Kitty, Baste, Pulong argue petition for father Rodrigo Duterte's release 'not moot'

Three children of former President Rodrigo Duterte have argued that the petitions they filed seeking his release are not moot even though he is already under the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Veronica “Kitty” Duterte, Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte, and Davao City Representative Paolo “Pulong” Duterte each filed their reply to the government’s comment on Monday before the Supreme Court (SC).

Both Kitty Duterte and Baste Duterte argued that the petition is not moot and academic, contrary to the government’s comment where it asked the SC to deny their consolidated petition for being moot and lacking merit.

“Petitioner hereby reiterates that the respondents should not be allowed to escape the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus by simply claiming that FPRRD is no longer in their custody,” Kitty Duterte said in her 34-page traverse dated Monday.

“To allow the same would be to reward the respondents for their illegal and unconstitutional actions, and their deliberate attempt to evade judicial review,” she added.

The former president is currently under the custody of the ICC in The Hague, Netherlands following his arrest in the Philippines on March 11 over his alleged crimes against humanity.

Kitty Duterte also argued that the ICC failed to timely exercise its jurisdiction, citing the dissenting opinion of two ICC judges in July 2023.

This is in relation to the ruling of the ICC Appeals Chamber to allow the resumption of the drug war probe and its denial of the Philippine government’s appeal against the resumption.

The two judges said they consider that the Pre-Trial Chamber erred in concluding that the ICC has jurisdiction over the Philippine’s situation despite the withdrawal of the country from the Rome statute.

“Since the ICC failed to timely exercise its jurisdiction, it had no legal authority whatsoever to continue its investigation in the Philippine situation, let alone issue the warrant of arrest implemented by the respondents against FPRRD,” she said.

“Accordingly, any restraint on FPRRD’s liberty enforced by respondents pursuant to such ICC warrant was and remains illegal,” she added.

For his part, Baste Duterte said the SC’s ruling would reaffirm the country’s right to exercise jurisdiction over its own citizens, whether they are abroad.

“By addressing this petition, the Court will emphasize the any attempt to detain or surrender a Filipino citizen must strictly comply with Philippine laws and legal procedures,” he said.

Diffusion

Meanwhile, Baste and Pulong Duterte argued that the ICC warrant is not enforceable under the rules of the Interpol.

They noted that the warrant was executed based on a red diffusion. Baste Duterte noted that the diffusion was issued by the legal branch of the ICC to the National Central Bureau in Manila.

“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,” Baste Duterte 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.

Baste Duterte said that if the warrant was executed without prior court approval, this suggests the “possibility of a politically motivated action.”

He also argued that the act of surrendering an individual to an international court remains governed by Philippine law and cannot proceed in disregard of procedures.

“In this case, none of these safeguards were observed… of the respondent’s own submission, titled ‘information on the surrender and transfer,’ they answered ‘do not know’ when asked to state the date, time, and location of the appearance of the arrested person before the competent judicial authority,” he said.

“This admission is glaring. It confirms that no appearance before a Philippine court ever took place— a blatant violation of the judicial process,” he added.

The government previously cited Section 17 of the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity.

Section 17 of the law states that the Philippines may dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a case “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.”

Meanwhile, Pulong Duterte said that the former president’s remarks do not have any bearing on the validity or invalidity of the enforcement of an arrest warrant.

“Whatever statement he made does not validate the illegality of his arrest,” he said.

Kitty Duterte also cited the recusal of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) from the case, saying this was "unsurprising."

The OSG recused itself as it “may not be able to effectively represent Respondents in these cases” due to its firm stance that the international tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Philippines.

“The OSG’s recusal is therefore clear indication that FPRRD’s abduction and transfer to The Hague pursuant to the ICC warrant of arrest is illegal and indefensible,” she said.

When asked, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin declined to comment on Duterte’s traverse, saying the matter is already pending before the SC.

“Sasagutin namin (we will answer). We’ll just answer. We’ll file a pleading,” Remulla said in an ambush interview.

Remulla also reiterated that there was nothing illegal in the arrest of Duterte.

“I think that we were able to give the legal basis for everything that happened on March 11. I stand by everything that we did,” he said.

The ICC hearing on the confirmation of charges has been set for September 23. Duterte made his first appearance before the ICC on March 14. —VAL/RSJ/VBL, GMA Integrated News