The children of former president Rodrigo Duterte filed a motion before the Supreme Court to set the habeas corpus petition for oral arguments.

In a 14-page motion, Veronica Duterte and Sebastian Duterte cited Rule 49, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which states that the court may conduct oral arguments on the merits of a case at its own initiative, or upon the motion of a party.

Section 1 of the Rules of Court states, “At its own instance or upon motion of a party, the court may hear the parties in oral argument on the merits of a case, or on any material incident in connection therewith.”

Also, the oral argument shall be limited to such matters as the court may specify in its order or resolution.

The petition also stated the rule, of course, applies to original petitions for habeas corpus before the SC pursuant to Rule 56, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.

The petition argued that the consolidated petitions present exigent constitutional issues, including but not limited to whether or not the respondents violated the constitutional rights of former President Duterte under Article III of the 1987 Constitution in arresting and transferring him to The Hague, Netherlands, without prior authority from the Philippine court and whether or not the respondents violated the separation of powers in recognizing the jurisdiction of, or conferring jurisdiction on, the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Further, the petition stated that oral arguments would allow the court to probe the jurisdictional limits of a writ of habeas corpus and the enforceability of its writ on respondents within the court’s jurisdiction, even when their actions extend beyond uncharted legal waters, including the significance of the respondents’ hasty actions that were obviously designed to avoid judicial review and correction.

Earlier, the Duterte children petitioned the SC to resolve the legality of their father’s arrest and surrender to the ICC, regardless of whether their petition for a writ of habeas corpus is already moot.

Veronica, represented by former chief presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo, emphasized in a manifestation submitted to the high tribunal on March 14 that their petitions questioning the former president’s arrest should proceed, although Duterte is already under ICC custody in The Hague.

The other children of Duterte likewise filed similar petitions before the high bench, as the race against time continues to get their father back to the Philippines.

On the other hand, the Department of Justice (DOJ), acting as counsel for the respondents in the petitions filed by Duterte’s children, argued that a writ of habeas corpus is only enforceable within the Philippines, and with Duterte in the Netherlands: “[c]learly, therefore, since the relief prayed for could no longer be granted, the consolidated petitions are already moot and academic, warranting their outright dismissal by the Honorable Court.”

In her 14-page manifestation, she stated, “The respondents cannot escape compliance with a writ of habeas corpus by simply claiming that former President Duterte is no longer in their custody. To allow the same would be to reward the respondents for their illegal and unconstitutional actions.”

She pointed out that the case was “certainly capable of repetition” without undergoing review, citing remarks by Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro, who announced that the Philippine government would also cooperate with Interpol for the possible arrest of Ronald dela Rosa, a former police chief who implemented Oplan “Tokhang,” once his ICC warrant of arrest is endorsed.

The prayer of the petition said, “Wherefore, premises considered, petitioner Veronica A. Duterte respectfully prays that this Honorable Court set the consolidated petitions for oral arguments.”