The arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, following an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant, has sparked a legal debate over whether the ICC still holds jurisdiction over him. Lawyer Melvin Matibag, a former acting Cabinet secretary under Duterte, discussed the complexities of international law and the Philippine government's role in the matter.

Matibag acknowledged the contrasting interpretations surrounding the issue.

“Others will say that since we are no longer a member of the ICC since 2019, the arrest is not valid because they don’t have jurisdiction,” Matibag told DAILY TRIBUNE.

“On the other side, the argument is that the allegations and investigations happened during 2011 to 2019, when the Philippines was still a member of the ICC.”

Matibag cited the Supreme Court ruling in Pangilinan v. Cayetano, which affirmed that withdrawing from the Rome Statute does not absolve a state of its obligations incurred while it was still a member.

The decision stated that even after depositing the instrument of withdrawal, the Philippines was not discharged from any criminal proceedings initiated before the ICC.

“Until the withdrawal took effect on March 17, 2019, the Philippines was committed to meeting its obligations under the Rome Statute. Any and all governmental acts up to that date may still be taken cognizance of by the ICC,” the ruling declared.

It further clarified that liability for the alleged summary killings and other atrocities committed during the war on drugs is not nullified or negated, as the Philippines remained covered and bound by the Rome Statute until March 17, 2019.

Matibag also referenced a "well-established legal doctrine" stating that once jurisdiction is acquired, it cannot be removed.

“There is also a legal doctrine that once jurisdiction is acquired, it does not go away,” he said. “There could be a legal challenge, but as of now, there is a valid warrant, so the question is whether it is being enforced.”

International cooperation

Matibag emphasized the importance of international coordination in such matters.

“We have to look at this from the perspective of the international community,” he said. “There has to be coordination. If we need something from other states, they will extend the same courtesy. That’s how the international legal system works.”

He also raised the possibility of Interpol’s involvement in the enforcement of the warrant. “If Interpol arrives and asks for help, they might also be in a bind and have to act on it,” Matibag noted.

Matibag pointed out that Duterte’s arrest is a matter of international comity, the principle that nations recognize and respect each other’s legal decisions and obligations.

This means that even though the Philippines withdrew from the ICC, other countries may still choose to enforce the arrest warrant as part of their commitment to global legal cooperation.

Supreme Court’s role

Regarding the role of the Philippine government in potentially intervening, Matibag stressed that international relations are built on mutual respect between sovereign states.

“The best authority to answer this is the Supreme Court,” he said.