Following an ex-president’s being taken into custody by the International Criminal Court, the positions, nay world view, articulated by big names in the legal firmament become worth annotating. For brevity, let’s consider Artemio Panganiban, Alexis Medina, Ranhilio Aquino and Crispin Remulla as Experts A, B, C, D, respectively.

Panganiban problematized how the two-year prescriptive period of the Rome Statute reckoned from the country’s withdrawal from the ICC effective 17 March 2019 could bar an investigation and trial, noting that 24 May 2021 marked the date the petition for authority to conduct a preliminary examination was filed and 25 September 2021 marked the grant of the petition.

Both dates, however, fell past the effectivity date of the Philippine withdrawal. The unsettling claim of a preliminary examination having been conducted on 8 February 2018 when the country was still an ICC member rendered the “pivotal issue” porous.

Medina anchored his view on the fundamental right to liberty of abode. Ergo, the immediate surrender of an individual to an international tribunal without a judicial proceeding was violative of such liberty. Citing Section 17 of Republic Act 9851, surrender without judicial oversight infringes on the constitutional guarantee under Section 6 of the Bill of Rights, viz., “The liberty of abode cannot be restricted without a lawful court order.”

Further he sayeth, viz., “Article 59 of the Rome Statute requires an arrest to follow the proper legal procedures in the country where it happened; it enjoys the right to challenge irregularities.” Again, ergo, justice cannot start with a violation of law.

Aquino embraced the view, viz., “Our domestic legal framework recognizes international jurisdiction in cases of crimes against humanity;” adding that Duterte’s arrest is “a matter of justice and adherence to our legal commitments.” Citing Article 127 of the Rome Statute, he explained that a country remains obligated to cooperate in ongoing cases that fall under the Court’s jurisdiction, even after withdrawal. In effect, it does not “absolve the country from its prior commitments.”

Remulla, lost in translation, deemed the Department of Justice as the “competent judicial authority” to ensure that the proper processes and rights were respected (Article 59, Rome Statute).

Quickly, that fizzled out into thin air and thenceforward invoked provisions referred to in Section 17 of RA 9851 as the justification for Duterte’s arrest, transfer, and detention in The Hague.

Whether these world views inform the contemporary public discourse or open a new horizon of legal thought has become irrelevant. A phenomenal social movement the world has never seen — staged via protest marches, street rallies, other symbolic forms of mass actions (i.e., zero remittance) — effectively isolated government from the governed.

No Quad Committee can militate against vloggers without taking the same “fatal plunge” itself. No government should police, much less control, the steady stream of information or data flowing between and across interconnected networks in the “flat world” (Friedman).

Other public intellectuals and experts in their own right like Antonio Carpio and Harry Roque registered their take on the ICC issue. The former rather carelessly argued that Duterte’s statements and public admissions implicated him in extrajudicial killings and this could be used against him. How so in the case of apparent admissions and policy statements issued in public, usually characterized by gravitas, joke, bluff, or sense of humor? How so did Duterte’s surrender render the issue moot?

Whereas, Roque argued about the Diffusion Order as contra-distinguished with Interpol’s Red Notice, however it might have arisen from a standing ICC warrant of arrest. His argument belied the Naked Emperor’s claim of having no hand in former President Rodrigo Duterte’s custody in The Hague, Senate altruistic findings notwithstanding. The prospect of an interim release for Duterte is laid on the table by Nicholas Kaufman but this could cut either way.

The whole world awaits what the “order of things” (Foucault) is going to be. Is there light at the end of the tunnel? By way of lifeboat ethics, can the ICC, nay, the Filipino people, in conscience sacrifice Duterte to save the drug syndicates instead?