ICC must surrender

Cooperation would mean surrender to an international process that the country does not need.

Unless the International Criminal Court, or ICC, submits to local jurisdiction, there is no way it could impose its will on the government, which exists under an independent and democratic system.

The hypocritical fools in the ICC may apply all the pressure they want, but the domestic institutions would break before they would allow the tribunal to get to first base in its effort to meddle in domestic affairs.

It would set a precedent that, in jurisprudence, would allow the international tribunal to exercise its will.

The struggle is between the government maintaining its sovereign mandate and the ICC upholding its legitimacy by arresting Philippine officials involved in the war on drugs despite the complaint being tainted by partisan politics.

Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra said the ICC does not have an enforcement mechanism and would have to depend on the country’s cooperation to enforce its prejudiced decision.

“The ICC has no enforcement mechanism of its own, so it relies heavily on the cooperation of states, whether member or non-member of the ICC,” Guevarra said.

Neither would the Philippine National Police, or PNP, enforce an order from the ICC. The PNP’s refusal is based on the question of the ICC’s jurisdiction.

PNP spokesperson Col. Jean Fajardo, in a press briefing on Wednesday, maintained that the country’s judicial system will prevail over any action of the foreign court.

Since President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. is firm about the existence of a healthy and credible judiciary, the government has no choice but not to cooperate with the ICC.

Cooperation would mean surrender to an international process that the country does not need.

Imagine the ICC judges prevailing over the magistrates or even the Supreme Court’s decisions on the pretext of a case being a crime against humanity.

The ICC can even overturn an SC ruling. A warning of that possibility was seen in the recent statement of United Nations Special Rapporteur Irene Khan, who said she would subject the SC decision on the Anti-Terrorism Act to a review.

If a so-called UN expert can dip her fingers into the highest body of the judiciary, the ICC can do no less.

The ICC needs a spectacle to maintain its diminishing stature among countries that still subscribe to its authority.

The putschist who always lurks in the background waiting for an opportune time to release his venom, Antonio Trillanes IV, said the ICC investigators had gathered enough evidence to go after Duterte.

Like the ICC, however, Trillanes’ credibility is below zero.

A challenge facing the international tribunal is its waning claim of legitimacy.

The ICC Prosecutor continues to face criticism over the body’s limitation to running after small nations, particularly African ones, arising from self-referrals or where non-member States had accepted the Court’s ad hoc jurisdiction.

International law experts believe that the Court’s legitimacy will be established only on the day the Prosecutor successfully prosecutes a non-African case.

The arrest and prosecution of Philippine officials would fit nicely into the ICC’s pursuit of a legitimate image.

All the ICC can do is make noise along with the bleeding hearts allied with it. With the decimation of the yellow horde, save for the groups of Trillanes and the recently released on-bail Leila de Lima, the ICC can count on little local support.

The best action that it can take is to submit all its findings and let the Philippine courts handle the prosecution of the cases with the ICC as the complainant.

*****
Credit belongs to: tribune.net.ph