Duterte kin press habeas petition, cite OSG recusal
- Per Duterte’s daughter Veronica, the Office of the Solicitor General’s (OSG) recusal from the case was proof that ex-President Rodrigo Duterte’s “abduction” and transfer to The Hague were “illegal and indefensible.”
- The three children of Duterte are pressing the SC to grant their habeas corpus petitions for his immediate release from the custody of the ICC.
- But on March 17, the OSG asked the SC to consider its recusal, prompting the DOJ, representing government officials, to argue that the habeas corpus petitions should be dismissed as moot since Duterte is already in ICC custody in the Netherlands and no longer within Philippine jurisdiction.
The three children of former President Rodrigo Duterte are pressing the Supreme Court to grant their habeas corpus petitions for his immediate release from the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC), with Veronica Duterte citing the Office of the Solicitor General’s (OSG) recusal as proof that his “abduction” and transfer to The Hague were “illegal and indefensible.”
In separate traverses, or pleadings denying the facts alleged by the opposing party, siblings Veronica, Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte and Davao City Rep. Paolo Duterte reiterated on Monday that their father’s arrest was illegal, that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the Philippines following its withdrawal from the Rome Statute, and that the government violated the Constitution by enforcing the ICC warrant without judicial review and due process.
The traverses, made public by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, respond to the consolidated compliance of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which assumed the role of state lawyer after the OSG recused itself from the case.
Duterte was flown to the ICC headquarters in The Hague past 11 p.m. on March 11 after the government assisted the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) in serving the arrest warrant.
A day after their father was turned over to the ICC, Duterte’s children asked the Supreme Court to compel the government to bring him back to the Philippines.
On March 13, the high court issued a show-cause order directing the government to explain why the petitions for a writ of habeas corpus separately filed by Veronica (G.R. No. 278768), Sebastian (G.R. No. 278763) and Paolo (G.R. No. 278798) should not be granted.
In a manifestation and motion filed on March 17, the OSG asked the Supreme Court to take note of and/or favorably consider its recusal, emphasizing that it had long maintained that the Philippines’ case was inadmissible before the ICC and that the tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in a timely manner.
The DOJ, representing government officials named as respondents in the petitions—including Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, Philippine National Police chief Gen. Rommel Marbil, and Criminal Investigation and Detection Group director Maj. Gen. Nicolas Torre III—argued that the habeas corpus petitions should be dismissed as moot since Duterte is already in ICC custody in the Netherlands and no longer within Philippine jurisdiction.
Citing Section 2, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the DOJ stressed that a writ of habeas corpus is enforceable only within the country and does not apply when a valid arrest warrant has been issued.
The DOJ also invoked Republic Act No. 9851, which allows the Philippines to defer to an international tribunal and surrender suspects in accordance with extradition laws and treaties.
Remulla’s UN speech
In her response, Veronica noted that Justice Secretary Remulla had said in a 2023 speech before the United Nations Human Rights Council that the ICC had no jurisdiction since the Philippines had a “working justice system.”
She said it was “unsurprising” that the OSG, which is legally mandated to serve as legal counsel for the Philippine government and represent the country in pretrial proceedings before the ICC, recused itself from representing the respondent government officials, who, she argued, had “suddenly” adopted an “irreconcilable view on the ICC’s jurisdiction.”
“The OSG’s recusal is therefore clear indication that [Duterte’s] abduction and transfer to The Hague pursuant to the ICC warrant of arrest is illegal and indefensible,” Veronica said.
Paolo’s reply tackled on how the former president’s arrest was carried out through a diffusion by Interpol of the ICC-issued arrest warrant rather than through a formal notice.
Citing Interpol’s Rules on the Processing of Data, Paolo explained that Interpol notices are international alerts or cooperation requests issued at the request of a National Central Bureau (NCB) or an international entity, or initiated by Interpol’s General Secretariat.
A red notice, he pointed out, is specifically issued for arrest purposes and must undergo a legal review by Interpol’s General Secretariat to ensure compliance with its constitution and rules.
A diffusion, on the other hand, is a direct request sent from an NCB or an international entity to selected recipients without requiring General Secretariat review. Diffusions share intelligence or request assistance in criminal investigations but do not mandate legal scrutiny, he noted.
“Hence, the legality of the warrant of arrest issued by the ICC was not subjected to the legal review of the General Secretariat of Interpol, thus, resulting in its procedural infirmity,” he said.
‘Personal interest’
In his own reply, Sebastian similarly questioned the execution of the arrest, arguing that it was based on a “less formal and nonbinding mechanism of international police cooperation.”
The Davao mayor cited a Senate hearing on March 14, where Philippine Center for Transnational Crime Executive Director Anthony Alcantara confirmed that Interpol had issued only a diffusion, not a red notice, on the day of Duterte’s arrest.
“If it was a Philippine law enforcement agency that diffused the ICC’s request, this strongly suggests that the Philippine government, under the color of Interpol cooperation, executed and arranged the rendition itself,” Sebastian said.
“In such a case, the diffusion was merely a pretext—a procedural facade to conceal what was, in essence, a unilateral and political surrender of a Filipino citizen to a foreign tribunal, outside the scope of law,” he added.
He claimed that the Philippine government “orchestrated” the arrest out of “personal interest” rather than genuine Interpol cooperation.
The enforcement of the arrest warrant without prior court approval, he said, suggested a “possibility of politically motivated action, which could constitute illegal detention or, even more concerning, state-sponsored kidnapping, all under the guise of international cooperation.”
