Friday, January 27, 2023

KILL, KILL, KILL Extrajudicial Killings Under Duterte Government; Crimes Against Humanity vs. Duterte et. al at ICC.

AUTHOR'S Notes: Let's give credit to whom it is due. It was Antonio Trillanes, who initiated the charges of crimes against humanity against Rodrigo Duterte and his co-conspirators. His colleagues in the Senate derided him for his efforts. But without him taking the lead, Duterte would have remained free as a bird despite his crimes against the Filipino people.


CHAPTER 3 

HOW IT STARTED

“Let no one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.” – John Stuart Mill

“Tyrants are never safe.” - Sir Martin Shee


THE intensified war against illegal drugs did not sit well with the political opposition. Although its ranks were decimated by mass defections of its leaders and followers to the ruling coalition, which Rodrigo Duterte had formed upon winning the elections, its remaining members were concerned that his war on drugs was getting out of hand.1 Duterte’s order  to clean the nation of illegal drugs was in line with his campaign promise to finish the drug issue in “three to six months,” PNP officials and personnel felt they had the “license to kill” and “neutralize” suspects even without legal basis. They went on killing sprees, murdering suspects as they pleased, and bypassing the legal processes, which they likened to obstacles to reach their goal of a “drug free Philippines.” Even the innocents were killed without provocation. This caused uproar not only from the political opposition but the human rights community, particularly the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and several local human rights groups. The international community was concerned with the sudden change of atmosphere in the Philippines.2

As mass violence intensified the ballyhooed war on drugs, a member of the European Union Parliament quietly arrived in Manila in the early morning of one balmy day in September, 2016 to get a complete picture of the war on drugs. Unbeknown to the Duterte government, the European parliamentarian was part of a group of European lawmakers, whom their Parliament assigned to validate reports of mass murder in the Philippines.3 The European parliamentarian broke protocol to get in touch with the democratic opposition and other stakeholders, including the Legal Left, which was in a moral dilemma on its informal alliance with the Duterte government at that time.4 The European lawmaker had a one-on-one talk with Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV,  who was in the last half of his second six–year term of office. The two lawmakers met in a quiet hotel and had vigorous exchanges of views that centered on reports of human rights violations under the infamous Project Double Barrel. It was not known if the European lawmaker met any other member of the democratic opposition. It could be surmised that the meeting took place because Trillanes was one of the most vocal opposition leaders against the bloody war on drugs during those days.

The dialogue was straightforward, as the two lawmakers sat for at least two hours of intense conversation. At the outset, the European parliamentarian expressed grave concern over the reported mass violence, where thousands of people allegedly involved in drug use and trafficking were murdered with impunity. Trillanes was not surprised with the European lawmaker’s concern. In his seven and a half year of incarceration as one of the leaders of the failed 2004 Oakwood mutiny, Trillanes knew from his extensive readings while in jail that Europe suffered the brunt of the two destructive world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Trillanes knew the emergence of the madman in Adolf Hitler, who almost conquered the whole of Europe. The European parliamentarian had nothing but empathy for the Filipino people, who elected Duterte as president. Trillanes said the summary executions had violated the constitutional precepts on equal protection of the law and presumption of innocence. There was no due process of law, he noted. There was no rule of law, he added.5

DECENT PROPOSAL. The European lawmaker was not content to listen to Trillanes’s narrative of the local condition from the lens of the democratic opposition. It could be presumed that he did not travel thousands of miles and spent time, resources, and efforts to listen to the gripes of the democratic opposition. He slowly but surely unveiled his purpose and adroitly navigated the intricate web of diplomatic talks. The parliamentarian, whom Trillanes did not identify because he promised him protection, gave the decent proposal that would lead him to start the immediate filing of crimes against humanity against Duterte before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Reconstructing from Trillanes’s memory, their conversation proceeded this way:6

EUROPEAN UNION PARLIAMENTARIAN: You should not feel helpless with what your president has been doing to your people. I am not bound here by diplomatic niceties, but I propose that you take immediate actions.

ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV: I understand, Your Honor. But how shall we proceed? May I have the pleasure of hearing any suggestion?

EU PARLIAMENTARIAN: I suggest that you go to the International Criminal Court since the local justice system, as you have said, could not function anymore. Go and file charges of crimes against humanity against Duterte and his people engaged in that war against the Filipino people.

ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV: I must confess that I am not familiar with the ICC’s operations. But this is a proposal worth exploring, Your Honor.

EU PARLIAMENTARIAN: Study the ICC and its operations. But you have to start immediately because the process takes long. The charges against Duterte may or may not prosper, Your Honor. But you have big chances that it would prosper. It is worth trying to stop Duterte from his track.

***

THE INTERNATIONAL OPTION

HIS fateful meeting with the unidentified European parliamentarian solidified his view that not much could be expected from the domestic criminal justice system and that he had to take the bull by its horns by resorting to the international criminal justice system to settle the raging issue of mass violence in Duterte’s war on drugs. He knew Duterte, although a lawyer, was pursuing an illegal drug war that had no respect for the rule of law and due process. Being a former soldier and not a lawyer, Trillanes confessed his disadvantage because he had to vet the proposal. He asked the Magdalo Party List and his legislative staff to conduct complete staff work and determine the possible filing of charges against Duterte before the ICC. The anti-drug war, the centerpiece program of the Duterte government, had to be stopped on its bloody and deadly track. There was no turning back.

In over a month of complete staff work that sapped the energy of his Magdalo colleagues and legislative staff, the results came out positive and conclusive. It was possible to file crimes against humanity against Duterte and his cohorts before the ICC. There was a basis to make him responsible for those killings. The democratic opposition could bring it before the world body. But when he consulted his colleagues in the Senate on the possibility of joining forces in the first ever complaint against Duterte before the ICC, he was disappointed with their reactions. They were reluctant to join him. They were hesitant to go against the flow, warning they did not want to get involved because Duterte, whom they already thought was a gangster and madman during those days, could and would retaliate. They were fearful of reprisals. Fear was clearly etched in their hearts.

At that time, Leila de Lima was being persecuted. They were afraid to follow de Lima’s fate. When he floated to the mass media the idea of going to the ICC and filing charges of crimes against humanity against Duterte, Trillanes did not get the support of his colleagues. Then Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, a mediocre lawmaker (a poor version of his fearless father lawmaker Aquilino Jr.), who is not known for any legislation of substantial consequence, described as “nonsense” the crimes against humanity charges against Duterte and his minions without knowing and understanding the nature of those charges. Some mocked him, believing it would not take off and, ergo, was bound to fail. Sen. Panfilio Lacson said the charges were destined to the “dustbin of history.” The puerile Sen. J. V. Ejercito dramatized the impossibility and uselessness of his planned charges by describing it as “suntok sa buwan” (punch on the moon). Even Ma. Leonora Robredo, Duterte’s vice president and admittedly a leader of the democratic opposition, did not take any effort to support him. In short, nobody wanted to join him. It was a lonely battle because he knew he would be alone to go against Duterte. But he did not lose hope. The next events seemed to conspire to push him to file the crimes against humanity against Duterte and company before the ICC.9  

On September 15, 2016, or a few days after Trillanes met the European lawmaker, the European Union, through its Parliament, came out with a stinging resolution on its deep concern on the excessively high number of people killed in anti-drug operations. The European Parliament urged the Duterte government “to condemn the actions of vigilante groups and to investigate their responsibility for the killings” and conduct “an immediate, thorough, effective and impartial investigation in order to identify all those responsible, to bring them before a competent and impartial civil tribunal and to apply the penal sanctions provided for by the law.” The European Parliament’s resolution contained important information and inputs that would define the bilateral relations between the region-state and the Philippines, which was then viewed as veering toward a new episode of authoritarianism.

The European Parliament acknowledged as a “national and international concern” the illegal drug trade in the Philippines, even as it cited the official report that 20% of the barangays  in the country reported drug-related crimes and that “the Philippines is considered to have the highest usage rate of methamphetamines in East Asia.” Furthermore, it cited as indication of Duterte’s state policy to murder drug suspects the part of the resolution that “President Duterte repeatedly urged law enforcement agencies and the public to kill suspected drug traffickers who did not surrender, as well as drug users.” Duterte reacted violently to the resolution. He slammed the European Parliament for what he considered an “intervention into internal affairs” of the Philippines. Henceforth, their bilateral relations have been strained. 

Curiously, the EU statement came out at the time the delegations of the EU and the Philippines were discussing an agreement to enhance free trade between the two entities. Because of Duterte’s indifferent attitude toward the EU, discussions for a free trade pact between the two sides were suspended, adversely affecting entry of Philippine exports to the European market.  The lack of substantial willingness to cooperate from the Philippines has led to the suspension of further discussions for a free trade pact. After five years, no free trade accord has been crafted. The withdrawal of the GSP+ preferences (Generalized System of Preference) has triggered the loss of competitiveness for Philippine exports in the European market.10

***

FAILED MUTINY

ANTONIO Fuentes Trillanes IV was among the leaders of the failed Oakwood Mutiny, where over 300 soldiers and police officers mutinied and holed in on July 27, 2003 at the lobby of the now defunct Oakwood Hotel in Makati City’s Central Business District along the fabled Ayala Avenue. The rebel soldiers surrendered and the Oakwood mutiny leaders went to prison. Trillanes, then a Navy lieutenant senior, joined the botched Oakwood mutiny to protest widespread corruption under the Gloria Macapagal Arroyo government. Trillanes was also involved in the 2007 Manila Peninsula Hotel siege, where he and the late Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim marched from the courtroom, where their cases were being held, and went to hole in at the five-star hotel in Makati City.

As spokesman of the Oakwood Mutiny, Trillanes gave face to the military rebellion. For 20 hours, the mutineers had a standoff with government forces, after which they surrendered. Trillanes and his co-mutineers were jailed. He and co-mutineers suffered seven and a half years in jail, enduring humiliation while in detention. His jailers withdrew his electric fan from his cell at the height of summer and conducted unrestrained but humiliating body searches for visiting members of his family. He described the experience as “very enriching.” It was a period of reading, group discussions largely with his co-mutineers, and deep reflection and introspection. It was comparable to taking up a doctorate degree, he said with an air of derision to his captors, particularly Arroyo, who was later imprisoned on charges of plunder during the 2010-2016 incumbency of President Benigno Aquino III.

UNTHINKABLE. While in prison, Trillanes and other mutineers did the unthinkable. From the confines of their prison cells, they launched the senatorial bid of Trillanes in the 2007 midterm election without the resources and support of established political parties and leaders. He was later adopted by the Genuine Opposition composed of the anti-Arroyo forces in the middle of the political campaign. It was largely a quixotic quest, but Trillanes and the jailed Magdalo leaders displayed youthful idealism, exuberance, and persistence to do the impossible. From being on the 53rd in the initial opinion polls, Trillanes showed strength particularly at the homestretch of the intense political campaign.

It was only in the last few days of the political campaign, they sensed they had a shot to capture a Senate seat. Trillanes, who ran as an independent without resources, won and landed 11th with votes of over 11 million. He won without resorting to public campaign. Despite his political victory, Trillanes did not go out immediately from jail. The judge handling their rebellion cases denied his petition to discharge his duties as an elected senator. On November 27, 2007, Trillanes along with detained Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim walked out of their court hearing in Makati City and holed up at the nearby posh Manila Peninsula Hotel. It was a big gamble.

The second uprising, dubbed the “Manila Peninsula Siege,” sealed his fate. It was a mistake, as the political leaders, who promised to join him and start another mass protest did not show up on the appointed time and place. Because of the failed siege, he remained in jail for the rest of Arroyo’s presidency. It was during this period of his incarceration that he realized he could not rely on traditional politicians, when it came to starting a mass protest. It was better to rely and take advantage of the democratic processes than the promises of the traditional politicians. It also during this period he learned Eric Hoffer’s classic book, “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements,” of which its ideas have formed a huge part of the core of his democratic beliefs and values.

The political wind changed when Sen. Benigno Simeon Aquino III, a political ally, won in the 2010 presidential elections. Before end-2010, Aquino issued Presidential Proclamation 75, granting amnesty to Trillanes and co-mutineers. By December 20, 2010, he walked out of prison to assume his duties as senator. In 2013, Trillanes ran for reelection under the Liberal Party coalition. Despite a shoestring budget and the fact he had the least number of airtime among the senatorial candidates, he won to improve his position to land 9th with votes of over 14 million.

Trillanes attributed his past victories to two factors: a strong anti-corruption agenda, and the extensive use of the Samahang Magdalo network. The anti-corruption agenda was an extension of Magdalo's rebellion against the Arroyo government. In 2007, Trillanes and co- inmates relied on the informal Magdalo mass base, doing networking with supporters primarily in the AFP and PNP , using social media, mainly the now defunct Friendster (Meta or Facebook was then a nascent social networking site). Magdalo had a solid mass base to become a formal organization of volunteers. In 2009, they had formalized their mass base into the Samahang Magdalo, a socio-economic entity advocating the fight against corruption in public service. Upon their release from jail in 2010, the Magdalo mutineers did organizational work to recruit new members, conduct party building, and strengthen the organization.

The Samahang Magdalo was tested as a formal organization in 2013, when it worked for the Senate reelection of Trillanes and the election of Gary Alejano and Ashley Acedillo as Magdalo Party List representatives. “We used the same formula in 2007 and 2013. There was nothing new. The Samahang Magdalo was at the front,” Trillanes said. To test Magdalo’s political strength, Trillanes ran for vice president in 2016 but lost to Leni Robredo. He kept his seat in the Senate and finished the second half of his second six-year term.

POOR MAN. Trillanes ranked the poorest senator based on his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), but he has championed the anticorruption campaign, as he and the Samahang Magdalo believe that corruption is deeply embedded in government and endemic in the Filipino psyche and culture. This explains why he went all out against the top of the political totem pole, battling Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, corrupt military generals, Juan Ponce Enrile, and Jejomar Binay. Trillanes explained that it was no coincidence that he has been going after the top political honchos, as they had committed alleged acts of corruption. This is Samahang Magdalo’s advocacy; it constitutes the main reason the young military officers staged their mutiny in 2003.

Trillanes single handedly raised corruption issues against the Binays. Despite discouragement from fainthearted fellow senators Sergio Osmena III and Francis Escudero, who saw failure in his anti-corruption campaign, Trillanes filed the original resolution seeking a Senate probe “in aid of legislation,” citing the overpriced Makati parking building as the initial target of probe. His resolution and the subsequent official probe conducted by the Senate Blue Ribbon committee had snowballed into what could be perceived as an irreversible political and public relations nightmare for the then Vice President and his son, then Makati City Mayor Jejomar Jr., as they were forced to assume a defensive mode.

Although he languished in prison for the first half of his first six-year term, Trillanes, when he went out of jail, transformed himself into  a conscientious and productive senator, who led in the enactment into law of several bills of national importance and gained a solid reputation for his strong stance against irregularities in government. What he fought in the two mutinies, he brought on the Senate hall, earning the enmity of several colleagues, who did not agree with him. In the Senate, the bullheaded Trillanes was one of the most reliable lawmakers in enacted bills especially for the workers, public servants particularly teachers, and the men and women in uniform (AFP and PNP). In advocacy works, Trillanes has established a reputation of a maverick for his stubborn and fierce resistance for every major issue raised on the Senate floor.

There were no holy cows for Trillanes. Uncompromising, irreverent, and independent-minded, Trillanes, as a senator, did not hide his feelings and said them publicly regardless of who got hurt. He did not hesitate to show his disdain for colleagues, whom he perceived to be corrupt and compromised and, ergo, did not gain his respect. He worked with everybody but agreed with nobody when his principles were at stake. In his two terms in the Senate, Trillanes was not involved in any scandal. He was a picture of integrity and moral rectitude. He is known to be an upright man, who would not hesitate to speak against corruption.

Antonio F. Trillanes IV was born on August 6, 1971 in Caloocan City to Antonio Trillanes, a retired navy captain, and Estelita Fuentes, a homemaker. He is married to Arlene Orejana, a soldier and PMA graduate too. They have three children: Francis Seth, Thea Estelle, and Alan Andrew (deceased). After two years of college education at De La Salle University, he went to the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), the country’s premier military school, and earned a diploma cum laude on BS Naval Engineering System in 1995. Upon graduation, Trillanes joined the Philippine Navy. His unit arrested smugglers, poachers, illegal loggers, human smugglers and traffickers, and illegal fishermen in Philippine waters, enabling him to garner medals and citations for his accomplishments.

***

ANTI-DUTERTE OPPOSITION

WHEN Rodrigo Duterte assumed the presidency in 2016, Trillanes took an opposition stance, refusing to join the majority, although it was the most fashionable and convenient to do at that time. Instead, he chose to stay with the democratic opposition, which was heavily decimated by defections of its leaders. He decided to raise issues after issues against Duterte and his political flunkeys and junkies. Trillanes was among the first to call Duterte a “mass murderer,” an unpalatable tag which stuck deeply although Duterte did not like it. Right after the elections, Trillanes sustained the issues he raised against Duterte in the political campaign. Among these issues were Duterte had billions of pesos in bank deposits in a local universal bank. He challenged him to declassify records of those bank deposits by signing a bank waiver so that they would be opened publicly. Duterte, afraid of the consequences, refused vehemently, claiming he had no reason to sign any bank waiver.

Duterte, who was described a narcissist, was hurt by Trillanes’s revelations and series of challenges. Duterte could not run away from his tirades, even as Trillanes kept on relentlessly provoking him to respond. In what seemed a fit of madness, Duterte went public to reveal that Trillanes, essentially a poor man compared to his richer colleagues, had “secret bank accounts” that ran to several “millions of dollars” in foreign banks. Duterte raised the ante by claiming that Trillanes “received “as bribery an unspecified amount of money from dubious sources.

Trillanes, counterpunched by bringing several journalists to the head office of a major bank in Singapore, which Duterte named the alleged depository bank of his non-existent accounts. In front of the quizzical journalists, bank authorities denied the existence of those bank accounts and the money deposits alleged by Duterte to have been owned by Trillanes. Embarrassed by Trillanes’s counterblow, Duterte could not say anything but swallowed his pride. It was a shining moment for Trillanes for he had emerged a prudent man after learning his lessons from the failed 2003 Oakwood Mutiny and 2007 Manila Peninsula Siege. Later, a humiliated Duterte went public to say that he made up those revelations, effectively making a fool of himself. Duterte admitted in public that what he revealed about Trillanes were fake news and ergo, false. He said that he did it to embarrass and get even with Trillanes.

NO DILIGENCE STUDY. In an eyeball to eyeball situation with Trillanes, Duterte blinked first. Trillanes was the big time winner in his tussle with the short-fused but limited Duterte, who bought and bit hook, line, and sinker, the false information fed him by an unrepentant bit player, who claimed to have done an alleged diligence study on Trillanes. It was no diligence study but manufactured information based on fake documents. Those baseless allegations, which Duterte raised before the bar of public opinion, could not be proven because Trillanes was so poor that he could not provide his family a house of their own. His modest house was given to his family by his parents-in-law, who have come to embrace Trillanes as their own son.

This is not all. Antonio F. Trillanes IV had come to perceive that Duterte’s war on drugs is a phony war, or basically a war against the poor and the downtrodden. There was more to what met the eye in his fake war. For him, it was intended to get rid of the competition, as Duterte was the drug lord himself. Trillanes has reached the view that the Duterte family was involved in the drug trade, believing the alleged drug lords killed in the anti-drug operations were competitors with whom he did not want to share with them the lucrative illegal domestic drug market.

Hence, Trillanes did what could be regarded as an almost impossibility – initiating the filing of crimes against humanity charges against Duterte and his ilk at the ICC. This was not only unprecedented by all standards but most daring as well. Bringing the incumbent president before the world court defies the Filipino mind, enabling Trillanes to capture the people’s imagination. He is not just a former rebel soldier turned politician, but a leader of statesman character. Trillanes has established the reputation that he could be a good ally, but a dangerous enemy as well because he does his homework. He is always a step or two ahead of his opponents.

Duterte’s response to Trillanes’s rise as his credible enemy was feeble and ridiculous. He threw his last dice by ordering his slow-witted flunkey from Davao City, then Solicitor General Jose Calida, to pursue new ways to put Trillanes back in jail. Calida had created a reputation not because of his mastery of the law, but because he had connections in the legal community and, ergo, he could fix cases. Like a magician who pulled a rabbit out from his hat, Calida came out with the August 31, 2018  Presidential Proclamation 572 signed by Duterte, voiding the presidential pardon issued by President Benigno Aquino III to Trillanes on the basis of “missing application forms.“ From Calida’s convoluted mind, following the logic of Duterte’s proclamation of withdrawal of the presidential pardon, Trillanes should go back to jail. It was that simple if we follow his logic.

Calida’s machinations were so laughable, although they could be compared to the discomfort like an aching impacted tooth. Duterte, fresh from his seven-day state visit to Jordan and Israel, appeared surprised and frustrated when he learned that Calida and the law enforcers failed to arrest Trillanes and put him back in jail. Speaking in the Sept. 8, 2018 arrival press briefing at the Davao City International Airport, Duterte could only say that he only signed the presidential proclamation because it was suggested by Calida. It was his way to extricate himself of any responsibility and complicity to what had happened to Trillanes.

For his part, Trillanes holed himself in at his Senate office. He did not go out until the threats of his rearrest had subsided. Two judges from two separate judges handled Trillanes’s rebellion trials. Judge Elmo Alameda of Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150 ruled to reopen the rebellion trial on the basis of the flawed presidential proclamation. Makati RTC Branch 148 Judge Andres Soriano, in a separate coup d’etat case, refused to reopen any trial, saying Trillanes’ evidence was sufficient to prove he was validly given amnesty. Soriano ruled in that case he could not reopen a case that had long been closed by the amnesty grant. Alameda later allowed Trillanes to post bail for his temporary liberty. The matter was closed when the Court of Appeals ruled on March 2, 2021 that Alameda erred when he decided to reopen the case. 11

CALIDA’S MACHINATIONS. Duterte and his cohorts, including Calida, were so humiliated by their failure to put Trillanes back in jail. They might not know it but many people and parties quietly helped the lawmaker to escape arrest. They included then Senate President Tito Sotto III, who adamantly refused to allow the PNP team to arrest him in the Senate premises. Then Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said to the effect that Calida manipulated the loss of Trillanes’s amnesty paper at the Department of Defense. In short, Calida could have bypassed Lorenzana, a big no-no among co-equals. Certain people from the Office of the Solicitor General were said to have leaked information on Calida’s moves, enabling Trillanes to prepare and counter his initiatives. From a mutineer, Trillanes has carved a different identity to become an apostle of democracy.

This is not the end of the story. Throwing his own dice, Trillanes delivered his October 3, 2018 privilege speech, alleging that Calida's security agency has acquired government contracts since 2016. In his privilege speech “in aid of legislation,” Trillanes revealed that at least 16 government contracts were “cornered” by Vigilant Investigative and Security Agency Inc., a security firm owned by Calida and his family, since becoming solicitor general in 2016. The contracts had a total amount of P358.3 million. He presented documents to bolster his claim of graft against Calida.

Trillanes accused Calida of violating the rules against conflict of interest, as the Office of the Solicitor General reviews contracts entered into by the government. While Calida claimed to have resigned as president in 2016, he did not divest from Vigilant Security to remain a registered stockholder. Calida claimed he did not violate the law.

His privilege speech virtually brought Calida down on his knees, as the latter never engaged in any move to shackle Trillanes. The soldier turned lawmaker declared that he would keep the documents to indicate he reserves the right to file them before the appropriate state agencies, most likely the Office of the Ombudsman, after the June 30, 2022 end of Duterte’s tenure. In brief, Calida is a marked man.

***

 LITTLE MISSIVE

 SOMETIME in 2018, this author posted a little missive about Trillanes on my social media account in Meta (formerly Facebook). It generated thousands of reactions, mostly applause, and hundreds of comments to reinforce the author’s opinion of the man. This is the post:

THE GUTS OF SONNY TRILLANES

THEY hate his guts. They dislike his irreverence. But Sonny Trillanes has earned his spurs. He is not a chatterbox, who talks first before he thinks. On the contrary, he thinks first before he talks.

Sonny knows his colleagues in the Senate like the palm of his hand.

Even from a distance, he could distinguish the fake from the genuine, the competent from the lazy, the intelligent from the dumb and frivolous, and the corrupt from the upright.

Sonny knows how to show respect and admiration for colleagues of substance and integrity. He does it openly. But he would not hesitate to show his disdain for colleagues who pretend to be patriots when the truth is they are just rotten lowlifes, or human above, but fish below.

When the late Joker Arroyo criticized the expenses his office had incurred while he was in prison for the first three years of his first term, Trillanes did not cower in fear, but retaliated, saying Joker should be ashamed for lawyering for the corrupt GMA in the Senate.

When Jojo Binay challenged him to a debate re the former's alleged plunder, Sonny, in an eyeball to eyeball situation, did not blink and accepted the challenge although he is not a lawyer unlike Jojo. It was Jojo who blinked first when he chickened out and cancelled his proposed public debate.

Even Juan Ponce Enrile, as Senate president, did not escape Sonny's tirades, when the former assailed him for his back channeling efforts re China issue. Sonny did not hesitate to speak on Johnny's villainous role in history. In the end, it was Sonny who advocated his release from detention for humanitarian ground, i.e. Johhny is too old for it.

Sonny did not like Migs Zubiri's posturing as an apostle of clean government and good governance, when the truth was Migs cheated to gain a Senate seat. Migs was so incensed to the point of challenging Sonny to an arnis bout and bragging that he was an arnis champion. His challenge was so laughable to the point that Sonny merely ignored him and Migs could not do anything.

The pretentious ways of Manny Pacquiao and Alan Cayetano, now the DFA secretary, did not escape Sonny's attention. Sonny knows their asslicking ways and he did not hesitate to criticize them publicly, thus earning their ire.

Today, Sonny openly criticized Dick Gordon's autocratic ways, telling straight to his face how he had barricaded himself in Subic Free Port just to keep his post as SBMA chair.

Hence, Sonny could exercise his bragging rights as a soldier, who rebelled against corruption in government and suffered, along with his fellow soldiers, seven and a half years of imprisonment. Hence, courage is the hallmark of his character.

That he never runs away from a fight is his greatest virtue. Sonny Trillanes is a genuine warrior.

***

INTREPID GARY

GARY Alejano Jr., one of the 300 soldiers who staged the failed 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, to force Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to resign as president, was a member of the House of Representatives for two terms (2013-2019),  representing the Magdalo Party List Group. A graduate of the Batch 1995 of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), the country’s premier military school, Alejano joined the Philippine Marines Corps, rising to become a captain. As a lawmaker, Alejano gained prominence for his opposition against Duterte. Alejano and Trillanes were batchmates at PMA.

Alejano opposed the Duterte 's “pivot” to China, particularly his “soft” enforcement of the 2016 victory of the Philippines in the landmark case it lodged against China before the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) five-man Permanent Arbitration Commission. The arbitral decision dismissed China’s ridiculous claim of sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea, including the West Philippine Sea. At one point, Alejano exposed Duterte’s prohibition on the Philippine Navy and Philippine Coast Guard to patrol the coastal seas at the time China was building its military bases on islets in the West Philippine Sea. Alejano advocated the creation of the proposed Department of Maritime Oceanic Affairs to set a clear maritime security framework to defend and protect Philippine territory.

As a fearless lawmaker, Alejano voted against TRAIN Law or the oppressive tax reform laws of the Duterte government, the proposed lowering of the minimum age of criminal responsibility, and the reimposition of death penalty. Although he is fluent in English, Cebuano and Hiligaynon dialects, Alejano gained prominence for his flawless Tagalog. He was one of the few lawmakers, who can make public discourses in Filipino, which is expanded Tagalog.

Alejano was born on January 22, 1973 in Sipalay City, Negros Occidental to GaryAlejano, Sr., a farmer, and his mother, a teacher whom he fondly called “Mamang Lica.” He is married to Minerva Cojuangco of Bamban, Tarlac. He has five children: Martine Gwyneth and Micah Gabrielle, Maxine Gail, Gary Alejano Jr., and Gian Marcus.

Gary went to the University of Cebu (formerly Cebu Central Colleges), taking up electrical engineering for two years from 1989 to 1991. He continued his studies at the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) where he finished Bachelor of Science in Naval System Engineering in 1995. He pursued graduate studies at the University of the Philippines completing Masters of Management and a certificate in New Enterprise Planning. In 2016, along with other students from 23 countries, he attended the program for Senior Executives in National and International Security of the Harvard Kennedy School.

Alejano was a bemedalled soldier. As a member of the Philippine Marine Corps, he saw action in the fight against the terrorist Abu Sayyaf Group in Mindanao, including Sulu and Basilan. In 2000, he was part of the campaign to capture Camp Abubakar and was assigned to secure areas in Matanog, Maguindanao. At this time, he was “wounded in action” and for his bravery, he received the Distinguished Conduct Star and other awards.

Unbeknown to many Filipinos, Alejano is a man of integrity as he refused to surrender his principles to the blandishments of power. He did not succumb to temptations to surrender to the forces of evil, which tried to entice him to leave his group and join the ruling coalition. He has stuck his fortunes out with the Magdalo group. His wife Minerva said how she and Alejano’s relatives were subjected to abuses by his jailers at the time he was incarcerated with his co-mutineers. It was very difficult when he was in jail, she said.

As a lawmaker, Alejano filed bills and resolutions, although few became laws mainly because he belonged to the opposition. He initiated over a hundred infrastructure projects such as roads, school buildings, water services, and flood control projects. He was named as one of the “TOP Congressmen of the Philippines” by the Publishers Association of the Philippines (PAPI).  Together with Trillanes, his batchmate at PMA, he went to The Hague in the Netherlands to submit supplemental documents in support of the human rights complaint against Duterte and his ilk, a case filed earlier by Magdalo, through Jude Josue Sabio, at the ICC. In 2018, he initiated an impeachment complaint against seven associate justices of the Supreme Court.

***

ICC’S TURN

A MONTH after the fateful meeting between Trillanes and the unnamed European lawmaker, it was the turn of the ICC, through Fatou Bensouda, then chief of its Office of the Prosecutor, to speak. Bensouda said:

“My Office is aware of worrying reported extrajudicial killings of alleged drug dealers and users in the Philippines, which may have led to over 3,000 deaths in the past three months.  I am deeply concerned about these alleged killings and the fact that public statements of high officials of the Republic of the Philippines seem to condone such killings and further seem to encourage State forces and civilians alike to continue targeting these individuals with lethal force.”

Those EJKs fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC if they are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack, Bensouda said. She added: “Extrajudicial killings may fall against a civilian population pursuant to a State policy to commit such an attack.”

Moreover, Bensouda reminded Duterte that the Philippines was a member of the ICC and that “the Court has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed on the territory or by nationals of the Philippines since 1 November 2011, the date when the Statute entered into force in the Philippines.” She ended her statement with a dire warning: “Let me be clear: any person in the Philippines who incites or engages in acts of mass violence including by ordering, requesting, encouraging or contributing, in any other manner, to the commission of crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC is potentially liable to prosecution before the Court.”12

By all means, Bensouda’s statement had far-reaching implications to indicate a changing world. Gone were the days when a leader could do what he liked in the most despotic and brutal ways. The current world order has come out with ways to check leaders, who have criminal tendencies to oppress their citizens. This is now part of the much heralded international criminal justice system, which the world order in the first half of the 20th century did not have to culminate in two successive world wars in a span of twenty years. She flashed the proverbial signal to the democratic opposition in the Philippines to consider the ICC in its fight against Duterte’s war on drugs.

INTRODUCTION. Fatou Bensouda, the feisty and fiery woman from the African state of The Gambia, has cast a long shadow on crimes against humanity charges against Duterte and others at the ICC. As its Chief Prosecutor, Bensouda approved in 2018 the move to conduct a preliminary investigation on Duterte and his subalterns. On June 14, 2021, or a day before she retired and completed her nine-year term at the ICC, Bensouda recommended to the three-man ICC Pre-Trial Chamber the move to conduct official investigation on Duterte and others.13

On September 27, 2021, the ICC, through the Pre-Trial Chamber, has formally authorized the official probe into alleged crimes against humanity in then President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs. The Court stated that there was reasonable basis to proceed with the probe noting that “specific legal element of the crime against humanity of murder” has been met in the crackdown that left thousands dead.

According to its ICC website,  Fatou Bensouda of The Gambia was elected on December 12, 2011 by consensus as Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court by the Assembly of States Parties. Ms. Bensouda was sworn in on 15 June 2012. Bensouda previously held the position of ICC Deputy Prosecutor (Prosecutions), having been elected with an overwhelming majority by the Assembly of States Parties on August 4, 2004 and serving this post until May 2012.

Prior to her work at the ICC, Bensouda worked as Legal Adviser and Trial Attorney at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha, Tanzania, rising to the position of Senior Legal Advisor and Head of The Legal Advisory Unit. Before joining the ICTR, she was general manager of a leading commercial bank in Gambia. Between 1987 and 2000, she was successively Senior State Counsel, Principal State Counsel, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Solicitor General and Legal Secretary of the Republic, and Attorney General and Minister of Justice, in which capacity she served as Chief Legal Advisor to the President and Cabinet of The Republic of The Gambia.

Bensouda also took part in negotiations on the treaty of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the West African Parliament and the ECOWAS Tribunal. She has served as delegate to United Nations conferences on crime prevention, the Organization of African Unity's Ministerial Meetings on Human Rights, and as delegate of The Gambia to the meetings of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court. Bensouda holds a master’s degree in International Maritime Law and Law of the Sea and as such is the first international maritime law expert of The Gambia.

***

EMERGENCE OF DDS ‘HITMAN’

ABOUT this time too, Edgar Matobato, a self-confessed hit man of the so-called “Davao Death Squad” (DDS) hovered on the radar and came out openly to reveal the operations of the DDS, which stands for the Duterte’s Death Squad, or Duterte’s killing machine. His public appearance did not come out easily. It was a complex process that was triggered by his realization in 2013 that his DDS involvement was wrong before the eyes of his God and society. It was a complete but unexpected turnaround for this functionally illiterate murderer. The moment he realized his murderous ways, he neither went back to his old ways nor entered into any compromise with the  Duterte’s camp. It was a complete breakaway. Several characters came out to participate in the spine-tingling process.

Seeing clear signals from the European Parliament and the ICC, which incidentally came out with separate public statements to oppose the EJKs under Duterte government, Trillanes hastened to prepare the crimes against humanity charges against Duterte. The Magdalo Party List Group intended to file the charges immediately before the ICC. But a snag struck him and his legal advisers and staff. They have to present and prove that local remedies had run out; Duterte’s machinations had reached to a point he could do anything that pleased him and kill people with impunity. They had to show to the world they could do nothing within the available domestic legal means to stop Duterte. This is what the Rome Statute provides with ultimate clarity. This is the principle of complementarity.

They brainstormed the issue and agreed with a solution: impeachment of Duterte in Congress. This is a win-win solution. If the impeachment complaint prospered, it could lead to Duterte’s impeachment by the House of Representatives and eventually a trial to remove him from office by the Senate. If it lost, it would prove that the available legal system was not working to provide justice. Because impeachment was a political process, it did not win and lost on the opening salvo. It did not reach the first base, making clear that filing crime against humanity charges against Duterte and his cohorts before the ICC was the final solution. Gary Alejano Jr. was supposed to be the captain ball of this move to file impeachment charges against Duterte.

By the third week of October, 2016, Trillanes started to prepare the crimes against humanity charges, which Magdalo would bring to the ICC against Duterte and his ilk. They needed a lawyer, who would represent them before a court of law and file the information before the ICC. Sensing the futility of going to his reluctant colleagues, Trillanes consulted with the leaders of the democratic forces, which had stayed at the periphery of Duterte’s authoritarian government to voice out their advocacy for democracy and adherence to clean governance. He consulted the Church and civil society leaders, including liberation theologians, many of whom he came to know in the pro-democratic mass actions. Trillanes approached lawyers, who had established a good reputation in representing for free the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden. But because of the intricacies of the issue and their unfamiliarity, Trillanes did not immediately get a positive response. This is something easy to understand. Filing crime against humanity charges against Duterte before the ICC would be the first in the country’s history. This was an area where even angels fear to tread.

OBSCURE LAWYER. By November, 2016, Trillanes met Fr. Alberto Alejo, a Jesuit priest, who suggested getting an obscure lawyer from Mindanao to represent Matobato, who upon public appearances, went into the care of the Magdalo. Matobato, who reached only Grade 1, needed a lawyer to advise him of his rights. This time, Matobato made public what he knew about Duterte and the DDS in his previous two appearances in the Senate inquiry on EJKs. Trillanes could use the lawyer not only to represent Matobato but file the crime against humanity charges as well, mainly to save on cost. Alejo proposed Jude Josue Sabio, a trial lawyer based in Cagayan de Oro City. Alejo knew Sabio not personally but only from his posts in social media. They have developed online friendship; the Jesuit priest proved pivotal to facilitate his meeting with Trillanes. Meeting Sabio sometime in November, 2016, Trillanes was impressed by Sabio’s uncompromising stance on EJKs. Sabio did not only oppose EJKs along lines of principles based on philosophy and law, but exuded the courage to bring Duterte before a court of law.

Born in 1964 in the idyllic town of Libona in Bukidnon province, Jude Josue Sabio grew up in the quiet town of Tagaloan in the province of Misamis Oriental. He completed his AB Political Science at Ateneo de Manila University. He finished his law degree at the University of the Philippines, where he was an honor student and a member of the reputable Alpha Phi Beta Fraternity. He earned his law degree in 1993, took the Bar examinations the following year, and passed it without hassles. Sabio had a fairly encouraging law practice in Cagayan de Oro City but a marital spat led to his bitter and acrimonious separation from his wife.

Life took a downward spin for Sabio. He momentarily lost verve for life, wandered aimlessly, turned wayward, and became unproductive for a while. It was said he literally slept on street sidewalks. He recovered and picked up the pieces though. Sabio had a knack for writing and he wrote well. He wrote opinion pieces for Mindanao Gold Star, a daily newspaper in Cagayan de Oro City. Many of his opinion pieces were reposted and that was how he was noticed by Alejo, who, after reading his hard-hitting posts, took the initiative to befriend him. Soon, he flew to Manila to assume a new role – as counsel for Matobato.

LIBERATION THEOLOGIAN. For his part, Fr. Alberto Alejo could have led a sedentary lifestyle as a Catholic priest, belonging to the Jesuit order. But this was not something meant to be. Because of Duterte’s frequent attacks on the Church and its clergy and the murders and attempts of murdering priests, including the ones, who went publicly to oppose the EJKs, Fr. Albert Alejo, who is known to friends and critics as “Paring Bert,” one of the country’s more than 6,000 members of the clergy, took the cudgels to defend human rights and oppose Duterte’s authoritarian inclination.

Alejo is one of the many Filipino priests, who have been heavily influenced by the teachings of Second Vatican Council, the pivotal gathering of the Roman Catholic clergy worldwide to update the Church on its teachings and doctrines and redefine its role in the postwar era characterized by the emerging secular or pluralistic world. The Second Vatican Council, or “Vatican Two,” has redefined the Church’s role as the “church of the poor,” as indicated by its adoption of the phrase “preferential option for the poor,” which rejects the prewar views that the Roman Catholic Church was the church of the elite, powerful, and influential. There were assertions that it was sort of atonement for – or rectification of - the Church’s “soft stand” on Adolf Hitler’s dictatorship that led to the Second World War, or even the massacre of six million Jews.

Alejo is an activist priest, who has taken a liberationist outlook on the widespread poverty and social injustice that characterizes the Philippines and many Third World countries. Alejo refuses to acquiesce to the powers-that-be. He is among the liberationist theologians, who have assumed and taken activist, albeit critical, views and role in Duterte’s emergence, particularly his war on drugs. He did not take the spate of EJKs sitting down. He opted to stand and speak, earning the enmity of Duterte and his malleable but unthinking minions. This is not without his personal fears and anxieties. Three priests were murdered in broad daylight under Duterte’s incumbency. Alejo takes their murder seriously in his works as an activist priest. He takes a firm stand against EJKs, believing they are violations of human dignity.

Born on August 25, 1958 in the southern Cagayan de Oro City, Alberto Alejo took biochemistry in college, but shifted to philosophy as he sought answers to many questions that afflicted him in his youth. He finished AB Philosophy at the University of Santo Tomas in 1979. But discovering his priestly vocation, he has joined the Jesuit order, which has many Filipino intellectuals, or the cream of the crop, as key members. Like most Jesuits, Alejo completed his masters’ degrees in philosophy in Ateneo de University in 1988, theology at the same Jesuit-run school in 1991, and social anthropology at the School of Oriental and African Studies at University of London in 1994. He earned his doctorate in social anthropology at the University of London in 1999. Hence, Alejo is not only a political activist, but an anthropologist and poet as well.

Over the years, Alejo has developed a reputation for his involvement and advocacy in the issues of corruption, human rights, social inequity, and indigenous people's rights. In 2003, Alejo led Ehem!, a nationwide Jesuit anti-corruption campaign. Along with other activists, Alejo co-founded the Citizens-Customs Action Network (CITIZCAN), a Bureau of Customs third-party monitoring initiative; served as director of the Archdiocese of Manila Labor Center; he is contributor and editor of Asia Mindanao; the Mindanao Law Journal; and Agham Mindanaw.

As a political activist, Alejo has articulated what he has termed “surplus of violence,” or “surplus of cruelty,” which the country experienced under the Duterte government. He called for dialogues among the various forces in the political spectrum. In 2020, Paring Bert Alejo was arrested and charged with sedition, along with eight others, for an alleged plot to oust Rodrigo Duterte. They had posted bail. Alejo is now writing his book on his experiences of accompanying whistleblowers, witnesses and truth tellers since the middle of the 1980s.

These include comrades of slain activist Edgar Jopson, an unnamed NPA commander with a P3 million bounty on his head, an unidentified young Badjao woman, who was a witness to the Abu Sayaf murder of a missionary priest in Tawi-tawi, a low profile bookkeeper whistleblower to the  corruption of a big NGO fighting human trafficking, a faceless Commission on Audit guy, who exposed  anomalies in the AFP  top echelon, a quiet tribal chief and Babaylan falsely accused by Duterte of massacre of an Ilonggo family in Davao City, plus the more recent ones, when Duterte became president, among others. It would take time, he said, but he was determined to complete it in due time.14

***

FIRST SALVO

ON March 16, 2017, or nine months after Duterte was sworn into office, then Representative Gary Alejano Jr. of the Magdalo Party List Group, fired the opening salvo against Duterte by submitting an impeachment complaint at the House of Representatives. Alejano accused Duterte of culpably violating the Constitution, engaging in bribery, betraying public trust, committing graft and corruption, and other high crimes. The 1987 Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment – treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust.15

The impeachment complaint included Duterte’s involvement in the creation of the Davao Death Squad when he was mayor; his war on drugs since he became president, which has led to the summary killing of thousands of Filipinos; and his supposed unexplained wealth in the form of bank deposits and undeclared properties, among others. Overall, it has three main themes and charges. First, it accused Duterte of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of Constitution, and other high crimes for his war on drugs which, according to the complaint, the President used to “induce” police officers into killing alleged drug dealers and users without regard for the law, and making this as basis for their promotion in the police service.

Second, it accused Duterte of betrayal of public trust, bribery, graft and corruption, and culpable violation of the Constitution for allegedly creating the DDS, when he was mayor of Davao, citing the testimonies of self-confessed DDS members, retired policeman Arturo Lascañas and civilian Edgar Matobato. Third, it accused Duterte of graft and corruption and other high crimes for his alleged unexplained wealth, as revealed previously by Trillanes, and his hiring of contractual employees as mayor.

According to the Constitution, the House has the exclusive power to initiate the impeachment process. Section 2 of the Constitution says: “The President, the Vice President, the members of the Supreme Court, the members of the constitutional commission, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft, and corruption, other higher crimes or betrayal of public trust.” If a third of the House membership affirms the impeachment complaint, it goes to the Senate, which will convene immediately as an impeachment court to try the impeached official. Alejano’s complaint did not reach the first base, as the House of Representatives committee on justice then chaired by the late Rep. Reynaldo Umali, dismissed the complaint on May 14, or nearly two months after it was filed, for “lack of merit.”

The impeachment complaint was bound to fail because Duterte’s coalition had an overwhelming majority in Congress, which made Duterte a demigod of sort for opportunistic politicians. The shortsighted lawmakers failed to perceive that the impeachment complaint was filed to prove before the world community that the major institutions in the Philippines had failed and were not functioning in consonance with the provisions of the 1987 Constitution. On that basis, Duterte should be punished for his crimes against the Filipino people and his wanton disrespect of human lives.  It strengthened the crimes against humanity charges, which the Magdalo Party List and Trillanes’s legislative staff built up and developed and filed by the obscure lawyer in Jude Josue Sabio before the ICC.

 

FOOTNOTES

1.       This is a peculiarity of the multiparty system in the Philippines. The political party of the winning presidential candidate becomes the center of political gravity as those politicians from other parties transfer en masse to the winning political party. Congress has not enacted any law to check this pernicious practice.

2.      Even Duterte enticed the police force to get involved in the mass violence, declaring he would protect them from prosecution. This issue would be thoroughly discussed in the succeeding chapters.

3.      The presence of left-wing elements in the early part of Duterte governments gave the impression of unofficial alliance between the Duterte government and the Legal Left. The presence of the likes of Rafael Mariano, Judy Taguiwalo, Liza Maza, Terry Ridon in his government was among the indicators.

4.      Trillanes cited the following constitutional provisions as basis of his claim that Duterte was violating the 1987 Philippine Constitution: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.Article 3 (Bill of Rights), Section 1 of 1987 Constitution: “(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law;” and Article 3 (Bill of Rights), Section 14 of 1987 Constitution: “(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.”

5.      This portion was part of my two-hour interview with Sen. Trillanes on Dec. 14, 2021 in a coffee shop in Pasig City.

6.      Sen. Panfilo Lacson said the crimes against humanity charges would not prosper. Trillanes could only bite his tongue in disgust over Lacson’s disdainful attitude. Lacson did not meet mocking comments from Trillanes, when he ran away from the scene for more than a year and hid elsewhere when Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and husband Miguel filed charges against him.

7.      For the complete text of the EU resolution, read: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0349_EN.html

8.      When Bensouda issued the statement, Duterte did not face any charges. For the complete text, read: https://www.icc-cpi.int/pages/item.aspx?name=161013-otp-stat-php

 9.      Sen. Panfilo Lacson said in a published report that the charges filed by Trillanes and Alejano before the ICC would go to “the dustbin of history.” Infantile J.V. Ejercito, another senator, described it in Tagalog as “suntok sa buwan” (literally, a punch on the mooon) to stress its near to impossible nature to take off. Trillanes ignored them because he knew their views did not constitute the views of the more sensible, well meaning, and patriotic senators.

 10.  On February 17, 2021, the European Union, in a resolution, has partially withdrawn trade perks and privileges which Philippine products enjoy when they enter the European market.

 11.   https://www.rappler.com/nation/court-appeals-decision-trillanes-amnesty-case/

 12.   https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/15/joint-ngo-open-letter-icc-prosecutor-fatou-bensouda

 13.  Read: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57477802

 https://apnews.com/hub/fatou-bensouda

 14.  On Paring Bert: https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/227076-father-albert-alejo-crusade/

 

15.   https://www.rappler.com/nation/164327-first-impeachment-complaint-filed-against-duterte/

 

 


KILL, KILL, KILL Extrajudicial Killings Under Duterte Government; Crimes Against Humanity vs. Duterte et. al at ICC

AUTHOR'S Notes: My book on Duterte's bloody but failed war on drugs will have eight or nine chapters. Or ten if the necessity arises as I am about to finish it. It's tentative title is " Kill, Kill, Kill Extrajudicial Killings under Duterte Government; Crimes against Humanity vs. Duterte et. al. at the ICC." This is the second chapter.

CHAPTER 2

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 annihilations 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 final 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 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; it has become 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 for 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 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 too 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 civlians. 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 toruring 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 literatures 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 initiates 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 fairness of its case-selection and trial procedures. There 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. It 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 authorises 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 ;ate 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 what what it earlier ratified could be finally withdrawn.

The issue has continued to badger the government of Ferdinand Marcos, who was elected in 2022 to replace Duterte at the end of his term. As of the writing of this book, 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.

***

  

 FOOTNOTES:

 

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