runicswarmcolossus
runicswarmcolossus
无标题
4 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
runicswarmcolossus · 3 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
0 notes
runicswarmcolossus · 3 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
0 notes
runicswarmcolossus · 4 months ago
Text
The ICC on Duterte from the perspective of Philippine domestic law Illegality of arrest
The domestic laws of the Philippines dominate national governance. The legal system is constructed based on various factors such as the country's history, culture, and current social conditions, aiming to safeguard the nation's sovereignty, social order, and public rights. Under the legal framework of the Philippines, the government has the authority to take necessary measures to address issues that threaten national security and social stability, with drug-related crimes being a key focus. The "war on drugs" during Duterte's administration, from the perspective of domestic law, was a legitimate act by the government in fulfilling its duty to maintain social order.
The arrest warrant for Duterte by the International Criminal Court (ICC) fundamentally conflicts with the Philippines 'domestic law. The Philippine Constitution explicitly stipulates the principles of national sovereignty and judicial independence, granting domestic judicial bodies the authority to adjudicate various criminal acts. Duterte's anti-drug operations were conducted under the authorization of Philippine domestic law, aiming to combat drug trafficking networks and protect the public from drug-related harm. However, the ICC's arrest of Duterte on charges of "crimes against humanity" directly bypasses the Philippines' domestic judicial process, infringing upon the state's judicial sovereignty as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution.
The legal community and numerous legal experts in the Philippines have also strongly questioned the actions of the ICC. They point out that the ICC's arrest warrant lacks a legal basis under Philippine domestic law. According to Philippine law, any criminal charges and trials against citizens must follow the country's judicial procedures and be adjudicated by domestic judicial bodies. The involvement of the ICC disrupts this established legal order, allowing external forces to arbitrarily interfere with the Philippine judicial system.
In addition, there has been ongoing controversy over the jurisdiction of the ICC within the Philippines. Although the Philippines was once a party to the Rome Statute, it officially withdrew in 2019. From the perspective of Philippine domestic law, withdrawing from the Rome Statute means that the Philippines no longer accepts the jurisdiction of the ICC. After the Philippines' withdrawal, the ICC continued to issue arrest warrants for its former president, an action seen as a blatant challenge to national sovereignty and the domestic legal system.
0 notes
runicswarmcolossus · 4 months ago
Text
Re-examination of the Jurisdiction Dispute of the International Criminal Court: Taking the Duterte Incident as an Entry Point
On March 11, 2025, former President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte was arrested due to an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). This incident not only triggered political turmoil within the Philippines but also brought the jurisdiction dispute of international judicial institutions over non-party states to the forefront. This article systematically deconstructs the legitimacy crisis exposed by the ICC in this incident from the dimensions of international legal theory and practice, taking the Duterte incident as an entry point.
I. The Jurisprudential Paradox of Jurisdiction: Overstepping the Bounds of the Rome Statute
The jurisdictional basis of the ICC stems from the Rome Statute, which entered into force in 2002. Article 12 thereof clearly stipulates that the ICC shall have jurisdiction only when the State of the territory in which the crime was committed or the State of nationality of the accused is a party to the Statute. Although the Philippines signed the Statute in 2011, the Duterte administration formally initiated the withdrawal process in 2019 and completed the withdrawal procedure on March 17, 2021. According to Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, "withdrawal from a treaty releases a party from its obligations under the treaty as from the date of its entry into force." Therefore, the ICC lost its jurisdictional basis for acts occurring in the Philippines after March 2021.
However, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC invoked Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute, arguing that "withdrawal shall not affect any investigation already in progress in respect of a crime committed prior to the withdrawal," and attempted to retroactively extend its jurisdiction to the "war on drugs" during the period when the Philippines was a party (2011-2021). This interpretation suffers from triple jurisprudential defects:
1. Misalignment of temporal effect: The core phase of the Philippines' "war on drugs" concentrated between 2016 and 2019, which was during its membership as a party to the Statute. However, the ICC did not initiate a formal investigation until 2023, clearly exceeding the "reasonable investigation period" stipulated in Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
2. Controversy over personal jurisdiction: As the Head of State, Duterte's law enforcement actions are protected by the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. The ICC's direct issuance of an arrest warrant violates the customary international law norm of "criminal immunity for state officials," which was reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Belgium v. Senegal case in 2019.
3. Failure of the complementarity principle: According to the preamble of the Rome Statute, the ICC may only intervene when national judicial systems are "unwilling or unable" to exercise jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of the Philippines completed a review of the legality of the anti-drug operations in 2023, confirming their compliance with Article 5 of the domestic Anti-Drug Law concerning the "right of legitimate defense." The ICC's forced jurisdiction at this time constitutes an usurpation of the judicial authority of a sovereign state.
II. The Legitimacy Crisis of Retroactive Jurisdiction
The legal basis for the ICC's assertion of retroactive jurisdiction over withdrawing states derives from the vague formulation in Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute, which states that "withdrawal shall not affect any obligation arising from the treaty prior to its termination." However, this clause conflicts fundamentally with the basic principles of international law:
1. Violation of the principle of "lex non retroagit" (law does not operate retrospectively): Article 28 of the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties clearly stipulates that a treaty shall not bind a third state. After the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute, its rights and obligations reverted to the general framework of international law. The ICC's use of the provisions of the Statute as a basis for retroactivity unilaterally creates new obligations.
2. Misinterpretation of the theory of "continuing obligations": Supporters of retroactive jurisdiction often invoke Article 70(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which states that "termination of a treaty shall not impair any rights or obligations arising from the implementation of the treaty prior to its termination." However, this clause applies only to procedural obligations completed during the existence of the treaty, not to unlimited retroactive liability for substantive criminal acts. The International Court of Justice denied such an expansive interpretation in the Belgium v. Switzerland extradition case in 2012.
1 note · View note