Atty. Raul Loyola Lambino on Thursday debunked his own statement regarding the controversial arrest of former president Rodrigo Duterte and the Philippines’ cooperation with the International Criminal Court. 

The PDP-Laban senatorial candidate admitted that their camp rushed to the Supreme Court (SC) to challenge Duterte’s detention but failed to secure a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or injunction — despite his own earlier claims that the court had granted one.

“We went to the Supreme Court hoping we could get a TRO, but none was issued. Then on the following day, 12 March, the Supreme Court released an order denying our request for an injunction,” Lambino said in English and Filipino in an open forum at the Chamber of Commerce of the Philippine Islands senatorial series.

This contradicts statements made by Lambino in a Tuesday evening Facebook Live stream, where he claimed that his petition for a TRO had been granted by the SC halting the surrender of the former president to the ICC.

"We just received an advisory from the Supreme Court — I am with Attorney Torreon," he said, referring to Atty. Israelito Torreon, who has also served as legal counsel of detained Kingdom of Jesus Christ founder Apollo Quiboloy. "We received the call that [the TRO] was granted." 

When pressed about this discrepancy in his statements, Lambino said, “I was hoping this won’t get asked here.”

However, the attorney did note that the decision was “not yet moot and academic,” in spite of the fact that Duterte has already arrived in the Netherlands.

Motion for reconsideration

Lambino further noted that they will still file a motion for reconsideration

"Because we believe there is a violation of due process and the right of the former president... We are not admitting that the Rome Statute of the ICC is still applicable here, the fact that we have withdrawn membership from the ICC," he continued.

"But assuming that the Rome Status still applies in the Philippines... the order of the pre-trial chamber of the ICC should be subject to the judicial review," he added.

Citing Article 59 of the Rome Statute, which states "a person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodian State," Lambino said Duterte has the right to go to the court where he was arrested.

"It is in the Philippines. But President Duterte was deprived of that right. He was deprived of the right to counsel because former [Labor] Secretary Silvestre Bello was not allowed to enter," he lamented.

"Even Vice President Sara was not allowed to enter," he added.

Bello is one of the former president's lawyers. Meanwhile, according to Duterte, her daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, also serves as her legal counsel.

"There was a series of violations committed by the police. What was the rush about? It is what we call political persecution."

Lambino said the SC will comment on their petition within 10 days. Meanwhile, there are still two cases of petitions that were filed before the High Court.

On Wednesday, Veronica "Kitty" Duterte filed a petition before the SC to seek the return of her father who was arrested and flown to the ICC in the Netherlands over crimes against humanity.

She was represented by Duterte's former chief presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo. Kitty filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which directly translates as "produce the body," a legal remedy often used by activists who were illegally detained.

Duterte's son and Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte filed a separate petition, seeking the "immediate and unconditional" release of his father. He argued that the former president's arrest and detention were unlawful and that he faced an unauthorized transfer to the ICC.

After arriving at the Rotterdam Airport via a chartered plane on Wednesday, Duterte was transferred to a detention unit on the Dutch coast where he awaits an initial trial in the coming days.