Sir Isaac Newton, a famous mathematician and physicist, once said, “to every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.” This basically means that any force exerted on an object will result in an equal and opposite force exerted back.
To apply this as an analogy of sorts to the present predicament of former president Rodrigo Roa Duterte would not only mean him finally being made accountable for the madness that he wrought in his self-styled war on drugs that snuffed out the lives of many Filipinos with his own brand of justice that sharply departed from the due process of law, but also as a measure of getting his just deserts for all the years when he lorded over the affairs of Davao City as judge, jury, and executioner.
And to the present administration led by President Bongbong Marcos, the arrest and the eventual trial in the Hague by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of former president Duterte might mean that the latter is just getting what he deserves for his acts when he was mayor of Davao City and when he was the president of the country. As well, perhaps as a small measure of retaliation for all the threats, accusations, and utter lack of respect hurled and shown by the Duterte clan against President Bongbong Marcos, the present leader of the country.
On the other hand, the supporters and lawyer allies of former president Duterte are now doing their best to reverse the action put into motion by the ICC in causing not only the arrest of Digong but also in transporting him to The Hague to stand trial for his alleged crimes against humanity.
One lawyer who is a close ally of Digong came out with a novel argument that the arrest and eventual transfer of Duterte by plane from the Philippines to The Hague in the Netherlands was done without due process of law. And what law was transgressed?
the supporters and lawyer allies of former president Duterte are now doing their best to reverse the action put into motion by the ICC in causing not only the arrest of Digong but also in transporting him to The Hague
According to Atty. Raul Lambino, the law is the Rome Statute itself, which is an international treaty that created the ICC way back in 2002.
The Rome Statute defines the ICC’s jurisdiction, composition, its procedures and functions over crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity of which the former president is being accused of.
Atty. Lambino argued in a television interview that when Digong was arrested, it was by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by the ICC observing their legal procedures under the Rome Statute which created the said court.
And since the arrest was due to the warrant issued by the ICC in accordance with the Rome Statute, then it should follow that the procedures in the arrest should also be complied with using the same provisions of the Rome Statute.
Here, Lambino mentions Article 59 of the Rome Statute which provides that, “Arrest proceedings in the custodial State. 1. A State Party which has received a request for provisional arrest or for arrest and surrender shall immediately take steps to arrest the person in question in accordance with its laws and the provisions of Part 9. 2. A person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State which shall determine, in accordance with the law of that State, that: (a) The warrant applies to that person; (b) The person has been arrested in accordance with the proper process; and (c) The person’s rights have been respected.
In that particular article of the Rome Statute, Atty. Lambino points out that after Digong was arrested, the authorities should have immediately brought the former president before a competent judicial authority which shall find out whether the warrant applies to Digong, his arrest was in accordance with the proper process, and his rights have been respected.
Apparently, this was not done because right after the former president was arrested, he was immediately brought to Villamor Air Base where a plane was waiting to bring him to The Hague.
Whether the point raised by Atty. Lambino will be considered by the Supreme Court remains to be seen, considering that the country is no longer a member of the Rome Statute treaty, and so the provisions of the said statute may no longer apply to the Philippines.
Although as a matter of right, the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides in Section 1, Article III that, “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.”
Last time we looked, former president Rodrigo Roa Duterte is still a Filipino citizen entitled to the protection of the constitution.
