Minority senators earlier challenged President Duterte’s withdrawal of the Philippines from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) before the High Court that has acted on this ICC issue recently by ordering senator-respondents to file their comment within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice, with oral arguments set for July 24.

There came another group, that, one can guess, would be more or less the same opposition group that rapidly formed themselves as the Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court (PCICC).

This group filed yesterday the second legal challenge to the Executive Department’s decision to withdraw the country’s membership from the International Tribunal.

PCICC is led by former Commission on Human Rights chair Loretta Rosales of Akbayan which group turns even non-issues into issues, for propaganda against Duterte. The group filed a 49-page petition seeking to void the notice of withdrawal to the Rome Statute of the ICC sent by the Executive Branch to the United Nations Secretary General last March 17.

The group is a non-government organization composed of individuals and groups that campaigned for the Philippines to become a party to the Rome Statute.

They also sought the issuance of an order compelling the Palace to revoke the notice.

Both opposition groups want the Supreme Court to nullify Duterte’s official letter to the United Nations declaring the country’s withdrawal from the ICC.

The PCICC petitioners argued that Duterte’s decision to withdraw is “based on capricious, whimsical, ridiculous, misleading or misled, incoherent and/or patently false grounds, with no basis in fact, law or jurisprudence.”

The same petitioners claimed the withdrawal of the country’s membership came after the ICC’s special prosecutor announced it would be opening an initial examination into the alleged crimes against humanity under the Duterte administration.

This was rejected by Duterte, who pointed out the issue of human rights is being “weaponized” and “politicized” by the political opposition and by rights watchdogs.

These opposition groups are proving Duterte right in accusing them of politicizing and weaponizing the human rights issue which the same opposition and anti-Duterte media deliberately inflate the number of drug related killings.

Frankly, these challenges before the SC are a waste of time because whether the opposition admits it or not, it is the Executive Department through President Duterte that has power and authority, being the chief architect of foreign policy.

But aside from this fact, these challenges are a waste of time because whoever becomes the president after Duterte can easily overturn this withdrawal from the ICC membership of the country and again join the ICC. So what’s the big deal on these opposition groups’ insistence that Duterte’s unilateral withdrawal from the ICC membership?

Clearly, what these groups want is to have Duterte face trial at the ICC which is too ambitious a dream for the opposition.

Presidential spokesman Harry Roque in a statement stressed: “The Constitution makes no mention that concurrence of the Senate is necessary to validate the Philippines’ withdrawal from the International Criminal Court.”

The 1987 Constitution expressly states that Senate concurrence is needed in the ratification of treaties but does not mention a similar requirement for withdrawal.

It was also pointed out that any attempt to pass a Senate resolution expressing the sense of the chamber that ratification is also needed to withdraw ratification. This move by the opposition senators failed to obtain the votes needed to pass the resolution.

Then, too, a Senate resolution is not binding. So why even bother?

Also, the claim of PCICC that even as the President is chief architect of the country’s foreign policies, it still insists that Duterte’s withdrawal order “runs against an expressed legislative policy.”

The petitioners pointed to the Senate’s ratification of the Rome Statute and in the Republic Act No. 9851, referring to the International Humanitarian Law. They cited Article VII Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution which states that “entering into treaty or international agreement requires participation of Congress, that is, through concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.”

One is tempted to ask: What expressed legislative policy? That a treaty or agreement must be approved by the Senate first? Perhaps, but even the Constitution is silent on the matter of a Senate concurrence in the ratification for a withdrawal of a treaty even if the same Constitution says a Senate concurrence is needed in ratifying treaties.

Roque argued that the matter cannot be addressed by a petition filed before the High Court, saying the courts must defer matters on foreign affairs to the Executive.

In the end, of course, it will always be the SC that will have the last say on this issue.

Previous articleEx-BCDA execs ‘off the hook’ in John Hay disputeNext articleDoubt of the benefit Ninez-Cacho-Olivares