For the second time in less than a month, President Bongbong Marcos Jr. had to defend in a foreign land the decision of his administration to ignore the International Criminal Court’s investigation into the anti-narcotics policy of the previous regime.

In a bilateral meeting, he told German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that the decision to disengage from the ICC was non-negotiable because it involved sovereignty.

In his visit to Australia earlier, the same issue was raised courtesy of the intrusive Senator Janet Rice, who was escorted out of the Parliament for disrupting Mr. Marcos’ address.

The ICC, thus, is using its solidarity network, which includes the anti-Marcos forces, to apply pressure on PBBM to return to the fold of the international tribunal that is in great need of a booster shot on its credibility.

PBBM stood firm on both occasions that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the Philippines, which has a working judicial system and law enforcement mechanism.

The ICC is investigating crimes against humanity complaint filed by a tainted source, the late lawyer Jude Sabio, who acknowledged his connection to destabilizer Antonio Trillanes IV.

In jest, PBBM told Scholz that there were enough lawyers in the country, and the ICC need not bother adding more by planning to bring in their prosecutors.

Humor must be resorted to since the ICC has been on overdrive to justify its intrusion into the country.

The issue is not about gathering evidence but about jurisdiction.

The President indicated, “We have our investigations and we’re capable of conducting our investigations, and so we are, we are continuing to do so.”

Marcos said the ICC’s intrusion into the Philippine judicial system is a subject that his administration can handle.

He said it is “unacceptable” for an international court to take control over the Philippines, which has a working judicial system and law enforcement mechanisms.

Under the principle of complementarity, the ICC can only intervene when the judiciary system malfunctions, resulting in the deterioration of peace and order.

PBBM said denying cooperation to the ICC is “a matter of principle since it is very difficult for the Philippines to accept that an outside court dictates who they will investigate and who they will arrest.”

Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile said he can take it a step further by saying that it is within the power of the government to arrest ICC agents if they fail to inform local authorities of their visit.

The Philippines cut ties with the ICC on 17 March 2019, a year after the country formally notified the United Nations of its withdrawal from the Rome Statute, which created the international court.

The veteran public servant said that since 2019, the ICC  ceased to have jurisdiction over the country.

Enrile said the ICC has been in cahoots with the government’s detractors to further their “political agenda.”

He advised PBBM: “We will not allow any of our officials to be investigated or tried by the ICC.”

“As a lawyer of the President, I will not allow and will not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. They have no sovereign power over us,” he added.

He said the country was not obligated to cooperate after withdrawing from the Rome Statute.

Enrile said he will not surrender self-determination in the conduct of the ongoing cases related to the drug war.

Enrile’s point is that the ICC introduces an aberration into the justice system in which the courts, instead of handing out an impartial decision, may have to consider the international tribunal’s disposition.

That will also be part of jurisprudence, which may mean that international courts become the main recourse in legal complaints instead of the local judiciary, particularly among those who have the means to do so.

That is the reason nations such as the United States, Russia, China, India and Israel do not subscribe to the meddling court.