biological son of Senator Maria Imelda Josefa Remedios "Imee" Romualdez Marcos, the biological sister of incumbent President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.

28. The family of Respondent Manotoc has occupied the position of Governor of Ilocos Norte since 1971, and has held it CONTINUOUSLY for the past 26 years, since 1998 when his uncle, President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. was elected Governor. Please Table below.

GOVERNOR of ILOCOS NORTE

YEAR

Elizabeth Marcos Keon

1971-1983

Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr

1983-1986

Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr

1998-2007

Michael Marcos Keon

2007-2010

Maria Imelda Josefa "Imee" R.

2010-2019

Marcos

Matthew Marcos Manotoc

-

2019 Present

29. Is Respondent Matthew Marcos Manotoc disqualified to run for Governor Ilocos Norte, for being a member of a political dynasty, considering that he and his family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past 26 years, since 1998?

III: THE CASE OF MARTIN GOMEZ ROMUALDEZ

30. Respondent MARTIN GOMEZ ROMUALDEZ has filed his certificate of candidacy for District Representative of the First District of Leyte.

31.His father, Benjamin Romualdez was the younger brother of

Imelda Romualdez Marcos.

32. Respondent Romualdez's family has occupied the position of District Representative of the First District of Leyte since 1995, when his aunt Imelda R. Marcos was elected District Representative of the said district. Respondent Martin and his wife have occupied said position CONTINUOUSLY for the past 17 years, since 2007. Please see Table below.

REPRESENTATIVE, FIRST

DISTRICT, LEYTE

Imelda Romualdez Marcos

1995-1998

Alfred S. Romualdez (brother of 1998-2001

YEAR

Imelda)

Ted Failon

Remedios L. Petilla

Martin G. Romualdez

Yedda Marie Romualdez

Martin G. Romualdez

2001-2004

2004-2007

2007-2016

2016-2019

2019-Present

run for

33.Is Respondent Martin Romualdez disqualified to

Congressman or Representative of the First District of Leyte, for being a member of a political dynasty, considering that he and his wife have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past

years, since 2007?

17

IV: THE CASE OF CYNTHIA AGUILAR VILLAR

34. Respondent Cynthia Aguilar Villar has filed her certificate of candidacy for District Representative of the lone district of Las Pinas City, Metro Manila. She is replacing her daughter, Rep Camille A. Villar, who will now run for the Senate to replace her mother, Respondent Senator Cynthia Villar. Rep Camille hopes to join her brother in the Senate, Senator Mark Villar.

35. Respondent Cynthia's family has CONTINUOUSLY occupied the position of District Representative of the lone district of Las Pinas for the past 26 years, since 1998 when her husband Manuel "Manny" B. Villar was first elected Representative. But the family of Respondent Cynthia, the Aguilar family, has ruled Las Pinas since 1964 when her father became Mayor of the City. Her family, the Aguilar family, has ruled Las Pinas continuously for the past 30 years, since 1995.

36. Please see Table below

REPRESENTATIVE, LONE DISTRICT, LAS PINAS

Manuel "Manny" Villar Cynthia Aguilar Villar

Mark Aguilar Villar

Camille Aguilar Villar

YEAR

1998-2001

2001-2016

2016-2019

2019 Present

37.Is Respondent Cynthia disqualified to run for Congresswoman or Representative of the lone District of Las Pinas, for being a member of a political dynasty, since she and her family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past 26 years, since 1998?

IV: THE CASE OF PETER C. CUA

38.Respondent Peter C. Cua is the incumbent Vice-Governor of Catanduanes. His biological brother, Joseph C. Cua, is the incumbent Governor.

39.Respondent Peter has filed his certificate of candidacy for Governor of Catanduanes, to replace his biological brother, Joseph C. Cua, the incumbent Governor, who has reached the maximum three (3) consecutive terms allowed under the Philippine Constitution. Joseph Cua is running for Mayor of Virac, Catanduanes.

40.Joseph Cua served as Governor of Catanduanes from 2007 to

2013, and from 2016 to 2025

41.Is Respondent Peter disqualified to run for Governor of Catanduanes to succeed and replace his brother Joseph, the incumbent Governor who has reached the maximum three (3) consecutive terms allowed under Article X, Section 27 of the Philippine Constitution, for being a member of a political dynasty, since he and his family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past nine (9) years, for a total of 15 years in the last 18 years?

GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION

THE SPOUSE, CHILD, PARENT OR SIBLING OF A GRADUATING GOVERNOR OR MAYOR IS PROHIBITED AND DISQUALIFIED TO RUN FOR THE SAME POSITION TO REPLACE AND

SUCCEED

INCUMBENT BUT GRADUATING GOVERNOR OR MAYOR UNDER ARTICLE X (LOCAL GOVERNMENT), SECTION 8, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE II, SECTION

PHILIPPINE

THE

26

OF

CONSTITUTION

THE

42.It was the clear intention of the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution for the prohibition against political dynasties, as contained in Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, to be included and considered AS ONE OF THE DISQUALIFICATIONS in running for any elective public office.

43. This is clearly shown below, in the clarificatory statement of Constitutional Commissioner Chrisitan Monsod given during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission on the inclusion of the prohibition against political dynasty in Article II Section 26 in the 1987 Constitution:

Mr. Monsod:

xxx

We have in this Constitution qualifications of those who seek public office. We are adding in this section a disqualification to those who may aspire after public office, and, in effect, amending the various provisions in this Constitution which enumerate

the

qualifications and disqualifications of the law.2 (Underscoring Supplied)

44. Article X, Section 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that "The term of office of elective local officials... shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms.

45. It was the clear intention of the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution that when they adopted Article X, Section 8, they clearly wanted to prevent the incumbent but graduating local officials from transferring or passing on the elective local posts they occupy to the members of their family, meaning to their spouse, children, parents or siblings.

46. This is clearly shown below, in the deliberations of the

Constitutional Commission specifically on Article X, Section 7 on Local Governments, which were cited by the Supreme Court in the case of LATASA VS COMELEC3:

As a rule, in a representative democracy, the people should be allowed freely to choose those who will govern them.

2 Page 939. R.C.C. No. 90, Tuesday, September 23, 1986

3

G.R. No. 154829. December 10, 2003

Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution is an exception to this rule, in that it limits the range of choice of the people.

Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. xxx

XXX

The framers of the Constitution, by including this exception, wanted to establish some safeguards against the excessive accumulation of power as a result of consecutive terms. As Commissioner Blas Ople stated during the deliberations:

x x x I think we want to prevent future situations where, as a result of continuous service and frequent re-elections, officials from the President down to the municipal mayor tend to develop a proprietary interest in their positions and to accumulate these powers and perquisites that permit them to stay on indefinitely or to transfer these posts to members of their families in a subsequent election. x x x (Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied)

47. The framers of the Constitution clearly intended to prevent the graduating local officials from transferring or passing on the elective local posts they occupy to the members of their family.

48. In the case of LATASA VS COMELEC cited above, the Supreme Court clearly stated the rationale for the three-term limit for all elective local officials, which is to prevent the monopolization of political power by a person or his/her family.

49. Article X, Section 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the anti-

dynasty provision on elective local officials.

50. The above provision should be read in relation to Article II, Section 26 of the Philippine Constitution which states that "The

State shall

law."

prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by

51. The present practice or norm today where graduating governors or mayors make the members of their family run to replace and succeed them is a clear circumvention of the constitutional provisions in Article X, Section 8 in relation to Article II, Section 26.

52. The clear intention of the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution was to prevent the scenario where public offices are being inherited by members of political families.

53. This is clearly shown in the clarificatory statement of Constitutional Commissioner Jose Nolledo, chairman of the anti- dynasty committee of the Constitutional Commission, given during the deliberations on the anti-dynasty provision of the Constitution, to wit:

MR NOLLEDO. xxx

I am the author of this provision because I take into consideration the political realities in the Philippines, where we have small political kingdoms in different parts of the country. I am talking of family dynasties. For example, we have dynasties in Luzon, in Visayas and in Mindanao.

In our Provisions on the Articles on the Executive and the Legislative, we are allowing reelection. In the Philippines, I think it is known to everyone that a person runs for governor; he becomes a governor for one term; he is allowed two reelections under our concept. Then he runs for reelection; he wins. The third time, he runs for reelection and he wins and he is now prohibited from running again until a lapse of another election period. What does he do? Because he is old already and decrepit, he asks his son to run for governor.

In the meantime, he holds public office while the campaign is going on. He has control; he has already institutionalized himself. His son will inherit the position of governor, in effect, and then this will go to the grandson, et cetera. The others who do not have the political advantage in the sense that they have no control of government facilities will be denied the right to run for public office. Younger ones, perhaps more intelligent ones, the poorer ones, can no longer climb the political ladder because of political dynasty.

It seems to be that public office becomes inherited. Our government becomes monarchial in character and no longer constitutional. xxx4 (Underscoring Supplied)

54. The framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly intended for the members of the family of the graduating incumbent local officials like Governor and Mayor to be prohibited and disqualified from inhering the elective posts from the incumbent.

55. Hence, the spouse, child, parent or sibling of a graduating Governor or Mayor is PROHIBITED AND DISQUALIFIED to run for the same position to replace and succeed the incumbent but graduating Governor or Mayor under Article X (Local Government), Section 8, in relation to Article II, Section 26 of the Philippine Constitution.

APPLICATION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS

56. Respondent RODRIGO DUTERTE is disqualified from running for Mayor of Davao City, for being a member of a political dynasty, since he is replacing his son, Sebastian Duterte who is the incumbent Mayor, and considering that he and his family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past 23 years since 2001, and for 33 years in the past 37 years.

4 Page 731. R.C.C. No 85. Wednesday, September 17, 1986

57. Respondent Matthew Marcos Manotoc is disqualified to run for Governor Ilocos Norte, for being a member of a political dynasty, since he inherited the position from his mother, Senator Imee Marcos, and considering that he and his family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past 26 years,

since 1998.

58. Respondent Peter Cua, who is the incumbent Vice-Governor of Catanduanes, is disqualified to run for Governor of Catanduanes to succeed and replace his brother Joseph, the incumbent Governor who has reached the maximum three (3) consecutive terms allowed under Article X, Section 27 of the Philippine Constitution, for being a member of a political dynasty, since he and his family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past nine (9) years, for a total of 15 years in the last 18 years.

II

THE SPOUSE, CHILD, PARENT OR SIBLING OF A GRADUATING CONGRESSMAN OR DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE IS PROHIBITED AND DISQUALIFIED TO RUN FOR THE SAME POSITION TO REPLACE AND SUCCEED THE

INCUMBENT

GRADUATING

BUT

CONGRESSMAN

OR

DISTRICT.

REPRESENTATIVE UNDER

ARTICLE

VI

SECOND PARAGRAPH IN

RELATION TO

(LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT), SECTION 7,

ARTICLE II, SECTION 26 OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

59. May a Congressman or District Representative, who is graduating or finishing his/her third term in office, be replaced or succeeded by a member of his immediate family, specifically by his spouse, child, parent, or sibling?

60. All the arguments, pleadings, and explanations stated above, are hereby repleaded in this section as far they are applicable herein.

61. Under Article VI, Section 7, second paragraph of the Philippine

Constitution, it is provided that "No member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms..."

62. The clear prohibition on political dynasty against elective local

officials also applies to the members of Philippine Congress.

63. This is clearly shown below, in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission specifically on Article X, Section 7 on Local Governments, which were cited by the Supreme Court in the case of LATASA VS COMELEC5:

Blas Ople:

X X X

I think we want to prevent future situations where, as a result of continuous service and frequent re-elections, officials from the President down to the municipal mayor tend to develop a proprietary interest in their positions and to accumulate these powers and perquisites that permit them to stay on

indefinitely or to transfer these posts to members of their families in a subsequent

election. x x x (Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied)

64. The framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly intended to prevent all graduating elective officials, including District Representatives, from transferring or passing on the elective posts they occupy to the members of their immediate family.

65. The framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly intended for the members of the family of the graduating incumbent elective officials like Congressmen or District Representatives to be prohibited and disqualified from inhering the elective posts from the incumbent.

66. Hence, the spouse, child, parent or sibling of a graduating Congressman or District Representative is PROHIBITED AND DISQUALIFIED to run for the same position to replace and succeed the incumbent but graduating Congressman or District

5 G.R. No. 154829. December 10, 2003

Representative under Article VI (Legislative Department), Section 7, in relation to Article II, Section 26 of the Philippine Constitution.

APPLICATION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS

67. Respondent Martin G. Romualdez is disqualified to run for Congressman or Representative of the First District of Leyte, for being a member of a political dynasty, considering that he and his wife have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past 17 years, since 2007.

68. Respondent Cynthia A. Villar is disqualified to run for Congresswoman or Representative of the lone District of Las Pinas, for being a member of a political dynasty, since she is Villar as merely replacing her daughter Rep Camille Congresswoman, and considering that she and her family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past 26 years,

since 1998.

III

ARTICLE II, SECTION 26 OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION IS SELF- EXECUTING AGANST MEMBERS OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF THE INCUMBERNTS. THIS WAS THE CLEAR INTENTION OF THE FRAMERS OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

69. Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that "The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law".

70. The above Constitutional prohibition is self-executing against the members of immediate family of the incumbent elective official.

71. This was the clear intention of the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. They added the phrase "as maybe defined by law"

only to give Congress the power to widen or expand its application.

72. The term "political dynasty", as used in Article II Section 26, already includes the members of the immediate family of the incumbent elective officials.

73.This is clearly shown in the deliberations of the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution on the anti-dynasty provision, as shown below:

XXX

of

MR. SUAREZ: Just a point of clarification from the distinguished proponent. May I just clear it up with Honorable Davide. There might be some points inconsistency here because in the first sentence we are saying that the State should give equal access to opportunities in order that the people can render public service, but the last portion would prohibit in the manner prescribed by law. Would this not be a limitation of that equal access to opportunities?

MR. DAVIDE. No, Mr. Presiding Officer. On the contrary the idea of eliminating political dynasties is really to see to it that there will be greater opportunities to public service. We have to consider the common good or the greater number of people who will be benefited. When

When we prohibit political dynasties, it is to open up the opportunities to more and more people, otherwise it would be a monopoly only of a very few.

MR. SUAREZ. In other words, what we are saying is we are prohibiting the incumbents AND THEIR RELATIVES from aspiring for that same position so that everybody will

have equal access to or opportunity for this position.

—

MR. DAVIDE. That is my perception, Mr. Presiding Officer not only relatives aspiring for the same office. Probably, the law

the

may provide that during incumbency of an elective official, relatives may not be allowed to run for a position within the same political unit or to be appointed to any position within the same political unit. I say the same political unit because necessarily we cannot prevent, for instance, a son whose father is the governor of Metro Manila to run in Davao." (Emphasis Supplied)

XXX

74. This is also shown clearly in the clarificatory statement of Constitutional Commissioner Jose Nolledo, the principal sponsor of the anti-political dynasty provision in the Constitution, to wit:

X X X X X That seems to me to be the meaning of political dynasty, although Congress may still widen the meaning of the term. In the case of the governor, Mr. Presiding Officer, if he has ran for two re- elections and he decides that a close relative run for election for the same position, the governor, who is now incumbent, must have built fortunes and even private armies to assure the perpetuation through the election of the close relatives. His built-in advantages over his opponents will not widen political participation in an election..." (BERNAS, The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers, 1995, pp. 141- 150)

6 Page 955. R.C.C. No. 90, Tuesday, September 23, 1986

75.It must be stressed that the provision in Article II, Section 26 uses

the word "SHALL".

a. Meaning, the State already prohibits political dynasties. Put another way, there's already a Constitutional Prohibition against political dynasties.

b. There is no need for a legislation from Congress to prohibit

political dynasties as there is already a Constitutional Prohibition against political dynasties.

76. Equally important, the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution already made a clear definition of what a political dynasty is.

77. This is clearly shown in the deliberations of the members of the

Constitutional Commission, to wit:

XXX

MR. SUAREZ. In other words, what we are saying is we are prohibiting the incumbents AND THEIR RELATIVES from aspiring for that same position so that everybody will have equal access to or opportunity for this position.

MR. DAVIDE. That is my perception, Mr. Presiding Officer not only relatives aspiring for the same office. Probably, the law may provide that during the incumbency of an elective official, relatives may not be allowed to run for a position within the same political unit or to be appointed to any position within the same political unit. I say the same political unit because necessarily we cannot prevent, for instance, a son whose father is the governor of Metro Manila to run in Davao.7 (Emphasis Supplied)

7 Page 955. R.C.C. No. 90, Tuesday, September 23, 1986

XXX

78. Constitutional Commissioner Jose Nolledo, the principal sponsor of the anti-political dynasty provision in the Constitution, made it very clear to the members of the Constitutional Commission as to what he meant by political dynasties. He said:

.

.

•

-

S011

"JOSE NOLLEDO: And with this provision, Mr. Presiding Officer, we do away with political monopoly as now appearing in many parts of our country, Mr. Presiding Officer, we seem to approve of the practice that public office is inherited (This) is designed to avoid circumvention of the provision limiting reelection of public officers to give a chance to others in running for public office... In the case of local government officials like governors, for example, we allow them to have two reelections. If he is reelected twice, he can no longer run for reelection in which case, he will ask his close relative-a son, or a daughter or a brother or a sister to run for public office under his patronage. And in this case, we circumvent the rule against further reelection because it may also happen that his younger may run for governor and he is still strong enough to exercise moral as well as effective influence upon the son. And the son becomes a subaltern, subjecting himself to the will of the father who has apparently retired. x x x x x That seems to me to be the meaning of political dynasty, although Congress may still widen the meaning of the term. In the case of the governor, Mr. Presiding Officer, if he has ran for two re-elections and he decides that a close relative run for election for the same position, the governor, who is now incumbent, must have built fortunes and even private armies to assure the perpetuation through the election of the close relatives. His built-in advantages over his opponents will not widen an election..." political participation in

8

(BERNAS, The Intent of the 1986

Constitution Writers, 1995, pp. 141-150)

79. The clause "as may be defined by law" was not intended to nullify or frustrate the immediate implementation of the constitutional prohibition against clear and obvious cases of political dynasties.

80. Thus, it was the clear intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution that Article II, Section 26 will be a self-executing provision against the members of immediate family of the incumbent elective officials, or against clear and plain political dynasties.

81. In the case of Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS, the Supreme Court

declared that:

"In self-executing constitutional provisions, the legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the exercise of powers directly granted by the constitution, further the operation of such a provision, prescribe a practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a convenient remedy for the 01 the protection of the rights secured determination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the exercise of the right. The mere fact that legislation may supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for the violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does not render such a provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation. The omission from a constitution of any express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be self-executing. The rule is that a self- executing provision of the constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, further the exercise of constitutional right and make it more available. Subsequent legislation however does not

G.R. No. 122156

necessarily 111ean that the subject

constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully enforceable. (Emphasis Supplied)

82. Evidently, the Constitutional prohibition against the immediate family members of incumbent graduating elective official does not need further legislation from Congress for them to be prohibited and disqualified from running for the same positions.

IV

COMELEC HAS THE POWER TO IMPLEMENT THE "SELF-EXECUTING" CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS

INCUMBENTS

OFFICIALS

OF

83. The Supreme Court en banc has reiterated the long-standing rule that the presumption is that all provisions of the Constitution are self-executing, and in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non-self-executing.

84. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court en banc in Manila

Prince Hotel vs. GSIS (G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997).

85. Ten (10) years later, in 2007, the Supreme Court en banc reiterated the same ruling in the case of Tondo Medical Center Employees Association v. CA (GR No 167324; July 17, 2007), where the Supreme Court ruled that "as a general rule, the provisions of the Constitution are considered self-executing, and do not require future legislation for their enforcement. For if they are not treated as self-executing, the mandate of the fundamental law can be easily nullified by the inaction of Congress."

86.In Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, the Supreme Court en banc

ruled as follows:

"As against constitutions of the past, modern constitutions have been generally drafted upon a different principle and

22

have often become in effect extensive codes of laws intended to operate directly upon the people in a manner similar to that of statutory enactments, and the function of constitutional conventions has evolved into one more like that of a legislative body. Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption ποτο is that all provisions of the constitution are self- executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of self- executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law. This can be cataclysmic. That is why the prevailing view is, as it has always been, that x x x in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non- self-executing.

(Emphasis and

underscoring supplied)

87.In the same Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, the Supreme Court en

banc also issued the following ruling:

-

"The executive department has a constitutional duty to implement laws, including the Constitution, even before Congress acts provided that there are discoverable legal standards for executive action. When the executive acts, it must be guided by its own understanding of the constitutional command and of applicable laws. The responsibility for reading and understanding the Constitution and the laws is not the sole prerogative of Congress. If it were, the executive would have to ask Congress, or perhaps the Court, for an interpretation every time the executive is confronted by a constitutional command. That is not how

23

constitutional government operates." (Emphasis supplied)

88. The Supreme Court ruling above reminds the Executive Department, including the Commission on Election (COMELEC) of the following:

c. That it has the constitutional duty to implement the

Constitution;

d. That it can do so even before Congress acts, provided that there are "discoverable legal standards" for executive action e. That it must be guided by its own understanding of the

constitutional command and of applicable laws

89. The COMELEC can use the following "discoverable legal standards" in prohibiting and disqualifying the immediate members of the family of incumbent elective officials, specifically the District Representatives, Governors and Mayors, from running for the same elective positions to replace or succeed their incumbent relatives;

f. The true and clear intent of the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as found in the records of their deliberations;

g. The Supreme Court, en banc, rulings in the cases of Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS; Tondo Medical Center Employees Association v. CA; and Latasa vs Comelec, as cited above.

90. Under the Philippine Constitution, specifically in Article IX (C), Section 2 thereof, the COMELEC has the power, among others, to "Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election xxx"

91. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,

integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act patriotism and justice xxx.?

with

92. Under such provisions, COMELEC has a clear mandate and authority to implement constitutional provisions, including the

9 Article XI Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution

24

clear intention of the Constitution on the prohibition of political dynasties. COMELEC can use its powers to disqualify candidates who violate the principle of equal access to public service by virtue of their family ties and ensuring that the elections are fair and free from undue influence by political dynasties.

93. Thus, the COMELEC has the power to disqualify the immediate family members of incumbent Mayors, Governors and District Representatives from running for the same elective positions to replace or succeed their incumbent relatives.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners respectfully pray for the following:

A) That they granted the privilege to present and argue their petition and arguments orally before the Commission En Banc;

B) That after due deliberations, the following respondents be declared as disqualified to run for the positions they indicated in their respective Certificates of Candidacy:

1. Respondent RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, for Mayor of Davao City; 2. Respondent MATTHEW MARCOS MANOTOC, for Governor

of Ilocos Norte;

3. Respondent MARTIN G. ROMUALDEZ, for Representative,

First District, Leyte;

4. Respondent CYNTHIA A. VILLAR, for Representative, Las

Pinas;

5. Respondent PETER C. CUA, for Goverrnor of Catanduanes.

Similar disqualification should be made against all other candidates who are similarly situated.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Pasig City for Manila, 15 October 2024.

25

By:

ALEXANDER L.LACSON

Lawyer's Roll Nd. 40795

IBP Lifetime No. 011103/29 June 2012, QC

PTR No. AA 1651187, 01/04/24

CTC No. 10968832; 01-04-2024; Pasig City

MCLE Compliance No. VII-0029673

(Valid until April 14, 2025) Admitted to the Bar in 1996 Email: alexlacson12@gmail.com Office Address:

2303 23rd Floor, Tycoon Centre, Pearl Drive, Ortigas, Pasig City Tel. No. 8470-1887/8470-2120

26

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF

Quezon City

)

VERIFICATION &

CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Alexander L. Lacson of legal age, Filipino citizen, with postal address Unit 2303 23rd Floor, Tycoon Building, Pearl Drive, Ortigas, Pasig City, after being duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am a Petitioner in this Petition.

2. I represent all other petitioners in this Petition

3. We have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition.

4. We have read and understood the contents of the Petition and attest the factual allegations therein are true and correct based on our personal knowledge, as well as on available authentic records.

5. We have not filed any other case with the same facts and issues before any tribunal or quasi-judicial body in the Philippines.

6. We are executing this sworn statement in compliance with Rule 7, Section 3 (b) and (c) of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

at

ALEXANDER LLACSON

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this

OCT 1 5 2024

Quezon City affiant exhibiting to me his Driver's License No. N02-93-225542 valid until 2032/01/05 issued at LTO with Agency Code

N34.

Doc. No.

Page No.

234; 48

Book No.

t

Series of 2024.

ATTY. GERALD CESAR G. CHAVEZ

NOTARY PUBLIC FOR QUEZON CITY

ADM MATTER NO. NP-331 (2024-2025)

Until December 31, 2025

19 Marcos St. Doña Faustina Subdivision, Brgy. San Bartolome, Novaliches, Quezon City ATTORNEY'S ROLL No: 92012

PTR NO: 1703742; 01-08, 2024 Pasig City, 01-08-2024; PPLM

27

COPY FURNISHED TO: (BY REGISTERED MAIL)

MR. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE Address: 458 Taal Road, Centra Park Subd., Talomo Proper, 8000 Davao City

GOV. MATTHEW MARCOS

MANOTOC

Governor's Office, Provincial Capitol, Laoag City, 2900 Ilocos Norte

SPEAKER MARTIN GOMEZ

ROMUALDEZ

Office of the Speaker, House of Representatives,

Registry Receipt No.:

RM 983 639 6603 ZZ Post Office:

Ortigas Center pasig city Date: 10-17-2024

Registry Receipt No.:

RM 983 639 677

Post Office:

ZZ

Ortigas Center, Pasig City Date: 10-17-2024

Registry Receipt No.:

RM 983 639 685 ZZ Post Office:

Ortigas Center Pasig City

Batasan Compound, Batasan Hills, 1126 Date: Ju-17-2024

Quezon City

SEN. CYNTHIA AGUILAR VILLAR Room 523 & 13, New Wing, 5th Floor, GSIS Building,

Financial Center, Diokno Blvd., 1300 Pasay City

VICE-GOV PETER C. CUA

Registry Receipt No.:

RM 983 639 694 ZZ Post Office:

Ortigas Center pasig city Date: 10-17-2024

Registry Receipt No.:

Barangay San Roque, San Andres, 4810 RM 983 639 703

ZZ

Catanduanes

Post Office:

Ortigas Center pasig city

Date: 10-17-2024/

28

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

Quezon City

) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF EXPLANATION

I, Alexander L. Lacson, of legal age, Filipino citizen, with postal address Unit 2303 23rd Floor, Tycoon Building, Pearl Drive, Ortigas, Pasig City, after being duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:

7. I am a Petitioner in this Petition for Disqualification.

8. That copies of the Petition for Disqualification will be served upon respondent parties by registered mail because of the distance involved and the circumstances of the currently held elective positions of some respondents.

ALEXANDER L. LACSON Affiant

at

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this

OCT 1 5 2024 Quezon City affiant exhibiting to me his Driver's License No. N02-93-225542 valid until 2032/01/05 issued at LTO with Agency Code

N34.

Doc. No. 235

Page No.

43

Book No.

I

Series of 2024.

Otel

ATTY. GERALD CESAR G. CHAVEZ

NOTARY PUBLIC FOR QUEZON CITY ADM MATTER NO. NP-331 (2024-2025) Until December 31, 2025

19 Marcos St. Doña Faustina Subdivision, Brgy. San Bartolome, Novaliches, Quezon City

ATTORNEY'S ROLL No: 92012

PTR NO: 1703742; 01-08, 2024 Pasig City, 01-08-2024; PPLM

29

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

Pasig City

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTRY MAIL

(EXPLANATION WHY SERVICE WAS NOT MADE PERSONALLY)

I, GEREM M. TAGUFA, Filipino, of legal age, with office address at Unit 2303 23rd Floor, Tycoon Building, Pearl Drive, Ortigas, Pasig City, after being duly sworn to, hereby depose and state:

1) I work as Liaison Officer of Atty Alexander Lacson.

2) I was tasked to furnish a copy of the Petition for Disqualification vs. Rodrigo Duterte, et. Al to all the named respondents by registry mail, considering the distance of the addresses of the respondents from our law office in Ortigas, Pasig City. This pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.

3) In compliance therewith, I have furnished a copy of the said Petition for Disqualification to each of all the herein respondents. As proof thereof, I hereby attach the Registry Receipts as follows:

MR. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE

Address: 458 Taal Road, Centra Park

Subd., Talomo Proper, 8000 Davao City

Registry Receipt No.: RM 983 639 663 ZZ

Post Office:

Ortigas

Center Pasig City

Date: 10-17-2024

Registry Receipt No.:

GOV. MATTHEW MARCOS

MANOTOC

Governor's Office, Provincial Capitol, Laoag City, 2900 Ilocos Norte

SPEAKER MARTIN GOMEZ

ROMUALDEZ

Office of the Speaker, House of Representatives,

Batasan Compound, Batasan Hills, 1126 Quezon City

RM 983

Post Office:

639 677 ZZ

Ortigas Center Pasig City 10-17-2024

Date:

Registry Receipt No.: RM 183 639 GK ZZ

Post Office:

Ortigas

Date:

Center Pasig City рау сом

10-17-2024

SEN. CYNTHIA AGUILAR

VILLAR

Registry Receipt No.: RM 983 639 694 ZZ

Room 523 & 13, New Wing, 5th Floor, Post Office:

GSIS Building,

Ortigas

Financial Center, Diokno Blvd., 1300

Date:

Pasay City

Pasig City

Centar

10-17-2024

VICE-GOV PETER C. CUA

Barangay San Roque, San Andres,

4810 Catanduanes

Registry Receipt No.: RM 983 639 703 ZZ

Post Office:

Ortigas

Centar Pasig aty

Date: 10-17-2024

4) I execute this Affidavit of Service to set forth the truth of the

foregoing matters and for any other lawful matter this may serve.

GEREM M. TAGUFA Affiant

OCT 17, 2024

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

in

Pasig City

affiant exhibiting to me his Driver's License

No. N25-09-011612 valid until 2032/12/05

Doc. No. 376

Page No.

Book No.

Series of 2024

ATTY. JOMAR M. HIZOLA

CHOTARY PUBLIC

Cities of Pasig, San Juan and Pateros, Metro Manila 21k Strata 100 Blddg., Don F. Ortigas St., Pasig City Appointment No. 150; Until Dec. 31, 2024 SC. Roll No. 81022/05-21-2022 IBP No. 423716/01/16/2024; IBP Manila 1 PTR No. 1716816/01/16/2024; Pasig City MCLE No. VIII-0006903 02/20/2024-04/14/2028