France test for Remullas

Secretary Jonvic has said he will travel to Lyon to follow up on the Philippines’ renewed request for an International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) Red Notice against Co. Ombudsman Remulla is expected to undertake diplomatic discussions in Paris.

The objective is very clear: secure international cooperation in locating Co and eventually returning him to the Philippines, where he faces serious criminal allegations connected to the flood-control scandal, including the ₱7.4-billion plunder case involving former House speaker Martin Romualdez and others.

But the diplomatic challenge is anything but simple.

The Philippines cannot simply tell France that Co is wanted. It must demonstrate why.

A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. It is a request to locate and provisionally arrest an individual pending extradition or similar proceedings. Interpol rules also prohibit the organization from intervening in matters of political character.

That makes Co’s reported claim that the cases against him are politically motivated particularly significant.

Neither side, however, should be presumed correct.

The government does not have to prove Co guilty to French authorities, just as Co’s allegation of political persecution cannot by itself establish that the prosecution is political. What is paramount is whether the Philippines can present enough credible evidence and institutional safeguards to show that these are legitimate criminal proceedings.

The Remullas, therefore, need to bring more than arrest warrants and official statements.

They need to present the evidentiary foundation of the cases: charging documents, judicial orders, affidavits, procurement and project records, audit findings, financial transactions, and other evidence that establishes a credible link between Co and the alleged offenses. They must also explain how probable cause was established and what legal protections will be available to Co if he is returned.

The French dimension makes this especially important.

France’s asylum system provides applicants with significant procedural protections while their claims are being examined. Depending on the applicable procedure, an asylum seeker may be allowed to remain in France while the application is processed and may challenge a negative decision before the National Court of Asylum.

These safeguards are not a declaration of innocence. They reflect the principle that claims of persecution must be properly examined.

Therefore, it is crucial for the government to demonstrate clearly that Co is facing legitimate criminal prosecution rather than political persecution. It should show that the investigation was driven by facts rather than political rivalry; that comparable cases are treated under consistent standards; that prosecutors and courts have exercised their independent functions; and that Co will receive counsel and due process.

This is where diplomatic rhetoric ends and institutional credibility begins.

The Philippines cannot expect France to dismiss Co’s allegations simply because Philippine officials reject them. Nor should Co’s allegations automatically be accepted as fact.

The evidence must decide the question.

The Remullas’ success, therefore, should not be measured simply by whether Co is located or eventually brought home. The greater test is whether they can convince Interpol and French authorities that the Philippines is seeking the return of an accused person to face lawful proceedings—not the surrender of a political adversary.

Co’s guilt or innocence belongs to the courts. The government’s credibility, however, belongs to the public.

If the Philippine case is as strong as the government claims, it has to lay out the evidence and let the facts speak for themselves in Lyon and Paris. France would not simply take the Philippines’ word for it.