2 weeks ago
14
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — Supreme Court Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa said that the high court must not "come to the rescue" of Sen. Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa as he faces charges of crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Caguioa is one of the nine justices of the Supreme Court who denied Dela Rosa’s plea for interim relief, over the government’s cooperation with the ICC.
In his concurring opinion, Caguioa said granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) or any injunctive relief to Dela Rosa would result in the coddling of those in power and allow impunity to continue.
“The Court should not come to the rescue of an individual, a public officer no less, who is charged with mass murder, and who is being brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC) to face the consequences of his actions that flouted the rule of law with impunity. The Court's actions should not result in the coddling of those in power, should not allow impunity to continue, as it is, in fact, the last stronghold for the protection of rights for those without it. The Court should strongly guard against being used as a politically convenient doormat, for the wiping clean of those who are charged with blood on their hands.
Thus, I concur in the denial of the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) or any injunctive relief in favor of petitioner Senator Ronald Dela Rosa (Senator Dela Rosa). As well, any status quo ante order (SQAO) that will have the same effect as a TRO-where respondents are prevented from complying with the Philippines' duties under international and domestic law-should also be denied.”
Caguioa maintained that the plea for judicial protection must be viewed against a history of impunity, where the "war on drugs" resulted in an average of 40 deaths every day, citing the case of Almora v. Dela Rosa, which the high court recognized a total of 20,322 deaths during the Duterte Administration's anti-drug war from July 1, 2016, to Nov. 27, 2017.”
“Resort to an international court became imperative precisely because the continuous mass murder of Filipinos was being touted by the Duterte Administration itself as an accomplishment, perceived internationally as ‘state-sanctioned death squad operations,’ and remained, for years, beyond genuine investigation or prosecution,” Caguioa said.
“It is in the foregoing context that I continually implore the Court on how to view this case: with full recognition of the thousands of murdered victims, the bereaved, and the impunity that impelled the families of the victims to seek justice beyond our own institutions,” he added.
Caguioa also pointed out that while Dela Rosa invokes due process as a shield against arrest, this right is not a "monopoly of the defense" and must also be afforded to the victims and their families.
“For the victim-participants in the ICC proceedings, that existing forum is where they have been compelled to go just to be heard. A TRO would place that process in uncertainty. And for victims of alleged mass atrocities, that uncertainty is a concrete burden. It is borne in the prospect of returning to institutions they claim have failed them; in the anguish of further delay in a search for justice already close to a decade long; and in the pain of confronting once more the same police and political machinery that enabled the violence they now seek to prove. To them, it is the stopping of the wheels of justice at the very moment they have finally begun to turn.
To be sure, the Court must not make the mistake of detaching the present case from the weight of the history it carries.”
Jurisdiction. Caguioa clarified that the Philippines' 2019 withdrawal from the Rome Statute did not extinguish the obligations the country incurred while it was a State Party.
He noted that the ICC retains jurisdiction because preliminary examinations into the drug war killings were already pending before the withdrawal took effect.
Furthermore, he cited Republic Act No. 9851 as a "self-executing domestic authority" that allows Philippine officials to surrender suspects to international tribunals in the interest of justice, regardless of whether a separate warrant is issued by a local judge.
“Thus, even assuming that the Philippines' obligations under the Rome Statute have been severed completely by its withdrawal, the voluntary implementation of the ICC's Warrant of Arrest against Senator Dela Rosa is in accordance with the provisions of our very own domestic law. To be clear, Republic Act No. 9851 is a self-executing domestic authority to implement the ICC's Warrant of Arrest. Verily, it does not require implementing rules and regulations, or any administrative issuance for that matter, for it to become valid and enforceable.”
Complicity of institutions
Caguioa also pointed out the grim reality of the country's recent history, noting that a nearly decade-long failure or complicity within Philippine institutions has kept true justice out of reach for victims of the war on drugs.
While acknowledging that the courts themselves may be willing and capable of delivering justice, Caguioa emphasizes that the judiciary cannot act alone; a case must first pass through investigation and prosecution, both of which rely on branches of government outside the Court's control.
“Delivery of justice is an endeavor that requires the concerted efforts of the entire government. When even one institution fails in its duties, or when one condones the acts of the perpetrator, justice will remain beyond reach, regardless of the willingness or competence of the rest,” Caguioa said.
“It is in the foregoing context that I continually implore the Court on how to view this case: with full recognition of the thousands of murdered victims, the bereaved, and the impunity that impelled the families of the victims to seek justice beyond our own institutions,” he added.
Bato's conduct
Caguioa also pointed out that Dela Rosa is currently disqualified from seeking affirmative relief from the courts under the "fugitive disentitlement doctrine."
Citing the case of Vallacar Transit Inc. vs. Yanson, Caguioa said that Dela Rosa cannot afford to seek judicial relief, as he is a fugitive from justice. It could be recalled that Dela Rosa slipped away from the Senate premises on the early morning of May 14.
He said that it is "inequitable" for the judiciary to aid a person who shows such "disrespect to judicial processes" and uses court resources to facilitate their own perceived untouchability.
“Senator Dela Rosa has shown, by both his words and his actions, that he does not recognize the authority of the fCC- a body that is, like the Court, part of the judicial system. The I CC warrant is seen and argued for various reasons as ineffectual. Thus, Senator Dela Rosa in this present petition is asking the Court to facilitate and lend legitimacy to his perceived untouchability from a judicial process. I submit that the present situation is even worse than what the second factor originally contemplates: not only is Senator Dela Rosa using the resources of the Court when he is flouting the judicial system, but he is using the Court precisely to flout judicial systems.”
Balancing of scales
According to Caguioa, true due process and justice must “balance the scales,” considering the interests of society and the offended parties rather than focusing solely on the accused.
Consequently, the victims who have participated in the ICC proceedings should not be marginalized in favor of Dela Rosa's claims, according to Caguioa.
“For 10 long years, the Filipino people bore witness to a search for justice that has moved slowly, if at all. The nation now looks to the Court and asks: does Justice still exist and for whom?” Caguioa said.
“The Court had once declared that its solemn duty is to dispense equal justice to the rich and the poor. This case demands the Court to prove that those words still hold true. If public trust in our institutions is to endure, the Court must stand firm and hold the line: judicial processes cannot become a swift refuge for the powerful and a distant promise for the vulnerable,” he added.
Caguioa concluded his concurring opinion with: “The Court had once declared that its solemn duty is to dispense equal justice to the rich and the poor. This case demands the Court to prove that those words still hold true. If public trust in our institutions is to endure, the Court must stand firm and hold the line: judicial processes cannot become a swift refuge for the powerful and a distant promise for the vulnerable.”
