Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa slammed the administration of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. as he echoed the legal opinion of Atty. Alexis Medina that the constitutional rights of former President Rodrigo Duterte were violated when authorities surrendered him to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
“Binulag ng pulitika ang pamantayan ng pamahalaang ito sa pagkilala sa garantiyang ibinigay sa bawat Pilipino- dating presidente man o hindi— ng konstitusyon. Hindi lang mga taga-suporta ni dating Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte ang mismong nagsabi na may paglabag sa karaparatan ng ating kapwa Pilipino sa pagsuko kanya sa ICC,” Dela Rosa said.
“Dapat maaala, hindi lamang ni Justice Secretary Boying Remulla at mga gabinete ni Presidente Bongbong Marcos, kundi ng buong sambayanang Pilipino na kaya nakapiring ang simbulo ng hustisya dahil dapat walang kinikilingan pagdating sa pagpapatupad at pagsunod sa batas,” he added.
Duterte and Dela Rosa earlier filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to permanently prohibit the Philippine government from cooperating with the ICC.
The lawmaker from Mindanao made the remark after Medina attended the Senate investigation into Duterte’s arrest and opposed the legal position of Justice Secretary Boying Remulla on their move to surrender Duterte to the ICC.
During the hearing, Medina explained the constitutional provision that a lawful order of the court is required if a person is to be expelled from the Philippine territory by whatever means.
According to Medina— a professor of constitutional law in several universities in the Philippines, surrendering a person arrested to an international body is only valid if the subject has already voluntarily surrendered to the custody of the national government—which negates the need for extradition process— or if the subject is an alien or a foreign national.
“To expel a person from his country of residence without a lawful court order, by excluding the judicial process, might amount to a violation of the liberty to abode,” Medina said.
“That is guaranteed by Section 6 of the Bill of Rights. The liberty of abode cannot be impaired without a lawful order of the court. That is the text of the constitution. Now, this constitutional protection is a barrier for any government action that would simply force, compel, an individual, to change his residence,” he added.
The reelectionist senator has maintained that there was a need to implement a war on drugs to eradicate the cause of heinous crimes in the country.
Medina made it clear that he is a non-partisan lawyer who is just expressing his legal opinion on the matter. He disclosed in the hearing that he served as Senator Grace Poe’s legal counsel during the 2016 presidential elections and clarified that he is not a supporter of Duterte.
“My view that the arrest and the detention and explusion of the former president may have infringed several constitutional guarantees in favor of the former president,” Medina said.
Medina also disagreed with Remulla’s citing of Republic Act 9851 or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity in allowing Duterte’s arrest.
The lawyer emphasized the doctrine on constitutional supremacy and said that “whatever right that is granted by the constitution cannot be diminished or lessened or stripped away by any statute.”
“We have to interpret RA 9851 in accordance with the broad protection of the constitution which means that if you will surrender without judicial proceedings, that would be a violation,” Medina said.
Duterte and Dela Rosa earlier filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to permanently prohibit the Philippine government from cooperating with the ICC.
Dela Rosa was Duterte’s chief implementor of his war on drugs where at least 1.6 million drug dependents surrendered to the government.
The reelectionist senator has maintained that there was a need to implement a war on drugs to eradicate the cause of heinous crimes in the country.
