Daily Tribune‘There was no verification by Interpol if the request complied with Article 3 of the Interpol Constitution, which forbids the organization from undertaking any intervention or activity with a political, military, religious or racial character
Share
Gift of comisseration Rodrigo ‘Tatay Digong’ Duterte’s 80th birthday will be variously ‘celebrated’ with tributes and protests against his detention here and abroad, as the former President remains in The Hague awaiting his trial in the International Criminal Court.
PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY OF SENATE/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Former President Rodrigo Duterte’s constitutional rights were trampled upon by the government during his “illegal” arrest on 11 March 2025, according to Senator Imee Marcos, citing the preliminary findings of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
“The constitutional safeguards guaranteeing liberty and due process were not observed. No warrant was issued by a Philippine court. The arrest did not fall within the exceptions of a warrantless arrest,” Senator Marcos said in a press briefing on Thursday.
Marcos said the Senate panel she chairs noted with dismay Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla’s admission that there was no effort to obtain a warrant from any Philippine court for the former president.
It also countered Criminal Investigation and Detection Group chief Gen. Nicolas Torre III’s assertion that the Philippine National Police invoked Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to justify the immediate arrest, detention, and shipping of Duterte to The Hague, Netherlands, within hours of his arrival from Hong Kong.
“Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code applies only to warrantless arrests,” the Senate panel’s preliminary report stated, while noting irregularities in the government’s service of an ICC warrant on Duterte through the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol).
“No court order was issued mandating that former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (FPRRD) be taken out of the Philippines against his will,” the findings said.
The panel also found that Duterte was “deprived of the right to be visited or have conferences with immediate members of his family,” as guaranteed under Section 2(f) of Republic Act 7438.
Torre admitted during last week’s Senate hearing that he prevented Vice President Sara Duterte from seeing her father during his 12-hour detention at Villamor Airbase before he was flown to the Netherlands. This despite the former president’s insistence on seeing her not just as his daughter but as a lawyer he wanted to confer with.
Additionally, the preliminary findings stated that Duterte was “denied the right to be brought before judicial authorities,” as required by Article 59 of the Rome Statute.
“The claim of [Interior and Local Government] Secretary Juanito Victor ‘Jonvic’ Remulla Jr. that they accorded the accused this legal remedy since FPRRD was able to file a petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) is self-serving,” the report said. “FPRRD was flown out of the country even before the Supreme Court had a chance to decide on his application for a TRO.”
Duterte’s ally, Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, filed a petition for a TRO with the Supreme Court to block the government’s move but failed to obtain relief. The findings also noted the former president was denied his right to apply for interim release.
“The inconsistent statements of the Department of Justice raise suspicions that the department is trying to justify the lack of due process in the arrest of FPRRD and the administration’s failure to respect FPRRD’s right to be brought before a competent judicial authority and/or to apply for bail,” the report stated, citing Section 2, Article 59 of the Rome Statute which requires that “a person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial state.”
The Senate panel found the Philippines had no legal obligation to arrest Duterte and turn him over to the ICC, noting that Interpol had only issued a Diffusion Notice.
“There was no verification by Interpol if the request complied with Article 3 of the Interpol Constitution, which forbids the organization from undertaking any intervention or activity with a political, military, religious or racial character,” it added.
Contrary to earlier reports, Duterte was surrendered to the ICC based on an Interpol Diffusion Notice and not a Red Notice. A diffusion notice is a level lower than a Red Notice and only asks a state to keep an eye on a suspect.
The panel called “deeply flawed” Justice Secretary Remulla’s argument that while the Philippines isn’t under ICC jurisdiction, individuals remain subject to ICC authority because International Humanitarian Law (IHL) forms part of customary law.
It provided three counterpoints: namely, that IHL customary law does not apply to crimes against humanity (only war crimes); court processes don’t become part of customary international law; and ICC jurisdiction requires state consent, regardless of IHL’s customary status.
The Senate committee concluded the Marcos administration assisted the ICC by acting on the arrest warrant before there was a formal notification. “The Diffusion Notice was issued only on 11 March 2025 (the day of the arrest). However, the administration had started preparations for the arrest prior to 11 March,” it said, noting the PNP mobilization on 10 March and NSA Eduardo Año’s reported surveillance of Duterte.
The report cited Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin’s 13 November 2024 statement about honoring Interpol requests.
The panel also criticized what it described as an attempt by Interior and Local Government Secretary Jonvic Remulla to revise his statement made in an earlier television interview where he stated that he, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Año, and Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro had planned Duterte’s arrest.
Remulla’s claim before the panel that they were merely discussing “rumors” was dismissed by the committee as “incredible,” stating, “this attempt to cover up what was already aired in the media indicates all the more that a comprehensive plan to arrest FPRRD was already in place even before 11 March.”
As for holding additional hearings, Senator Marcos told reporters: “As we speak, we are not certain if we will continue and whether there will be a second hearing because we need to find good and credible witnesses. We are still looking for them, and if it will not push through, then we will just study what was revealed a week ago.”
Duterte faces allegations of murder qualified as a crime against humanity allegedly committed between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019. While official figures reported 7,000 deaths during Duterte’s drug war, human rights groups estimated the toll at 30,000.
