Former President Rodrigo Duterte and daughter Veronica “Kitty”Duterte/Instagram
MANILA, Philippines – Veronica “Kitty” Duterte asked for an oral argument on the consolidated habeas corpus petitions she and her siblings filed seeking for the immediate release of their father, former President Rodrigo Duterte who is now under the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, Netherlands.
In the 14-page petition, the young Duterte, through her legal counsel, Salvador Panelo, cited numerous compelling grounds to conduct an oral argument on the case.
As such, these are:
- Exigent constitutional issues;
- Novel legal issues;
- Transcendental importance and public interest;
- Conflicting legal arguments and public statements; and
- Precedential value and guidance
“The outcome of these petitions could influence public trust in the Judiciary, and the accountability of high-ranking officials,” she said.
“Oral arguments would provide a transparent platform for this Honorable Court to address the important legal and constitutional issues inherent in this case, and the broader implications thereof, ensuring that the legal reasoning behind its eventual ruling is fully articulated and understood by the public,” she said. ‘
Kitty’s consolidated petitions along with her half-brothers Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte and Davao First Congressional District Rep. Paolo Duterte argues that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the Philippines rendering his arrest and surrender to the foreign tribunal illegal.
The government however defends that the arrest of the former president was not based on the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the ICC, but on RA 9851 or the International Humanitarian Law invoking section 17.
Section 17 states that the State shall exercise jurisdiction over persons, whether military or civilian, suspected or accused of a crime defined and penalized in this Act, regardless of where the crime is committed, provided, any one of the following conditions is met:
- The accused is a Filipino citizen;
- The accused, regardless of citizenship or residence, is present in the Philippines; or
- The accused has committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen.
Kitty also stressed that the respondent gave divergent positions as to the facts of the arrest.
“Oral arguments would allow this Honorable Court to test the strength of these opposing and conflicting claims, seek clarification on legal ambiguities, and resolve inconsistencies through direct questioning of the parties’ counsels,” she said.
During the Senate hearing last March 20, government executives and everyone involved in the arrest of the former president found themselves floundering with conflicting answers as committee chair Sen. Imee Marcos grilled them on the legality and manner of the arrest.
The preliminary investigation arrived at three findings:
- The Philippines had no legal obligation to arrest former president Rodrigo Duterte and turn him to the International Criminal Court.
- The Philippine government decided to assist the ICC to arrest the former president.
- There were glaring violations of the rights of the former president.
The Duterte patriarch is currently detained at the ICC Detention Centre at The Hague. During his March 11 arrest, he was intercepted by authorities upon arrival from Hong Kong, detained at the Villamor Air Base and flown to the Netherlands in less than 24 hours.
RELATED STORIES:
Imee on CIDG chief’s arrest bluff on Duterte lawyers: Shouldn’t Torre be liable for grave threats?
Imee: ICC officials arrived in PH, probed Duterte in 2024
Imee reveals Bersamin’s letter: gov’t execs will no longer attend Senate hearing on Duterte arrest
Republika News 
Leave a comment