House members who believe they can bully the government into submission to allow the entry of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and make a mockery of the country’s judiciary were recently put in their place.

The actions taken by the government regarding its engagement with the ICC are far from arbitrary, contrary to the arguments of critics of the administration.

It is being peddled that the Marcos administration’s refusal to allow ICC representatives into the country is meant to shield current and former public figures.

According to Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra, the issue involves sovereignty, and cooperating with the ICC is a political decision.

During questioning by the omnipotent Quad Committee, Guevarra said that cooperation with the ICC does not rest with Congress but on the decision of the President.

Congress passed a resolution to cooperate with the ICC, but Guevarra said it could only recommend the action the government should take. Ultimately, it is still the President who makes the final decision.

Congress resolutions are expressions of sentiment and are not binding, the Solicitor General clarified.

The legislators were trying to pin down Guevarra on the administration’s strong resistance to engaging with the ICC on the war on drugs probe.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has declared several times that the government will not cooperate with the ICC prosecutor.

The exercise of ICC jurisdiction was triggered under the tribunal’s Article 13 when the ICC prosecutor initiated an investigation. However, the Rome Statute attempts to balance certain considerations, including the sovereign right of a State to withdraw and the tribunal’s effort to end impunity, explained Guevarra.

He also corrected the assertion of some pretenders in legal circles that the concurrence of the Senate was needed to withdraw the country from the Rome Statute that created the ICC.

The removal of the country from the international tribunal’s rolls took effect in 2019.

The Senate’s ratification of the Rome Statute did not contain the condition that, in the case of a withdrawal through the Executive branch, the concurrence of Congress would be needed.

Guevarra said that despite bolting the Rome Statute, the government had submitted information to the ICC prosecutor’s office, but the latter viewed these as insufficient.

On the issue of complementarity, which the government insists the ICC comply with, Guevarra said it has been shown that actions are being taken regarding the alleged extrajudicial killings in the war on drugs.

As of October 2023, the Philippine National Police had prioritized investigations into 56 cases of alleged resisting arrest that led to the deaths of suspects, or instances of so-called “nanlaban.” Among these, 25 were closed for lack of interest on the part of the complainants.

Nineteen cases are pending investigation, while 12 complaints have been filed before the courts and prosecutor’s offices.

Guevarra then enumerated several convictions in some of the cases to prove that the wheels of justice are moving, disputing the need for the ICC to meddle.

Another 250 “nanlaban” cases were investigated by the Bulacan division of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), but 70 to 80 percent of these cases were left hanging because the victims’ families could not be located or refused to cooperate, according to Guevarra.

Only a few of the cases have reached the courts, “because we have a certain process to follow, which is not similar to the procedure of the ICC.”

“ICC just does what it wants to do. It investigates and issues arrest warrants on its own; it can do so, but our process needs time,” he explained.

Such is the dilemma of the government in letting the ICC prosecutor do what it wants in the country since it would create a precedent for interference in domestic affairs.