DoJ: SC can’t review Interpol

In the consolidated compliance issued by the Department of Justice (DoJ) to the writ of habeas corpus that seeks to compel the return of former President Rodrigo Duterte from The Hague, the government contended its interaction with the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) was “beyond the review power of the courts.”

The DoJ substituted for the Office of the Solicitor General as government counsel in the case after the OSG asked to be inhibited due to its consistent position that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the Philippines.

The government has contended that it has been consistent in its policy of not cooperating with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in its investigation of and subsequent arrest order on Duterte but it insisted that it had to honor its commitment to Interpol which sought the enforcement of the ICC arrest warrant.

“In extending assistance to Interpol, the (government) led by the President is merely complying with its international obligations and performing his role as the chief architect of the country’s foreign policy.

“This is well within the President’s discretion and the exercise thereof is patently a political question,” a document handed to Daily Tribune quoted the DoJ.

The absence of a supposed Interpol Red Notice on Duterte raised suspicions the role of the international law enforcement agency in the capture of the former president was made up.

As a member-state of Interpol, it is the government’s duty to ensure that Interpol attains its mandates, one of which is “to ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police authorities This duty extends to inter-governmental or non-governmental international organizations, such as the ICC,” according to the DoJ.

The DoJ went on to argue that as a general proposition, a controversy is justifiable if it refers to a matter which is appropriate for court review. It pertains to issues which are inherently susceptible of being decided on grounds recognized by law. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court does not automatically assume jurisdiction over actual constitutional cases brought before it even in instances that are ripe for resolution.

One class of cases the Court hesitates to rule on are “political questions.”

It contended that the reason is that political questions are concerned with issues dependent “upon the wisdom, not the legality, of a particular act or measure being assailed. Moreover, the political question being a function of the separation of powers, the courts will not normally interfere with the workings of another co-equal branch unless the case shows a clear need for the courts to step in to uphold the law and the Constitution.”