LIBRT: Any probe by the International Criminal Court on President Duterte's war on drugs

during his term is unconstitutional.

Section 7, Article II of the 1987 Constitution ordains that In its relations

with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national
sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and right to self-
determination.

Do you think that letting the ICC interfere at this too early stage with our national
issues would be the most practicable solution to the allegations of EJKS on the war
on drugs by Digong?

- We Believe, otherwise.

Good evening your Honor and ladies and gentleman.

We in the affirmative side would like to emphasize on some points that were
misconstrued by the negative.

1. We recognize the existence of ICC because after all we are a signatory to

that. However, it should not mean that this ICC can just take cognizance in
the affairs of our country when other departments are already conducting its
own investigation on the allegations against Duterte. Unless the State is
proved unable and incapable to investigate by itself the issue at hand then
the ICC cannot and will not achieve jurisdiction. This is by virtue of
complemantarity.

2. The case is still unripe for adjudication. The ICC cannot take jurisdiction over
Digong because he is covered by the Presidential immunity from suit.
Further, the ICC would be pre-empting our Courts who is restrained to take
cognizance of Digong.
- We would like to emphasize that Digong should be liable for his acts IF
TRULY he has a hand on these extra-judicial killings. But not now while he
is a sitting president, he should be freed from any form of harassment,
hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance
of his official duties and functions.

further, our past presidents have been convicted for their crimes
which goes to show that our - our Courts are not unwilling or
unable, they just respect the immunity ranted to the President.
And such respect shall also be granted to President Duterte who.
And no one could trample on that respect, even the Rome
Statute, for we enjoy sovereignty.
Going to the practicability speech

1. Assuming but not conceding, that ICC takes jurisdiction of Digong, it would
seriously affect our country economically. The President is the Head of
State, he is the figurehead of our country. Being subjected to the
jurisdiction of ICC would connote the idea to the international and
business community of the uncertain business climate in the Philippines.
Further, The image that would be portrayed if we allow him to be
investigated by the ICC is that we are troubled state, like those of Iran,
Iraq, Kenya. And the Court should take judicial notice that our country is
far better than those countries mentioned.

- And we all know that no investor in his right mind would like to
make business in an unstable and uncertain country.

The steady growth that our country have accumulated over the years
would go to drain because of the simple fact that our President, the most
powerful man of our country, is being investigated by the ICC for being a
murderer.

2. Thus, Subjecting our President to the jurisdiction of ICC would seriously affect our
country economically. The President is the head of state, he is the figurehead of
our country. The image that would be portrayed if we allow him to be
investigated by the ICC is that we are troubled state, with a government that is
unable to settle its own matters that the ICC needs to intervene.
- And we all know that no investor in his right mind would like to make business in
an unstable and uncertain country.

Interpellation:

1. Have you read the case of Estrada vs Desierto?

2. Would you agree with me that the SC enunciated in that case that
presidential immunity from suit by the President exists during his
incumbency?
3. Would you agree with me that no less than the Constitution provides for it?
4. Then would you agree with me that Duterte is a sitting President?
5. Would you agree with me that allowing him to be investigated by the ICC
would an indirect contravention to our Constitution
6. And it is well-settled that you cannot do indirectly, what you cannot do
directly.
 7. Then, would you agree with that compared to the Rome Statute, ICC, our
Constitution and laws takes precedence?

_I rest my case