SC resets ICC oral arguments to August 28

In an advisory, the High Court deferred the oral arguments from August 14 to August 28 on the consolidated petitions filed by six opposition senators and the Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court (PCICC), led by former Commission on Human Rights chairperson Loretta Ann Rosales. (Photo By Aeros – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0)

MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has rescheduled the oral arguments on the petition, which seeks to invalidate the Philippine government’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC)

In an advisory, the High Court deferred the oral arguments from August 14 to August 28 on the consolidated petitions filed by six opposition senators and the Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court (PCICC), led by former Commission on Human Rights chairperson Loretta Ann Rosales.

“Oral arguments (in “Pangilinan, et al. v. Cayetano, et al./PCICC, et al. v. ES, et al.”) will be reset to August 28. Full resolution will come out after the en banc deliberations tomorrow. Parties are being informed,” reads the SC advisory posted on its Twitter account.

Last Thursday, Kiko Pangilinan, Franklin Drilon, Bam Aquino, Antonio Trillanes IV, Leila de Lima and Riza Hontiveros – the six senator-petitioners – filed a four-page motion and manifestation requesting the High Court to defer the oral arguments to August 28.

The lawmakers said they have yet to receive a copy of the en banc’ decision junking de Lima’s bid to personally argue the case.

“Petitioners-Senators, through Senator de Lima requested a copy of the resolution from the Office of the Clerk of Court but they were informed that such resolution is not yet available,” the group’s motion read.

They said they would also appeal the en banc’ resolution as soon as they receive an official copy of the decision.

Currently, the senators do not have a lawyer to represent them for the oral arguments.

If the SC would grant the senators’ motion, it would be the second time that the oral arguments on the issue would be deferred.

The SC originally set the oral arguments on August 7 but then moved it to August 14.

In dismissing de Lima’s plea, the SC said it found no compelling reason for her to personally appear during the conduct of oral arguments.

The Court noted that the senator, currently detained at the Philippine National Police-Custodial Center due to illegal drug charges, failed to raise circumstances or competencies exclusive to her that would make her appearance necessary.

The senator is accused of benefitting from the illegal drug trade inside the New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) in Muntinlupa during her term as justice secretary.

The oral arguments will tackle the petition of the six senators, who filed for certiorari and mandamus, saying that under Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution, the Philippine government’s signing of a treaty or international agreement requires the participation of the Senate by voting on it.

The SC earlier issued the following guidelines on the oral arguments to four major issues:

* Whether or not it should take cognizance of the petitions;

* Whether or not the withdrawal from the Rome Statute, through a “note verbale” delivered to the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN) is “valid, binding and effectual”;

* Whether or not the withdrawal places the Philippines in breach of its obligations under international law and;

* Whether or not it will diminish the Filipino people’s protection under international law.

On March 14, President Rodrigo Duterte announced the Philippines’ withdrawal of its ratification of the Rome Statute, a United Nations treaty creating the ICC.

In the statement, Duterte cited the “baseless, unprecedented and outrageous attacks” against him and his administration as the reason for his withdrawal as a state party.

This came after ICC special prosecutor Fatou Bensouda began a preliminary examination on the alleged human rights violations amid the Duterte administration’s intensified war on drugs.