Duterte children ask SC to order father’s return
- Afford him due process, Mayor Sebastian Duterte and Veronica Duterte argue in their habeas corpus plea — the same right their father had denied the thousands of victims of his ruthless drug war.
- In his 32-page petition for habeas corpus, docketed as G.R. No. 278763, Sebastian argued that subjecting a Filipino, particularly a former head of state, to foreign jurisdiction without due process under Philippine law “constitutes an unprecedented assault on national independence and self-determination.”
- The Davao mayor cited several alleged violations, including the failure to properly serve the warrant of arrest, the lack of adherence to due process, and supposed “inhumane treatment” of Duterte during his detention, which he claimed amounted to “clear violations of both domestic and international legal standards.”
The right to due process said to have been denied to thousands of victims of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s ruthless antinarcotics campaign is now the very same right his children are invoking to compel the government to “produce” his body before the Supreme Court.
In separate petitions for the writ of habeas corpus filed on Wednesday, Duterte’s children, Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte and Veronica Duterte, asked the high tribunal to order the government to immediately return their father from The Hague, the Netherlands, where the former president was brought after his arrest on Tuesday to face charges of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
This followed the Supreme Court’s rejection of their father’s earlier plea for an immediate temporary restraining order (TRO) against his transfer.
In his 32-page petition for habeas corpus, docketed as G.R. No. 278763, Sebastian argued that subjecting a Filipino, particularly a former head of state, to foreign jurisdiction without due process under Philippine law “constitutes an unprecedented assault on national independence and self-determination.”
Named respondents in the case are Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla, Philippine National Police chief Gen. Rommel Marbil, Maj. Gen. Nicolas Torre III, Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra, Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo, Armed Forces of the Philippines chief Gen. Romeo Brawner Jr., Philippine Center on Transnational Crime Executive Director Lt. Gen. Antonio Alcantara, Capt. Johnny Gulla and Capt. Elmo Segoria.
Arrest irregularities
Sebastian also impleaded former Immigration Commissioner Norman Tansingco, supposedly in his capacity as Bureau of Immigration chief, despite Tansingco having been fired from the post last year.
The Davao mayor cited several alleged violations, including the failure to properly serve the warrant of arrest, the lack of adherence to due process, and the “inhumane treatment” of Duterte during his detention, which he claimed amounted to “clear violations of both domestic and international legal standards.”
According to him, Torre merely read the warrant of arrest from his mobile phone without presenting an official, sealed document.
Despite repeated requests, Sebastian claimed that no original, sealed and printed copy of the warrant was provided.
He also argued that the arrest, based on an ICC warrant, violated Duterte’s “right to due process” as a Filipino citizen, disregarded the arrest procedures under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, undermined Philippine sovereignty as a non-ICC member, ignored the country’s functioning justice system, and, assuming the Philippines were still an ICC member, failed to comply with Article 59 of the Rome Statute and the principle of complementarity.
“The manner in which Duterte’s arrest was carried out, particularly the lack of a formal, sealed warrant and the denial of medical and family access, undermines the legitimacy of the process and raises serious concerns about the custodial state’s compliance with its obligations,” Sebastian said.
“Given these irregularities, it is clear that he was illegally detained, and appropriate legal remedies should be pursued to rectify these procedural and human rights violations,” he added.
Extradition violation
In seeking relief directly from the Supreme Court, Sebastian argued that the matter was of “extreme urgency and seriousness.”
In a separate petition filed by former chief presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo, Veronica claimed that the “act of forcibly taking” her father onto a plane bound for The Hague and surrendering him to the ICC was invalid for “being done without due process of law.”
Her case, docketed as G.R. No. 278768, named Bersamin, Justice Secretary Remulla, Marbil and Torre as respondents.
The petition argued that although no fixed procedure exists due to the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC, the rules on extradition suggest that the respondents should have handled the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) request under a similar, if not more stringent, process to uphold due process.
Veronica’s petition cited the Philippine extradition law (Presidential Decree No. 1069), which was allegedly violated since no court hearing was held to determine the legality of Duterte’s arrest.
It noted that Section 10 of PD 1069 requires a regional trial court to decide whether to grant or deny extradition, with stated reasons, and further mandates that extradition must be granted “upon showing of the existence of a prima facie case.”
“There is no written decision from the respondents citing the legal basis for their actions against former President Duterte, much less one from a court of competent jurisdiction,” the petition read in part.
Hours after the petitions were filed, the Supreme Court announced that both cases had been raffled to a member in charge for appropriate action.
Earlier TRO bid denied
In a statement, the high court also said that after a virtual deliberation on a separate 94-page petition filed by Duterte and Sen. Ronald dela Rosa seeking to stop the government from cooperating with the ICC and Interpol, the justices, in a majority vote, ruled that the petitioners “failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right for the immediate issuance of a TRO.”
In a statement, the Department of Justice defended Duterte’s arrest, saying he was “treated in accordance with the law and all procedural safeguards were observed to protect his rights.”
