Oral arguments on Rody arrest pressed before SC

Two children of former President Rodrigo Duterte have filed a motion before the Supreme Court seeking oral arguments on their habeas corpus petition.

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 the 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.”

The motion noted that the oral arguments would be limited to matters the court specifies in its order or resolution.

The petition further stated that this rule applied to original petitions for habeas corpus filed before the Supreme Court 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 the respondents violated the constitutional rights of former President Duterte under Article III of the Constitution by arresting and transferring him to The Hague, Netherlands, without prior authority from a Philippine court, and whether the respondents violated the separation of powers by recognizing the jurisdiction of, or conferring jurisdiction on, the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The petition also stated that oral arguments would allow the court to explore 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.

The petition highlighted the significance of the respondents’ hasty actions, which appeared to be designed to avoid judicial review and correction.

Earlier, the Duterte children petitioned the Supreme Court 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 was moot.

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

The other Duterte children also filed similar petitions before the Supreme Court as they raced against time to bring 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 was only enforceable within the Philippines.

With Duterte in the Netherlands, the DoJ said: “Clearly, 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, Veronica stated that “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 this would be to reward the respondents for their illegal and unconstitutional actions.”

She pointed out that without undergoing review the case was “certainly capable of repetition,” citing remarks made by Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro who said the Philippine government would also cooperate with Interpol in the arrest of Sen. Ronald dela Rosa, the former police chief who implemented Duterte’s drug war, once his ICC arrest warrant is received.