{"id":239416,"date":"2019-12-08T02:05:31","date_gmt":"2019-12-08T07:05:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=239416"},"modified":"2019-12-08T02:05:31","modified_gmt":"2019-12-08T07:05:31","slug":"palace-welcomes-icc-withdrawal-of-communication-vs-xi-jinping","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2019\/12\/08\/palace-welcomes-icc-withdrawal-of-communication-vs-xi-jinping\/","title":{"rendered":"Palace welcomes ICC withdrawal of communication vs. Xi Jinping"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
The two former Philippine government officials accused Xi and other Chinese officials of committing crimes against humanity for implementing Beijing’s “systematic plan to control the South China Sea.” (File Photo by Hye900711 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0,<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 Malaca\u00f1ang on Saturday welcomed the International Criminal Court\u2019s (ICC) ruling, which says that it lacked jurisdiction over the two former Philippine officials\u2019 communication filed against Chinese President Xi Jinping and other Chinese officials for alleged crimes against humanity by pursuing Beijing\u2019s sweeping claims to the South China Sea.<\/p>\n

In a statement, Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo said the ICC\u2019s decision complements Malaca\u00f1ang\u2019s earlier stance that the communication filed by former Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario and former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales against China may not prosper since the filing could be considered \u201cfutile.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis dismissal is consistent with our previous stand that the filing of the complaint is a futile exercise, for the reason that the ICC has no jurisdiction over China, it being not a state member,\u201d the Palace official said.<\/p>\n

\u201cNeither does it have jurisdiction over the Philippines, given that the Rome Statute failed to comply with the publication requirement in accordance with due process under our Constitution,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

Del Rosario and Carpio, on behalf of Filipino fishermen “persecuted and injured” by China’s massive island-building and occupation of islands in the hotly-contested South China Sea, filed a communication against Xi and other Chinese officials for purportedly perpetrating crimes against humanity attributed to Beijing’s allegedly aggressive militarization of the busy waterway.<\/p>\n

The two former Philippine government officials accused Xi and other Chinese officials of committing crimes against humanity for implementing Beijing’s “systematic plan to control the South China Sea.”<\/p>\n

The communication was submitted to the ICC on March 15, or two days before the Philippines’ official withdrawal from the Rome Statute on March 17.<\/p>\n

China is not a member-state of the ICC, but the communication states that the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over China for its “atrocious actions” in the South China Sea, particularly within Philippine territory.<\/p>\n

The ICC, in its \u201cReport on Preliminary Examination Activities 2019, said it has no \u201cterritorial and personal jurisdiction\u201d to act on the case since the supposed crimes committed by China happened outside the Philippine territory.<\/p>\n

Del Rosario and Morales, however, claimed that the ICC did not dismiss their communication against Beijing.<\/p>\n

The two said the international court\u2019s latest report only strengthened their resolve as it welcomes \u201cnew facts and evidence\u201d to proceed with the case.<\/p>\n

Panelo lamented that the former Philippine officials still opted to pursue a \u201cwrong tact\u201d despite the ICC\u2019s ruling.<\/p>\n

\u201cApparently wanting to still milk the issue for media mileage to advance their pretended nationalism, they are still bent in pursuing their wrong tact despite the rejection of their complaint,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn contrast, the Morales-Del Rosario tandem resorted to an ineffective process, evidently for its propaganda value,\u201d Panelo added.<\/p>\n

On March 21, President Rodrigo Duterte expressed confidence that the Philippines’ mended and warming ties with China would not be strained by del Rosario and Carpio-Morales\u2018s filing of communication against Xi.<\/p>\n

Panelo said Duterte would continue pursuing an \u201ceffective\u201d negotiations with Xi to resolve the long-standing disputes in the South China Sea.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn resolving the conflict of the South China Sea, the President has chosen an effective mode accepted under International Law of directly engaging the People\u2019s Republic of China in bilateral negotiations to resolve the dispute in a peaceful, expedient and efficacious manner,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

On July 12, 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in favor of the Philippines, invalidating China’s extensive claims to the South China Sea.<\/p>\n

Duterte, however, has repeatedly refused to invoke the arbitral ruling and instead opted to seek a peaceful engagement with Beijing about the unresolved maritime row.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0\u2014 Malaca\u00f1ang on Saturday welcomed the International Criminal Court\u2019s (ICC) ruling, which says that it lacked jurisdiction over the two …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":73720,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-239416","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-ruth-abbey-gita-carlos","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239416","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=239416"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239416\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":239417,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239416\/revisions\/239417"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/73720"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239416"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239416"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239416"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}