Who can challenge PH withdrawal from ICC?

The International Criminal Court in The Hague, The Netherlands (Photo from the ICC website)

Can an ordinary citizen question a government’s decision to withdraw membership from the International Criminal Court?

During Tuesday’s oral argument challenging the validity of the government’s withdrawal from the ICC, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen asked Atty. Ray Paolo Santiago about the legal standing of petitioner Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court (PCICC).

PCICC, in their petition, said President Rodrigo Duterte violated the 1987 Constitution when he unilaterally withdrew the country’s membership from the ICC. They maintained that the Constitution requires the concurrence first by the Senate.

However, PCICC said Duterte disregarded the constitutional requirement.

“The reason why in constitutional cases, it must be the party that is actually injured [who must file the petition] so that the party can choose what kind of claims and defenses that they can raise,” Leonen said.

He asked Santiago if he or the PCICC had experienced injury, summarily disappeared or a victim of aggression, to which he answered in the negative.

“You claim that you are a party but you are not injured. Aren’t you raising theoretical questions for those who are injured or will be injured,” asked Leonen.

“Your petition enumerates advocates for human rights whom I deeply respect…Principally, it must be shown that there is personal, substantial, direct injury.”

“What is your injury?” asked Leonen.

Santiago maintained that the right to effective remedy is invoking their constitutional right.

But another magistrate, Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza asked Santiago to point to which part of the Constitution supports their claim.

Jardeleza said the closest constitutional provision that can be invoked by the petitioner is the provision which states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law.”

“Not a right explicitly defined by the Constitution,” Jardeleza said.

He added that even the constitutional provision that President Duterte allegedly violated the law for his action unilaterally withdrawing membership from ICC did not specifically mention the requirement for withdrawing from treaty membership.

Petitioners are referring to Article VII Section 21 of the Constitution which provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.”

“You are basing an argument not based on a text [in the Constitution],” Jardeleza added.

The oral argument will continue next week after the high court allowed the minority Senators’ request to skip the first day of debate to discuss who will represent them.