Former Palace spokesperson Harry Roque has submitted a memorandum to the Supreme Court on behalf of Davao City Rep. Paolo Z. Duterte, challenging the arrest and surrender of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court.

The memorandum, filed in connection with the consolidated habeas corpus petitions initiated by the Duterte siblings, argues that the High Court must still intervene despite the former president already being in the custody of the Hague-based tribunal.

Roque maintained that the physical transfer of Duterte does not render the case moot, asserting that the Supreme Court retains the authority to scrutinize the actions of the Executive Branch.

In a statement, Roque said they filed the memorandum required by the Court, “setting out in full why the arrest and continued detention of former President Rodrigo Duterte are unconstitutional and illegal.”

He argued that the case remains justiciable despite the surrender, noting that because Duterte remains deprived of liberty, the alleged violation of his constitutional rights is continuing and warrants a definitive ruling from the country’s highest court.

Roque stressed that the deprivation of liberty is ongoing and that the Supreme Court can still rule on the legality of the arrest and the acts of cooperation that led to the former president’s transfer.

Central to the argument is the Philippines’ 2019 withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC.

Roque maintained that once the withdrawal became effective, the Philippine government lost both the legal basis and obligation to facilitate ICC warrants, rendering any subsequent cooperation a violation of national sovereignty and the Constitution.

He said that once the withdrawal took effect, all obligations to cooperate ceased and that enforcing an ICC warrant afterward constitutes an unconstitutional act.

Roque further argued that Republic Act No. 9851 provides that crimes committed on Philippine soil fall under the “primary and exclusive” jurisdiction of Philippine courts.

He also contended that the principle of complementarity—which allows the ICC to act when domestic remedies fail—cannot be invoked once a state has formally exited the treaty.

According to Roque, Republic Act No. 9851 remains fully operative, and Philippine courts retain primary and exclusive jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed within Philippine territory.

He added that the ICC is, at best, complementary, and that complementarity “cannot survive withdrawal.”

The memorandum also challenges the scope of executive authority, asserting that the administration of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. exceeded its powers by surrendering a Filipino citizen without specific legislative authority or a valid treaty in force—effectively relinquishing judicial power vested solely in Philippine courts.