Press Release
August 12, 2024

SENATOR RONALD "BATO" DELA ROSA
PRIVILEGE SPEECH
PROTECT THE PEOPLE

AUGUST 12, 2024

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, I rise today on a matter of collective and personal privilege.

"Government's first duty is to protect the people..."

This statement from the former President of the United States of America, my namesake, Ronald Reagan, is an embodiment of the latin phrase "parens patriae" which literally means "parent of the country." According to the recognized doctrine of parens patriae, a state has a paternal and protective role over its citizens or others subject to its jurisdiction.

As parens patriae, the Philippine government has the duty to ensure that all of its citizens are safe and protected, especially those who cannot protect themselves.

Ang ating pamahalaan ang itinuturing na magulang ng sambayanan at tungkulin nito na pangalagaan ang kapakanan at interes ng mga ito. Kabilang na rito ang pagtitiyak na ang ating bansa, ang ating tahanan, ay ligtas mula sa kung sino mang magtatangka na manghimasok.

We are a sovereign nation, this we know to be true. But for this sovereignty to be real and felt, we need more than just rhetoric. Ang kailangan natin ay parehong pisikal na proteksyon at polisiya. Iyan ang inaasahan natin mula sa ating pamahalaan.

Ngunit hindi lamang sa literal na trespassing dapat maging mapagbantay. May tinatawag din na "sphere of influence." Iyong ibang mga lahi na may pagtingin na sila ang higit na nakaaalam kung ano ang makabubuti para sa atin; na sila ang may kapangyarihan na magdesisyon; na sila ang Diyos.

Noting that membership in the International Criminal Court is detrimental to the national sovereignty and safety of the Filipino, the Philippines submitted its Notice of Withdrawal from the International Criminal Court to the United Nations on March 16, 2018. The day after, the United Nations received the formal notification from the Philippine government, thereby making the withdrawal effective.

Regardless of the withdrawal from the ICC, the Supreme Court in the case of Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan et. al, vs. Allan Peter Cayetano, et. al, declared that: "In any case, despite the withdrawal, this Court finds no lesser protection of human rights within our system of laws. Neither do we agree with petitioners' implied statements that without the treaty, the judiciary will not be able to fulfill its mandate to protect human rights." As such, the citizens remain protected even without the ICC.

Sa mga nabanggit, hindi lamang binigyang-diin ng ating Korte Suprema na ang pagtiwalag ng Pilipinas sa ICC ay hindi kawalan, kundi kinikilala rin nito ang kakayahan ng ating pamahalaan na pamunuan ang sarili nitong bansa.

If the Supreme Court itself has declared that we can protect and promote human rights even without the ICC, then why are many of us still clinging to the idea of membership?

Logically, with the new administration of President Bongbong Marcos giving importance to our national sovereignty, and with the President fulfilling his mandate to protect the people on all fronts, we can say that we have maintained the non-joining of the Philippines to the ICC.

In March this year, when asked about rejoining the International Criminal Court President Bongbong Marcos said, "It opens a Pandora's box. It's still those questions of jurisdiction and sovereignty. I haven't yet seen a sufficient answer for it. Until then, I do not recognize their jurisdiction in the Philippines,"

A month after, President Marcos was asked if his administration will serve the ICC warrant of arrest if issued against former President Rodrigo Duterte, he answered "We don't recognize the warrant that they will send to us... That's a no,"... "We are well within international law when we take the position of not recognizing the jurisdiction of ICC in the Philippines".

While President Bongbong Marcos, being the chief architect of our foreign policy, maintained his position of not joining and not recognizing the jurisdiction of the ICC, we were surprised by the recent pronouncements coming from the Secretary of Justice Jesus Crispin Remulla and the Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra.

Solicitor General Guevarra said, and I quote, "[The Philippines] has no legal duty to lend any assistance to the ICC prosecutor in conducting his investigation. But the Philippine government cannot stop him from proceeding any way he wants" end of quote. Meanwhile, Secretary Remulla's pronouncement was, and I quote, "We are not in the business of blocking any movement of the INTERPOL, unless a policy is laid out, which of course will go against our international commitments." end of quote.

What is more troubling is when our Secretary of Justice declared that "Once an arrest warrant is issued, it's the INTERPOL's job to serve it."

The pronouncements of those two executive officials are quite alarming. The Secretary of Justice is one of the many alter egos of the President, and the Solicitor General is the lawyer of the government. Are they challenging the policy set by the President?

Mapanganib po ang mga pahayag ng ating Secretary of Justice sapagka't maaaring makapagbigay ito ng mensahe sa ating mga kababayan na hindi kaya ng mismong DOJ na pangalagaan ang "rule of law". Tila sinasabi rin na kung wala ang ICC, hindi tiyak na episyente at epektibong nakakamit ng ating mga kababayan ang katarungan..

Nakalulungkot din po na tila na hindi maingat ang Solicitor General sa kaniyang mga unsolicited opinion. Inilalagay niya sa alanganin ang ating pamahalaan sa pamamagitan ng pangako nito na pag-aalalay sa ICC prosecutor na papasok sa ating bansa na ayon sa kanya ay "legal duty". Sa ganito pong mga pagbibitiw ng commitment, nakokompromiso ang soberanya ng ating bansa. Kung hindi po ito isang konkretong halimbawa ng: "paggisa sa sariling mantika" ay ewan ko na lang.

For the record, under the Constitution of the International Criminal Police Organization - INTERPOL, its objective is to ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police authorities within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and in the spirit of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Nowhere in the 50-article constitution of the INTERPOL did it lay down its power to "arrest a person." So what is this so-called Blue Notice and other colored Notices issued by INTERPOL as claimed by an infamous coup plotter? Is this tantamount to a warrant of arrest?

According to their website, INTERPOL Notices are international requests for cooperation or alerts allowing police in member countries to share critical crime-related information. In fact, INTERPOL officials do not arrest suspects or act without the approval of national authorities. Thus, notices issued by INTERPOL cannot be considered as warrants of arrest under the Philippine jurisdiction.

How about if the warrant of arrest will be issued by the ICC? Should the Philippine government recognize the validity of such warrant?

The answer is still NO. Let us consult our supreme law of the land, the 1987 Philippine Constitution, on which body can issue a warrant of arrest pursuant to a criminal case or proceeding.

Section 2 of Article III on Bill of Rights of the Constitution states that: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

This provision of the Constitution is also reflected in the Rules of Court issued by the Supreme Court which judicial officers must follow when dealing with Criminal Procedure.

Since we have established that only judicial courts have the power to issue warrant of arrest in our country concerning criminal cases, what will happen now if our law enforcers will implement a warrant of arrest not issued by a Philippine court against a Filipino citizen in the country? Atty. Harry Roque recently made a public remark on this issue.

According to Atty. Harry Roque, the INTERPOL has no manpower to effect an arrest pursuant to a warrant issued by a judicial body. As such, our law enforcement officers such as the members of the Philippine National Police and the National Bureau of Investigation may be asked to implement the warrant of arrest issued by the ICC. But according to him, since the Philippines is no longer a member of the ICC, we are no longer bound to follow the issuance of ICC as it has no jurisdiction over us. He further claimed that if the PNP and other law enforcers implement the warrant issued by the ICC, those who will do so may be subjected to administrative and criminal liability. This is so because according to our Constitution, the judicial power lies with the Supreme Court and those courts created by law. ICC was not established through a law. So there are no other courts other than Philippine courts that should judge President Duterte's liability with respect to his involvement in the war on drugs.

In case members of our law enforcement agencies will implement the warrant issued by the ICC and arrest former President Duterte in accordance with it, those law enforcers may be liable for the crime of illegal detention or serious illegal detention depending on the period of detention. He claimed that there is no legal basis for our law enforcers to arrest a person based on a warrant not issued by our local courts. Further, he said that government officials who will allow the ICC in our country may also be liable as such an act will be tantamount to graft and a culpable violation of the Constitution.

Madalas niyo po marinig mula sa akin na hindi po ako abogado o law expert. Kung kaya't buong pagkukumbaba kong ibinubukas sa kapulungang ito ang mga isyung nabanggit. Sa tingin ko ay nararapat at napapanahon na ito ay mapag-usapan dahil maaari itong maging precedent o batayan ng mga maaari pang mangyari na kahalintulad nito sa mga susunod na panahon.

This is not merely an issue of the ICC against Former President Duterte. This is, in fact, a looming constitutional crisis. Atin bang tatanganan na mahigpit ang ating soberanya? O hahayaan na lamang natin itong dumulas mula sa ating mga kamay?

May sakuna po na nagbabadya at ito ay paparating at abot-tanaw. Nasa atin po ang pagpapasya kung hahayaan natin itong manalasa at higit pang pinsalain ang ating bayan na ilang dekada nang may pagkakahati-hati dulot ng kulay ng pulitika.

I call on the legal luminaries in this august chamber to validate or invalidate the legal opinion made by Atty. Harry Roque asserting our sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction over the implementation of a warrant issued, not by any Philippine court, and yet against a Filipino citizen.

If the claims of Atty. Harry Roque are legally sound, I call on the Office of the President to protect our law enforcers, the PNP and the NBI. Huwag po sana natin silang bigyan ng utos na maaaring maglagay sa kanila sa alanganin. Hayaan po sana natin silang maging malaya sa pagpapatupad ng kung anong nararapat ayon sa ating Saligang Batas.

Hayaan po natin ang PNP na ipatupad ang kanilang mandato; ang kanilang sinumpaang tungkulin "to serve and protect" the people. Huwag po natin pahintulutan gawin silang tau-tauhan ng kung sino man, lalo na ng mga dayuhan para sa kanilang sariling mga interes at motibo.

Naniniwala rin ako na taglay pa rin ng bawat kawani ng NBI, mula sa pinkamataas hanggang sa pinakamababa ang: "nobility, bravery and integrity". Dalangin ko na hindi nawa magamit ang dakilang ahensiya na ito bilang kasangkapan ng paghihiganti ng ilang mga nilalang na may personal na galit sa nagdaang administrasyon.

Nananawagan po ako. Please spare these institutions. Hindi niyo sila utusan; hindi niyo sila pag-aari. Sila ay mga lingkod-bayan at ang pananagutan nila ay sa sambayanan. Huwag niyo sila itali sa ICC na isang organisasyon na wala na tayong obligasyon. Ang pakikipag-ugnayan at koneksyon natin sa kanila ay matagal nang naputol.

In the United States of America, after voting against the adoption of the Rome Statute in July 2002, the American Service-Members Protection Act (ASPA) was enacted into law on August 2, 2002. Section 2004 of ASPA expressly prohibits United States Courts, agencies or entities of any State or local government, including any court, from cooperating with the International Criminal Court. It further prohibits extradition to the ICC, provision of support, and any investigative activity relating to a preliminary inquiry, investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding at the International Criminal Court.

What is more surprising under the ASPA is its Section 2008 wherein it authorized the President to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person such as members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government who is being detained or imprisoned by, or on behalf, or at the request of the ICC.

Truly, the United States of America has shown how to perform its first and primordial duty to its citizens -- protect the people.

Before anything else, I wish to thank this august body, for the consistent show of support for the administration of Former President Duterte. Proof of which is the sufficient annual budget for his priority programs, including the PNP's War on Drugs. Daghang salamat.

At this point I would like to ask the members of this same august body. Where do you stand in protecting our citizens? Would you be willing to enact a Philippine version of the American Service-Members Protection Act to protect our citizens and our national sovereignty against those encroaching international bodies?

President Rodrigo Duterte and I are not afraid to face prosecution, even persecution. But let it be done by our own people--by Philippine courts and Philippine rules of procedure. Ang pananagutan namin ay sa ating mga kababayan at hindi sa mga dayuhan.

President Manuel L. Quezon once said that he would "...rather have a country run like hell by Filipinos..." Gaano nga naman kasama ang tingin natin sa ating pamahalaan, ang mahalaga ay tayong mga Pilipino ang namumuno rito. After all, no matter how hellish it may feel, our sovereignty remains true, and in the name of that sovereignty, we can also change our destiny. Let us not sit back and watch others do it for us. Iyon na siguro ang tunay na impyerno.

I wish to end the way I began. With a call to protect our people. Everything else - a warrant of arrest, the ICC's jurisdiction, our refusal to offer cooperation - is simply an offshoot of that primordial question: when the dust settles, will we be siding with the ones who threaten our nationhood? Or will we be found standing with our people? As for me, I hope, I trust, that the Office of the President and the entire executive department including the Department of Justice, the PNP, the NBI as well as the legislative department, especially the Senate, will choose to protect our people.

Maraming salamat po.

News Latest News Feed