15/05/2026
STOP FEEDING THE FILIPINO PEOPLE WITH LIES.
Hindi foreign court ang ICC.
International court ito.
Hindi ito korte ng Netherlands. Hindi ito korte ng kung sinong “banyagang bansa.” Nasa The Hague lang ang upuan nito, pero hindi ibig sabihin Dutch court na siya. Parang hindi nagiging New York court ang United Nations dahil nasa New York ang headquarters nito.
The ICC was created under the Rome Statute, a treaty framework agreed upon by States. Ibig sabihin, hindi ito isang bansang nang-aagaw ng Pilipino. It is an international criminal court created by many countries to deal with the gravest crimes of international concern.
Kaya mali ang linyang “foreign court” o “foreign state” ang ICC.
Mas mali ang paggamit niyan para ipilit na extradition lang ang puwedeng proseso.
Under Article 102 of the Rome Statute, magkaiba ang “surrender” at “extradition.” Surrender is the delivery of a person by a State to the Court. Extradition is the delivery of a person by one State to another State.
Court ang ICC. Hindi State.
Kaya kapag sinabing “dapat extradition muna kasi foreign state ang ICC,” doon pa lang bagsak na ang argument. Mali ang premise, kaya mali ang conclusion.
Now, to be precise: ang real legal issue is not whether the ICC warrant exists or whether it is valid as an ICC warrant. The real technical issue is the Philippine implementation route. Gagamitin ba ang direct surrender under RA 9851? Extradition-style court process? Or another court-supervised route?
That is a legitimate legal debate.
Pero kahit alin pa ang route, may mga bagay na hindi puwedeng baluktutin:
Walang batas na nagsasabing puwedeng gawing legal sanctuary ang Senado.
Walang constitutional text na nagbibigay ng absolute arrest immunity sa isang senador.
Walang “parliamentary tradition” na mas mataas sa batas.
Walang withdrawal clause sa Rome Statute na automatic nagbubura ng alleged liability for acts committed while the Philippines was still covered.
At lalong walang legal doctrine na nagsasabing kapag makapangyarihan ang hinahabol, biglang nagiging optional ang accountability.
So let us stop pretending this is about “foreigners versus Filipinos.”
This is about law versus impunity.
This is about whether a public official accused of grave international crimes can hide behind title, tradition, building, and political noise.
The ICC is not a foreign state.
The Senate is not a safehouse.
And being a senator is not an invisibility cloak from the rule of law.
MANANAGOT KAYO!
REFERENCES:
For ICC as an international court, not a Dutch/foreign state court; its seat in The Hague; its international legal personality; and its jurisdiction over grave international crimes:
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, arts. 1, 3, 4, 5. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/rome-statute-international-criminal-court
United Nations Treaty Collection. (n.d.). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. United Nations. Retrieved May 14, 2026, from https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ShowMTDSGDetails.aspx?chapter=18&lang=en&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=2
For “surrender” versus “extradition” under Article 102:
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, art. 102. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/rome-statute-international-criminal-court
For the limited local/custodial-state review under Article 59:
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, art. 59. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/rome-statute-international-criminal-court
For RA 9851 and the Philippine route allowing surrender or extradition to an appropriate international court or another State:
Republic Act No. 9851, An Act Defining and Penalizing Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity, Organizing Jurisdiction, Designating Special Courts, and for Related Purposes, § 17 (Phil. 2009). Supreme Court E-Library. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/14826
For the constitutional point that senators have only limited privilege from arrest, not absolute arrest immunity:
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, art. VI, § 11. Supreme Court E-Library. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/45/11447
For the point that withdrawal from the Rome Statute does not automatically erase obligations/liability for covered past acts or proceedings already under consideration:
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, art. 127(2). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/rome-statute-international-criminal-court
Pangilinan v. Cayetano, G.R. Nos. 238875, 239483 & 240954 (S.C., Mar. 16, 2021) (Phil.). Supreme Court E-Library. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/67374
United Nations Secretary-General. (2018, March 19). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Rome, 17 July 1998: Philippines: Withdrawal (Depositary Notification C.N.138.2018.TREATIES-XVIII.10). United Nations Treaty Collection.https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/cn/2018/cn.138.2018-eng.pdf
CTTO: Nutribun Republic
