Is Senator Panfilo Lacson correct in saying that an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC) should still go through the local Philippine courts? I believe it is no longer needed. International law, our Constitution, law and jurisprudence allow the arrest.

The reasons are easily demonstrable.

First, the crime involved here is crime against humanity. It  is not a “mere” crime; it is a universal crime. Under international law, these offenses are so heinous that they transcend national borders. They are an affront to the conscience of all mankind. Because of this, the principle of universal jurisdiction allows — and often requires — the global community to act when local systems are unable or unwilling. Unwillingness can, and should, include a state’s strategic and principled choice to waive jurisdiction for the sake of the greater good so that no political instability will occur in the country.

Second, our own 1987 Constitution, under the Incorporation Clause (Article 2 Section2), explicitly states that the Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.” This is not a suggestion; it is a constitutional mandate. When we talk about universal crimes, we are talking about a legal sphere where international obligations and domestic law shake hands.

Third, some argue that the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute closed the door on the ICC. However, the Supreme Court, in Pangilinan vs Cayetano ( G.R. NO. 238875 March 16, 2021), has already debunked this. The Court ruled that the ICC retains jurisdiction over all acts committed by government actors up until March 17, 2019.

Fourth, withdrawal is not a “get out of jail free” card. Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute, which created the ICC, explicitly obligates a withdrawing state to cooperate with the Court’s ongoing proceedings. We cannot simply walk away from the table and pretend our prior commitments — and liabilities — have vanished into thin air.

Fifth, our very own  law on crimes against humanity, Republic Act No. 9851 enacted in 2009, should not be forgotten. This law actually predates the Rome Statute’s effectivity in the Philippines.

Section 7, Paragraph 2 of RA 9851 is unambiguous: “In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution… if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation… Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court.” By our own law, we have the authority to waive local jurisdiction in favor of an international body. This effectively answers the “domestic warrant” argument. When the ICC issues a warrant for a crime, we recognize as universal, RA 9851 provides the statutory bridge to act upon it. The Philippines can recognize such warrant of arrest

Sixth, does this conflict with the Bill of Rights’ requirement for a  warrant? No. We must view the Constitution as a cohesive whole. The Bill of Rights protects citizens from arbitrary state power, but the Incorporation Clause and RA 9851 provide the legal framework for international cooperation. In the context of a crime against humanity, the ICC warrant serves as the valid legal basis. They do not conflict; they harmonize to ensure that “humanity” is protected both at home and abroad.

Seventh, the Philippine Constitution does not qualify which should be issuing the warrant of arrest. It can thus be a local or international court.  When the law — much more the constitution which is the supreme law of the land — does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.

Eight, cooperating with the ICC is not an act of surrender of our sovereignty; it is an act of strength. True sovereignty includes the power to enter into treaties and honor them. Recognizing an ICC warrant does not diminish our national pride. On the contrary, it proves that the Philippines is a prominent, responsible member of the global community of civilized nations. We are not a rogue state; we are a nation that believes no one — not even a Senator — is above the laws of man and the laws of the world.

Ninth, “Are we not confident in our own justice system? Why must we look abroad?” No. This line of questioning is a red herring. It frames the issue as a bruised ego or a lack of faith in our local judges, effectively distracting from the legal mandates and  necessities at hand. Recognizing an ICC warrant is not a sign of disrespect toward our courts; it is an act of observing the law. Also, to suggest we must pass through local courts as a “courtesy” is to disregard the unique magnitude of crimes against humanity. Not availing of the local court is not about Confidence; it is about security. Those accused of crimes against humanity are often powerful, influential figures. Attempting a domestic trial for such individuals can spark massive rallies, civil unrest, and political volatility. By moving proceedings to an international body, we insulate the case from domestic “political attacks” and “undue delays” that plague high-profile local cases.

Tenth, this is a matter of expertise and specialization.  While local judges are capable in domestic law, crimes against humanity involve complex requirements under the Rome Statute where international tribunals have  specialized expertise, not possessed by local prosecutors and courts. To  let the ICC to handle the case is therefore for the benefit of both accused and the victims. There is more certainty that due process on both sides can be afforded.

To insist on domestic scrutiny after an international finding of probable cause for a universal crime against humanity  is to build a wall where there should be a bridge. Let us choose justice over technicalities. – Rappler.com

Mel Sta. Maria is former dean of the Far Eastern University (FEU) Institute of Law. He teaches law at FEU and the Ateneo School of Law, hosts shows on both radio and YouTube, and has authored several books on law, politics, and current events.