AN international law expert said the arrest of former president Rodrigo Duterte was carried out without compliance with Article 59 procedures governing the execution of International Criminal Court (ICC) warrants, raising unresolved constitutional and jurisdictional questions before the Supreme Court.
International law expert Melissa Loja, in a Thursday interview, said Article 59 of the Rome Statute requires that ICC arrest warrants be executed through domestic legal processes in the country of arrest.
She said this requirement, when read alongside constitutional protections under Article III of the 1987 Constitution and the Rules of Court, means an arrest should have first been brought before a local court for judicial examination.
Loja said that under proper Article 59 implementation, a local court would have verified the identity and authority of the arresting officers, confirmed the identity of the person to be arrested, and ensured that the rights of the accused were observed, including access to counsel and the reading of rights.
The court would then have determined the validity of the ICC warrant and its execution before any transfer of custody.
She said these steps were not observed in Duterte’s arrest.
Duterte’s son earlier questioned the alleged violation before the high court, but Loja noted that the timing complicated the Court’s ability to intervene.
Loja also pointed out that former Duterte lead counsel Nicholas Kauffman did not raise Article 59 as a jurisdictional issue before the ICC. She said she was uncertain whether the new legal counsel handling the case would pursue the same argument.
The expert said the matter now before the Supreme Court has been revived by subsequent developments involving Senator Ronald dela Rosa, noting that the Court may still be compelled to rule on the constitutional questions to prevent similar issues from recurring in future arrests involving other officials.
Loja said Article 59 intersects with domestic legal requirements under Philippine law, stressing that a person may be deprived of liberty only upon a warrant issued by a judge.
She said this principle is reflected in the Rules of Court, which require that a local court first examine the warrant and ensure proper procedure before any deprivation of liberty.
She added that had Article 59 procedures been followed, Duterte would have had access to remedies such as habeas corpus and appeal mechanisms at the domestic level.
On the Senate discussions surrounding dela Rosa, Loja said lawmakers and supporters of the senator have argued that a “live domestic investigation” under Republic Act 9851, the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, should take precedence under the principle of complementarity, thereby excluding ICC jurisdiction.
