THERE is something deeply unsettling about watching politicians long branded as “progressive” suddenly retreat into procedural shields when the law they once invoked now circles their own chamber. It is not merely a legal debate unfolding before us, but a revealing test of institutional character and moral consistency, and of whether principle survives proximity to power.
The recent indictment of Senators Ronald Dela Rosa and Bong Go as co-conspirators of former president Rodrigo Roa Duterte in the commission of crimes against humanity in connection with the war on drugs should have been a moment of moral clarity. Instead, it has exposed a distressing elasticity of principle.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) proceedings are not trivial. Crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute involve murder and other inhumane acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. These are grave accusations. They demand sobriety, not tactical maneuvering disguised as constitutional fidelity.
Yet instead of centering the conversation on accountability and justice for victims, some senators once imagined as progressive have pivoted toward institutional self-preservation.
Senate President Vicente Sotto III and Sen. Risa Hontiveros have expressed opposition to arresting sitting senators while the Senate is in session, invoking Senate tradition and parliamentary courtesy.
Such claims are presumably anchored on Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that a senator shall, “in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while Congress is in session.”
Crimes against humanity do not fall within that protection. Under Republic Act (RA) 9851, those found guilty face reclusion perpetua, far beyond the six-year ceiling. Immunity from arrest does not attach. To suggest otherwise misreads the Constitution and transforms a limited safeguard against harassment through minor charges into a shield against prosecution for one of the gravest crimes recognized in international law.
If progressivism once meant standing with victims of state violence, it cannot now mean stretching constitutional text to protect colleagues facing allegations tied to thousands of deaths.
Then we have Sen. Bam Aquino, who argued that “ideally” extrajudicial killing cases should be tried in Philippine courts since the victims are here. At first glance, the statement sounds patriotic. Of course, domestic courts should function.
But the operative word is “ideally.”
The complementarity principle under Article 17 of the Rome Statute does not hinge on where victims reside. It turns on whether a state is willing and able genuinely to investigate and prosecute those most responsible. The ICC acts only when domestic systems fail to do so.
The real question, therefore, is whether Philippine institutions demonstrated sustained political will when the killings were unfolding. How many high-level officials were charged under RA 9851? How many command-level actors faced prosecution for crimes against humanity?
If the position is that cases belong here, then that stance should have been matched years ago by persistent efforts to mobilize prosecutors, protect witnesses and build airtight indictments. It behooves us to ask Aquino if he pushed harder for these to happen, and moved beyond mere condemnation.
Absent genuine domestic action, invoking the geographic location of victims does not negate ICC jurisdiction. It merely gestures toward a justice system that did not assert itself when it mattered most. In that sense, “ideally” becomes less a constitutional argument and more a political buffer comforting to utter, but thin when measured against years of institutional inertia.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson, for his part, has suggested that any ICC arrest warrant should first be cleared with Philippine courts, citing Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
But this reading conflates distinct legal processes. Article III, Section 2 governs warrants issued by Philippine courts. It does not prohibit the Philippines from cooperating with a warrant issued by a competent international tribunal exercising jurisdiction under international law.
Republic Act 9851 explicitly contemplates cooperation. Section 17 allows Philippine authorities to dispense with investigation or prosecution if an international tribunal is already conducting proceedings. It incorporates complementarity into domestic law.
When the ICC issues a warrant, probable cause has already been determined by its Pre-Trial Chamber. The Philippine role is not to re-litigate probable cause but to comply with domestic legislation governing cooperation. To insist on a fresh judicial determination risks neutralizing the statutory mechanism Congress enacted.
There is no constitutional contradiction. One provision governs domestic warrant issuance. The other governs cooperation with international prosecution.
The troubling development is not merely legal misinterpretation. It is the spectacle of a chamber once animated by oversight hearings shifting toward collegial insulation. This is not about presuming guilt. Indictment is not conviction. Due process must be respected.
But defending due process is different from preemptively insulating colleagues through strained readings or appeals to sovereignty. The line between safeguarding rights and shielding peers is thin, but it exists.
The drug war claimed thousands of lives, many of them poor. Families continue to grieve without closure. If crimes against humanity were committed, accountability must follow wherever evidence leads.
The ICC process emerged after years of stalled domestic prosecutions. That context cannot be erased by invoking sovereignty at the eleventh hour. Justice delayed at home cannot become the reason to block justice abroad.
If Dela Rosa and Go are innocent, they will have the opportunity to contest charges before the appropriate tribunal. If Philippine courts genuinely assert jurisdiction under RA 9851 and demonstrate credible prosecution, complementarity will operate accordingly.
But what we are witnessing instead is a narrowing of accountability pathways, an instinct to close ranks rather than open scrutiny. The Constitution was not written to protect lawmakers from grave international crimes. RA 9851 was not enacted to remain dormant. The moral force of progressivism was never meant to be contingent on who stands in the dock.
The Senate now faces a choice: uphold a consistent commitment to justice even when uncomfortable, or retreat behind procedural misreadings that signal protection of its own.
History is watching.
Disclosure: Antonio P. Contreras PhD is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and vice chairman of the board of state-run PTV Network Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment