Contemptuous acts, but whose?
Senator Imee Marcos echoed Dela Rosa’s frustration, zeroing in on the rushed nature of FPRRD’s transfer despite his rights to local judicial review.
Text size
Senator Imee Marcos echoed Dela Rosa’s frustration, zeroing in on the rushed nature of FPRRD’s transfer despite his rights to local judicial review.
Senator Imee Marcos is not done calling for hearings on the matter of the arrest and rendition of former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (FPRRD). The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a third hearing on 10 April 2025, to investigate the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte on 11 March.
During the hearing, Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa pressed Special Envoy on Transnational Crimes, Ambassador Markus Lacanilao, on whether FPRRD was brought before a local court before his transfer to the ICC, as required to ensure due process. Lacanilao repeatedly stated he “did not know” if FPRRD was presented to a judicial authority. Dela Rosa found Lacanilao’s responses misleading, arguing it was implausible for someone in his position to be unaware of such details.
Apparently, Lacanilao, as representative of the Philippine Center on Transnational Crimes (PCTC), was with FPRRD from his arrest upon his arrival in Manila to his transfer to Villamor Air Base, and on the plane to The Hague. His signature even appears on several documents, including the “Transfer of Custody” and “Information on the Surrender and Transfer,” which indicated he represented the Philippine government, though he claimed to act as an Interpol representative.
Senator Imee Marcos echoed Dela Rosa’s frustration, zeroing in on the rushed nature of FPRRD’s transfer despite his rights to local judicial review. Dela Rosa accused Lacanilao of lying and moved to cite Lacanilao in contempt for providing false and evasive answers. Senator Marcos approved the motion. Lacanilao was forthwith detained at the Senate, only to be released two hours later.
Senate President Chiz Escudero refused to sign the contempt order, a prerequisite for arrests under Senate rules. Instead, Escudero issued a show cause order requiring Lacanilao to explain why he should not be held in contempt. Escudero also cited humanitarian reasons for the release, noting that Lacanilao’s grandfather was being laid to rest the next day, making his detention untimely. Lacanilao was freed without immediate further detention, pending his response to the show cause order.
How many times has the power of contempt been used (or abused) with no such objection from the Senate President? Really, was there a difference between the evasiveness demonstrated by former Mayor Alice Guo and that shown by Ambassador Lacanilao? What substantial distinction merited the issuance of a show cause order instead of an immediate detention in the case of Lacanilao?
Escudero argued that the detention lacked due process because it was not approved by him and called the detention “unauthorized.” A defect easily cured by approving and signing off on the contempt order. It seems that Escudero, while on solid legal ground, has other reasons or motivations for refusing to sign and approve the contempt order.
Is due process now a privilege only afforded to some? While the incident demonstrated the effectiveness of procedural checks in the Senate, it also shows that the system of checks and balances is only invoked when it suits the objectives of those in positions of authority, not for the right reasons: giving everyone equal protection under the law, observing justice and fairness in the performance of their functions.
More importantly, the turn of events highlights the polarizing impact of the Marcos-Duterte feud. The line has been drawn in the Senate between those who will advocate for the FPRRD and the Vice President during her impeachment, and those who will deliver for the Marcos administration.
