All 18 ICC judges junk Duterte plea as wrong, untenable and dilatory
All the 18 elected judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) concurred in rejecting former President Rodrigo Duterte’s plea to disqualify two of the judges hearing his crimes against humanity case because his arguments were incorrect, legally untenable and may cause delay.
In a 13-page ruling dated July 3, the ICC said the decision on the disqualification plea was reached by the plenary of judges, as required by ICC rules, consisting of 18 judges elected by the Assembly of States Parties, composed of 125 countries excluding the Philippines and Burundi, under the Rome Statute that created the ICC.
ICC judges—all respected lawyers in their home countries—are elected to nine-year terms and any finding of partiality against any of them is sufficient cause for removal from the court. No two judges come from the same country in the current batch of judges.
But in the case of Duterte’s plea, the plenary of judges unanimously decided that there were no grounds that raise actual nor reasonable apprehensions of bias against Judges Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou of Benin and Socorro Flores y Liera of Mexico.
“The plenary of judges considers that the judges acted, at all times, in accordance with the judicial duties assigned to them under the [Rome] Statute,” the ruling read.
“As judges of Pre-trial Chamber I, they issued the Authorisation Decision pursuant to article 15(4) of the Statute, which provides for the power of a pre-trial chamber to authorise an investigation proprio motu, if it considers that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation and that the case appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court,” it added.
Duterte sought the excusal of Alapini-Gansou and Flores because of their previous rulings on Duterte’s earlier petition questioning ICC jurisdiction, because the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019 when the ICC started investigating the charges against him while he was still president.
But the charges that were filed against Duterte covered a period starting from when he was mayor of Davao City until the time the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute.
Duterte did not include Presiding Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc of Romania because she was not yet part of the pretrial chamber when it ruled on the jurisdiction appeal.
But the plenary of judges ruled that “there are no grounds to doubt their impartiality in the current case and none of the criteria established.”
“The judges considered that the proposition of the applicant is incorrect and legally untenable, and has the potential to cause delay,” the document reads.
“They noted that, when Pre-trial Chamber I, in a former composition, addressed the issue of jurisdiction in the Situation in the Philippines, it did so in accordance with its duties and limited mandate under article 15(4) of the Statute, without prejudice to any future determinations on the same issue,” it further states.
