Two arguments on jurisdiction of Duterte case

Here is a rewritten version of the blog post with a polished and professional tone

Title The Pivotal Question Unpacking Two Key Arguments on Jurisdiction in Duterte's ICC Case

As the world continues to grapple with the complexities of international justice, the case against former President Rodrigo Duterte at the International Criminal Court (ICC) has become a pressing issue. At the heart of the matter is the question of jurisdiction – specifically, whether the ICC can proceed with its prosecution of Duterte for crimes against humanity despite the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute in March 2019.

While some may argue that the answer to this question seems straightforward – given the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the case – lawyer and retired Naga City Regional Trial Court Judge Soliman Santos Jr. presents a nuanced perspective. In his recent legal opinion sent to the Inquirer, Santos highlights two critical points that will determine whether the ICC can proceed with its prosecution of Duterte.

Argument 1 Under Consideration

The first key argument centers on the concept of under consideration. According to international law, if a case is already under consideration by the ICC when a country withdraws from the Rome Statute, the Court retains jurisdiction over that case. Santos argues that this is precisely what happened in the Duterte case – the ICC had already initiated an investigation and was gathering evidence before the Philippines withdrew.

This under consideration argument has significant implications for the Duterte case. If accepted, it would mean that the ICC can proceed with its prosecution of Duterte despite the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute. This could potentially pave the way for other cases involving Philippine officials to be heard by the Court as well.

Argument 2 The Ongoing Investigation

The second key argument put forth by Santos revolves around the concept of an ongoing investigation. Even after a country withdraws from the Rome Statute, the ICC can continue to investigate and prosecute crimes that occurred prior to that withdrawal – as long as those crimes are still within the Court's jurisdiction.

In the case of Duterte, Santos argues that the ICC had already gathered sufficient evidence to support an ongoing investigation into his alleged crimes against humanity. This would mean that even if the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute, the ICC could continue to investigate and prosecute Duterte for those crimes – as long as they were committed prior to the withdrawal.

The Consequences of Jurisdictional Flexibility

If accepted, these two arguments would have far-reaching implications for international justice. They would establish a precedent whereby the ICC can continue to investigate and prosecute cases involving Philippine officials, despite the country's withdrawal from the Rome Statute. This could potentially lead to a ripple effect, where other countries with similar situations may also be held accountable by the Court.

In conclusion, the jurisdictional questions surrounding the Duterte case are more complex than they initially seem. As Judge Santos' arguments demonstrate, the ICC can still retain jurisdiction over this case – and potentially others like it – despite the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute. The implications of these developments are significant, and will undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences for international justice in the years to come.

Keywords International Criminal Court (ICC), Rodrigo Duterte, crimes against humanity, jurisdiction, Rome Statute, ongoing investigation, under consideration, Soliman Santos Jr., Naga City Regional Trial Court Judge.

Edward Lance Arellano Lorilla

CEO / Co-Founder

Enjoy the little things in life. For one day, you may look back and realize they were the big things. Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.