Not much difference between ‘red notice’ and ‘red diffusion', says ICC-accredited lawyer

An International Criminal Court-accredited lawyer on Sunday backed the legality of former president Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest, saying that there is no big difference whether the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) acted on a red notice or red diffusion. 

Atty. Gilbert Andres, who is also the executive director of Center for International Law, explained Interpol merely transmitted the arrest warrant from the ICC to the Philippines. 

The Philippine government, meanwhile, surrendered Duterte in compliance with Republic Act 9851, or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity. 

“To be very frank, in terms of serving the ICC arrest warrant, there should be no substantive, walang mabigat na [there’s no big] difference,” Andres said in a Super Radyo dzBB interview.

“So whether it’s red diffusion notice or red notice, it’s irrelevant for Philippine domestic purposes kasi ang legal na batayan po ay nasa [because the legal basis is on] Section 17 Paragraph 2 [of] RA 9851,” he added. 

Section 17 of RA 9851 states that: ''In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable under this Act if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime. Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court, if any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties."

During the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations’ hearing last Thursday, the Philippine Center on Transnational Crime (PCTC) confirmed there was no red notice from the Interpol, only a red diffusion for the former president’s arrest. 

PCTC Executive Director Anthony Alcantara had maintained that the diffusion “went through the organization’s police database.”

However, Senator Imee Marcos raised doubts about the arrest, claiming that an Interpol diffusion is different from a notice.

The lawmaker and elder sister of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said the Philippine government surrendered Duterte to the ICC, and was taken by “outsiders” who claimed the right to judge him. She also questioned when the Philippines became a “province” of The Hague. 

Andres clarified Interpol only facilitated the arrest warrant issued by an international criminal tribunal, which is the ICC, and RA 9851 became the domestic mechanism for Duterte to be turned over to authorities. 

“Sa tingin ko ‘di talaga ganon kalaki ‘yung difference no’n kasi nga in fact…ang Interpol, hindi siya nagi-issue ng any arrest warrant. Ang role lang talaga ng Interpol is to really facilitate, talagang interaction, inter-agency, inter-state mechanism lang siya para magpasahan ng arrest warrant,” he said.

(I don't think the difference is really that big because in fact Interpol doesn't issue any arrest warrants. Interpol's role is really to really facilitate. It's really just an interaction, inter-agency, inter-state mechanism to issue arrest warrants.) 

Malacañang had also maintained the legality of Duterte’s arrest following the remarks of Imee Marcos that the Philippine government had surrendered him to the ICC.

Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Atty. Claire Castro stressed the Philippines was never a province of any other nation or entity since it is an ''independent country.'' She insisted the government just implemented the law in relation to Duterte's arrest. 

The former Philippine leader is currently in detention at the ICC prison at The Hague, Netherlands to face charges of crimes against humanity for his deadly war on drugs that resulted in the deaths of at least 6,000 people. —RF, GMA Integrated News