Du30 case: ICC seeks more views on jurisdiction
The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has asked the prosecution and the counsel of drug war victims to further explain their stance on the issue of jurisdiction over the crimes against humanity case against former President Rodrigo Duterte.
In a six-page order issued on Dec. 16, the court directed the deputy prosecutor and the Office of Public Counsel for the Victims (OPCV) to file “additional observations” by Jan. 16 on two issues concerning the question of jurisdiction challenged by the Duterte camp.
The Appeals Chamber seeks to determine the “consequences” of Articles 12(2), 13(c) and 127 of the Rome Statute and how these provisions “interact” with each other on the issue of jurisdiction. The Rome Statute is the 2002 framework that established the ICC.
Article 12 states the “preconditions” to the ICC’s exercise of jurisdiction, while Article 13 sets out when the court may exercise jurisdiction. Article 127, on the other hand, outlines the continuing obligation of a state even after leaving the ICC fold.
The defense will have to submit its response to the observations by Jan. 23, or five working days after the deadline set for the other parties.
The latest court directive on Duterte’s crimes against humanity of murder case in the ICC is a response to the appeal against the jurisdiction ruling that the defense filed on Nov. 14. The prosecution and the OPCV submitted their initial responses on the appeal on Dec. 8.
“In the instant case, the Appeals Chamber, acting proprio motu under regulation 28 of the Regulations, considers it necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal for the parties and participants to address specific issues which have not been fully developed in the Impugned Decision and in the submissions presented before the Appeals Chamber thus far,” read part of the order signed by Presiding Judge Luz del Carmen Carranza.
The defense filed a request for leave to reply to the prosecution’s response to its appeal brief, or a motion to address the prosecution’s statements, but the Appeals Chamber denied it.
Crux of debate
On Oct. 23, the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) I affirmed that the international tribunal in The Hague, the Netherlands, has authority to prosecute and hold Duterte in custody.
Families of drug war victims welcomed this much-awaited ruling on jurisdiction as it could pave the way for a full-blown trial should pretrial hearings proceed, and other issues related to the case be resolved.
The former chief executive is charged with three counts of murder as a crime against humanity in connection with at least 49 killings of suspected drug users and pushers as part of a policy that wages a so-called war on narcotics during his time as mayor of Davao City and as president.
In their appeal, Duterte’s lawyers cited Article 127 of the Statute in arguing that the PTC I “erred in law” in its jurisdiction ruling when it ruled that the preliminary examination of the drug war killings is a “matter under consideration” of the court; that the “court” being referred to in the provision covers the Office of the Prosecutor; that the “object and purpose” of the Statute allows the opening of a probe even after the Philippines revoked its ICC membership; and that the provision was deemed a “lex specialis” (specific law overrides general law).
Other issues pending before the ICC are the request of the defense to suspend the whole pretrial proceedings indefinitely, citing Duterte’s cognitive problem that purportedly restricts his ability to fully participate in his murder case.
Lawyers of drug war victims expect the pretrial to still proceed by next year despite the numerous requests filed by the defense that they dismissed as mere tactics to prolong the trial.
