Why the ICC Plenary rejected Duterte bid to disqualify 2 judges in jurisdiction case
ADVERTISEMENT
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
Why the ICC Plenary rejected Duterte bid to disqualify 2 judges in jurisdiction case
Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte made his first appearance at the International Criminal Court in The Hague in the Netherlands on Friday, via videolink, as he faces allegations of crimes against humanity over his deadly war on drugs. ICC handout/Flickr
Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte made his first appearance at the International Criminal Court in The Hague in the Netherlands on Friday, via videolink, as he faces allegations of crimes against humanity over his deadly war on drugs. ICC handout/FlickrMANILA — The International Criminal Court (ICC) Plenary of Judges said it found no appearance of bias nor lack of impartiality in two judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber who are also deciding on former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s jurisdictional challenge.
MANILA — The International Criminal Court (ICC) Plenary of Judges said it found no appearance of bias nor lack of impartiality in two judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber who are also deciding on former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s jurisdictional challenge.
The judges junked Duterte’s motion to disqualify Judges Reine Adélaïde Sophia Alapini‑Gansou and María del Socorro Flores Liera on June 9, but the plenary’s full reasoning was officially released July 3, Thursday.
The judges junked Duterte’s motion to disqualify Judges Reine Adélaïde Sophia Alapini‑Gansou and María del Socorro Flores Liera on June 9, but the plenary’s full reasoning was officially released July 3, Thursday.
The Plenary underscored they do not take the disqualification of a judge lightly, as it has significant and lasting implications.
The Plenary underscored they do not take the disqualification of a judge lightly, as it has significant and lasting implications.
It also stressed that the defense team has referred consistently to a perceived or “alleged appearance of bias” and reminded them that the party requesting the disqualification has to demonstrate or prove its claims.
It also stressed that the defense team has referred consistently to a perceived or “alleged appearance of bias” and reminded them that the party requesting the disqualification has to demonstrate or prove its claims.
ADVERTISEMENT
The judges ruled that Alapini‑Gansou and Liera have so far performed an ordinary exercise of legal functions assigned to them by the Rome Statute — the founding treaty of the ICC.
The judges ruled that Alapini‑Gansou and Liera have so far performed an ordinary exercise of legal functions assigned to them by the Rome Statute — the founding treaty of the ICC.
Thus, the Plenary unanimously decided to reject the disqualification case for lack of evidence or valid grounds.
Thus, the Plenary unanimously decided to reject the disqualification case for lack of evidence or valid grounds.
DEFENSE: 2 JUDGES PREVIOUSLY RULED ON JURISDICTION
The defense team’s argument centered on the fact that the judges “have already ruled on exactly the same issue in exactly the same situational context” when it ordered the commencement of the investigation on the “Situation in the Republic of the Philippines” on September 15, 2021.
The defense team’s argument centered on the fact that the judges “have already ruled on exactly the same issue in exactly the same situational context” when it ordered the commencement of the investigation on the “Situation in the Republic of the Philippines” on September 15, 2021.
Under that decision, the judges ruled that although the Philippines had left the court by March 17, 2019, the ICC retained jurisdiction "with respect to alleged crimes that occurred on the territory of the Philippines while it was a State Party" from November 1, 2011 to March 16, 2019.
Under that decision, the judges ruled that although the Philippines had left the court by March 17, 2019, the ICC retained jurisdiction "with respect to alleged crimes that occurred on the territory of the Philippines while it was a State Party" from November 1, 2011 to March 16, 2019.
“This is in line with the law of treaties, which provides that withdrawal from a treaty does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination,” judges ruled then.
“This is in line with the law of treaties, which provides that withdrawal from a treaty does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination,” judges ruled then.
ADVERTISEMENT
However, the decision was made during the investigation stage.
However, the decision was made during the investigation stage.
On March 7, 2025, Pre-trial Chamber I issued a warrant of arrest for Duterte, who was arrested on March 11 and turned over to ICC custody the next day.
On March 7, 2025, Pre-trial Chamber I issued a warrant of arrest for Duterte, who was arrested on March 11 and turned over to ICC custody the next day.
The Pre-trial Chamber called for his first appearance on March 12 and scheduled a confirmation of charges hearing on September 23.
The Pre-trial Chamber called for his first appearance on March 12 and scheduled a confirmation of charges hearing on September 23.
According to the Rome Statute, parties are allowed to challenge the jurisdiction of the court once, before the same Pre-Trial Chamber, if made before the commencement of a trial.
According to the Rome Statute, parties are allowed to challenge the jurisdiction of the court once, before the same Pre-Trial Chamber, if made before the commencement of a trial.
Once confirmation of the charges is done, challenges will be referred to the Trial Chamber and appealed at the Appeals Chamber.
Once confirmation of the charges is done, challenges will be referred to the Trial Chamber and appealed at the Appeals Chamber.
ADVERTISEMENT
The plenary of judges emphasized that the decisions issued by the judges as Pre-trial Chamber I, are pursuant to articles in the Statute.
The plenary of judges emphasized that the decisions issued by the judges as Pre-trial Chamber I, are pursuant to articles in the Statute.
Under the treaty, Pre-trial Chambers have the power to authorize an investigation proprio motu or on their own accord if there is reasonable basis and the case appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the court.
Under the treaty, Pre-trial Chambers have the power to authorize an investigation proprio motu or on their own accord if there is reasonable basis and the case appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the court.
DECISIONS ON JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE, INTERIM RELEASE PENDING
With no judges ousted from the proceedings, the Pre-Trial Chamber is expected to proceed and focus now on the legal merits of the jurisdictional challenge presented by Duterte’s legal team last May 1.
With no judges ousted from the proceedings, the Pre-Trial Chamber is expected to proceed and focus now on the legal merits of the jurisdictional challenge presented by Duterte’s legal team last May 1.
Apart from this, a decision is also pending for Duterte’s “Urgent Request for Interim Release,” filed on June 12 and where the defense argued the 80-year-old former president is neither a flight risk nor a threat to the victims.
Apart from this, a decision is also pending for Duterte’s “Urgent Request for Interim Release,” filed on June 12 and where the defense argued the 80-year-old former president is neither a flight risk nor a threat to the victims.
But the Prosecution and the Office of Public Counsel for Victims have argued that Duterte continue to pose a threat to the proceedings — due to continued denial of the ICC's authority and jurisdiction and the narrative he was "kidnapped" — and to alleged victims.
But the Prosecution and the Office of Public Counsel for Victims have argued that Duterte continue to pose a threat to the proceedings — due to continued denial of the ICC's authority and jurisdiction and the narrative he was "kidnapped" — and to alleged victims.
ADVERTISEMENT
In its submission, the Prosection also said it preemptively engaged in discussions with the defense on conditions that would mitigate these risks.
In its submission, the Prosection also said it preemptively engaged in discussions with the defense on conditions that would mitigate these risks.
But it appears the defense had changed the location for the potential interim release — specific names of states redacted from the posted document.
But it appears the defense had changed the location for the potential interim release — specific names of states redacted from the posted document.
DEFENSE: WE CHANGED LOCATIONS, BUT RETAINED CONDITIONS
In line with this, the defense team once again requested that they be allowed to respond to the Prosecution, particularly on alleged changes in third countries.
In line with this, the defense team once again requested that they be allowed to respond to the Prosecution, particularly on alleged changes in third countries.
It said that "it was clear to the Defence that the Prosecution had agreed not to contest the risk factors enumerated in Article 58(1)(b) if Mr Duterte was to proffer terms and conditions of release no less stringent than those" for the original unnamed country.
It said that "it was clear to the Defence that the Prosecution had agreed not to contest the risk factors enumerated in Article 58(1)(b) if Mr Duterte was to proffer terms and conditions of release no less stringent than those" for the original unnamed country.
"The Prosecution’s contention that a 'rejection of the legitimacy of the Court’s jurisdiction' indicates a propensity to evade justice is nothing short of bizarre," it also said.
"The Prosecution’s contention that a 'rejection of the legitimacy of the Court’s jurisdiction' indicates a propensity to evade justice is nothing short of bizarre," it also said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The defense further explained, it will provide the official findings of the Philippine Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations to prove that Duterte’s arrest was illegal.
The defense further explained, it will provide the official findings of the Philippine Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations to prove that Duterte’s arrest was illegal.
The committee is chaired by Sen. Imee Marcos, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s sister and a close ally of Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte.
The committee is chaired by Sen. Imee Marcos, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s sister and a close ally of Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte.
The prosecution meanwhile, has submitted its eleventh batch of evidence, as part of the ongoing disclosure of evidence ordered by the Pre-trial Chamber I.
The prosecution meanwhile, has submitted its eleventh batch of evidence, as part of the ongoing disclosure of evidence ordered by the Pre-trial Chamber I.
RELATED VIDEO
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
