ca Tel a alee PM CenterLaw6]"Philippines LIE NO. 1: Because the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court (ICC) no longer has jurisdiction over the killings in the "War on Drugs”, TRUTH: Though the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute effective 17 March 2019, the ICC retains jurisdiction over atrocity crimes already committed from 01 November 2011 until 16 March 2019. BASIS: (i) Article 127, Rome Statute: “{WJithdrawal... shall not [...] prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.” (ii) Sen. Pangilinan v. Cayetano, Philippine Supreme Court: “[T]he International Criminal Court retains jurisdiction over any and all acts committed by government actors until March 17, 2019. Hence, withdrawal from the Rome Statute does not affect the liabilities of individuals charged before the International Criminal Court for acts committed up to this date.” LIE NO. 2: In light of said withdrawal, the Philippines is no longer obligated to cooperate with the ICC. TRUTH: Though the Philippines has withdrawn from the ICC, it still has the duty to cooperate with the ICC pursuant to Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute, BASIS: Article 127(2), Rome Statute: “[W]ithdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Courtin connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective[.]” LIE NO. 3: The ICC cannot exercise jurisdiction because our courts are “able and willing” to investigate and prosecute the killings in the drug war. TRUTH: Inaction on the part of a State having jurisdiction renders a case admissible before the Court. Because the Philippines has failed to investigate or prosecute those responsible for the bloody drug war, the ICC may exercise jurisdiction over the Situation in the Philippines. BASIS: (i) Article 17, Rome Statute: "[T]he Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: (a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution; 6 Inserted by resolution RC/Res.6 of 11 June 2010. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute] (ii) Prosecutor v. Katanga: "[I]n case of inaction, the question of unwillingness or inability does not arise; inaction on the part of a State having jurisdiction (that is, the fact that a State is not investigating or prosecuting, or has not done so) renders a case admissible before the Court[,]’ (iii) Prosecutior’s request to resume the investigation into the situation in the Philippines: "[MJere evidence of a State's preparedness or willingness to investigate or prosecute is not sufficient in and of itself to establish that it is actually carrying out a relevant investigation or prosecution.”