The silence that speaks

In the first part of this column last week, I discussed the misconception that the case former president Rodrigo Duterte is now facing before the International Criminal Court (ICC) constitutes foreign interference in domestic affairs. Some have also claimed that it violates our national sovereignty, and I explained why that is not the case.

- Atty. Ian Vincent Manticajon

Using international law’s foundational principles, I explained how the ICC’s jurisdiction is intentionally limited to the most egregious crimes --genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. I argued that this limitation is not only legal but strategic, preserving the ICC’s authority while debunking claims that it can simply dip its hands wherever it pleases.

That may, in part, explain the deafening silence of the international community regarding the case formally titled “Situation in the Republic of the Philippines: The Prosecutor v. Rodrigo Roa Duterte.” Of the 193 member states of the United Nations, 123 of which are state parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC, not one country has strongly protested over the former president’s arrest by the ICC.