Filipinos have been swamped lately by reports of the International Criminal Court threatening to resume its probe into the alleged crimes against humanity committed at the height of the country’s war on illegal drugs.
Philippine officials, led by Justice Secretary Jesus Remulla and erstwhile War on Drugs administrator now Senator Ronald “Bato” de la Rosa, are of course adamant about not letting investigators into the country, citing the international court’s lack of jurisdiction.
It was at the height of President Rodrigo Duterte’s popularity after winning the presidency in 2016 that the mindset justifying summary executions, which allegedly reached as many as 30,000, gained the upper hand and dominated the national political narrative.
Critics, however, believe Duterte’s kill orders blasted to smithereens the principle of the rule of law, democratic rights and processes, human rights, and accountability. It is for this reason that the ICC probe carries long-term political and moral significance that goes far beyond the mere criminal investigation and prosecution of Duterte and his top lieutenants who executed this state policy.
The ICC investigation, they pointed out, challenges the police and military mindset — shared and supported to some extent by some segments of the civilian population — justifying arbitrary and summary executions as a means of dealing with criminality.
The Duterte administration had tried to attack the ICC by claiming that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the Rome Statute of the ICC never became effective in the country.
But what really is at stake should the Philippines allow the ICC to pursue its investigation of the so-called grisly murders during the last dispensation?
We say a lot. First and foremost is the huge loss of reputation. Being the first Southeast Asian nation to succumb to the authority of the ICC will make the country come across as one of those dysfunctional states in the African continent. Of course, who would want to be lumped together with those states?
Besides, being likened to East Timor as an ICC subject is downright degrading for a nation regarded as one of the major ASEAN members. Sad to say, even that distinction as a respected state in the region is now slowly fading as relative newbies like Vietnam and Cambodia have started to outrank the country on various development metrics.
In the face of that threat, an ICC investigation therefore is the last thing we need. The opposition has got to understand that.
By inviting the ICC to intervene in our domestic affairs, despite a fully functional justice system, the opposition is now facing a maelstrom. Do they really have the best interest of the Filipino people in mind? Or are they blinded by their lust for power that they are willing to burn an entire house down just to kill a couple of rats?
That, sadly, is how observers see the ploy of inviting a foreign court to meddle in the affairs of a sovereign country like the Philippines. Critics of the War on Drugs insist that the ICC has the authority to prosecute individuals for international offenses such as genocide, and other crimes against humanity regardless of where they were committed.
It is therefore not surprising that not a few nations view this as a violation of their sovereignty and eventually opt out of participation.
One question though remains: Who exactly grants the authority to the ICC to intrude into sovereign nations like the Philippines? That, we believe, is the elephant in the room.