OPPOSITION SPEECH

(INTRO + QUOTE) Ladies and Gentlemen, today I stand before you to present the
opposition’s perspective on the significance of why ICC should NOT intervene in the
investigation towards drug war in the Philippines.
It is noted that former president Duterte withdrew the membership of Philippine to
ICC due to the alleged attack of UN against Philippines. (NEWS ARTC). Although it is
important to acknowledge the ___ equally ours. I personally want the innocent people
who are killed without cause to receive the justice they always deserve, but we need
think at the wider picture and see whether the international legal system, rather than our
national legal system, will bring charges against those responsible. If the ICC looks into
the drug war in the Philippines, how can we be certain that their investigations would be
lawful, efficient, and conducted without hiccups? Since they have no authority
whatsoever over the Philippines, how can we ensure that their relentless probe is not a
political tool and weapon used by the West to subjugate other States like ours?
1. We might consider the ICC as a powerful independent check on state leader,
however the value of this have been contested. This is apparent in the rising
number of voices that question the ICC on two main grounds: 1 st, legitimacy as a
global, unbiased institutions for two main reasons: the ICC has an apparent focus
on the African continent and other less powerful countries, second, there is a
perceived Western hegemony over ICC proceedings that arises from the UN
Security Referrals – which having the authority to possess veto powers and thus
have the power to decide when the court may investigate despite not submitting
to the ICC’S jurisdiction themselves. These states are Russia, China and US.
The ability of three states to have such significant control when they are not
themselves party to the Rome Stature UNDERMINES the legitimacy of the Court.

2. How can you say that the ICC will have an effective investigation if the are relying
on the cooperation of member states to enforce warrants and surrender
fugitives? As individual states may simply ignore a warrant or request from the
ICC, they have the potential to substantially interfere in the effective
administration of justice.

3. “The law abhors delay.” A maxim meaning that unnecessary delays in the
administration of justice dilute the quality of that justice. When it comes to
the initiation and execution of proceedings before the ICC, there are recurring
practical issues that hinder the Court’s mission in two ways: by delaying the
administration of justice and by preventing the very chance of seeing justice done
in the first place. ICC proceedings are patently slow-moving. Such delays are a
serious problem for ensuring that victims obtain the justice that they deserve.
 4. ICC has no jurisdiction over the Philippines, why? The case of Burundi should
serve as a precedent over the international tribunal’s supposed non-jurisdiction in
the Philippines. It was stated in Article 127 of Rome Statute that although the
withdrawal does not affect any cooperation, any prosecution or investigation
SHOULD commenced prior to the date of the effectivity of the withdrawal. Noted
that the ICC investigation started only in 2021-two years after Philippine
government officially pulled out from the international tribunal in March 2019,
thus, the case should no longer have any effect as far as the Burundi case is
concerned.

Let us all consider the principle of resource allocation; it could be better utilized in
addressing more urgent and severe cases of the countries that currently part of the
statute. Given that (ICC) lacks jurisdiction over the Philippines due to factors like lack of
consent, domestic legal system, sovereignty concerns, and selective targeting. For the
possible resolution, alternative mechanisms might be considered such as truth and
reconciliation commissions, that could be more effective in addressing the alleged
crimes in the Philippines.

Deputy Leader of the Opposition

Ladies and Gentlemen, today I stand before you to present the opposition’s perspective
on the significance of why ICC should NOT intervene in the investigation towards drug
war in the Philippines.
Philippines is a sovereign country, interving of the ICC would be a threat to sovereignty
of the country.
On March 17, 2018, then-President Duterte formally notified the United
Nations secretary-general that the Philippines was withdrawing from the ICC’s Rome
Statute. In accordance with the ICC treaty, the withdrawal took effect one year later. The
provisions of the Rome Statute permit the court to retain its jurisdiction over crimes
committed prior to withdrawal. In the case of the Philippines, this was from November 1,
2011 – the date in which the Rome Statute went into effect in the Philippines – up to and
including March 16, 2019.
In their January 26 decision, the ICC judges addressed the Philippine government’s
claim that the court does not have jurisdiction over the situation in the Philippines under
the principles of non-intervention and sovereign equality as enshrined in the United
Nations Charter. Non-intervention relates to the right of states to conduct their domestic
affairs without outside interference. Sovereign equality concerns the equal standing of
states within the international community.
In conclusion, ICC should focus on those states that still a member of them instead on
interfering on the Philippines which is already not a member.
Opposition Reply

Ladies and gentlemen, today I stand before you as a government member. The
International Criminal Court (ICC) has been violating the country's sovereignty. After the
Philippines withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the ICC's jurisdiction is no longer
automatically applicable to the nation. Without the Philippines approval, any attempt by
the ICC to investigate claims of human rights violations there might be understood as a
violation of the country's sovereign right to withdraw.
The ICC Complementarity principle, the ICC may only exercise jurisdiction when
national legal systems fail to do so, when it is demonstrated that they are unwilling or
unable to genuinely carry out proceedings.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla reiterated the
government’s position that the ICC can rightfully conduct proceedings only in states
without a functioning government and justice system. Philippines has an NBI/DOJ and
we have justice system and our justice system is fuctional why ICC still middling in our
countries issue.
The Philippines' decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute shows of its desire to
protect its sovereignty. The Department of Justice's claim that the Philippines has a
functioning legal system is consistent with the complementarity principle, which
emphasizes the ICC's intervention only when national legal systems fail. As a result, any
effort by the ICC to look into domestic human rights concerns could be interpreted as a
violation on the Philippines' sovereign right to leave the country, necessitating the
respect and acceptance of the country's independence in handling internal affairs.

Government Whip
In summary, as the Opposition Whip, I would like to reiterate the key arguments against
the intervention of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the investigation of the drug
war in the Philippines:

1. Legitimacy and Bias: There are concerns regarding the ICC's legitimacy as a global
and unbiased institution. It has been criticized for its apparent focus on African countries
and less powerful nations. Additionally, the UN Security Referrals, which grant veto
powers to certain states like Russia, China, and the US, undermine the court's
legitimacy by allowing non-party states to control investigations.
2. Effectiveness and Cooperation: The ICC relies on the cooperation of member states
to enforce warrants and surrender fugitives. However, individual states have the
potential to ignore ICC requests, which can substantially interfere with the
administration of justice.
3. Delays and Impediments: The ICC proceedings are known to be slow-moving,
leading to unnecessary delays in the administration of justice. These delays not only
hinder the court's mission but also prevent victims from receiving the justice they
deserve.
4. Lack of Jurisdiction: The Philippines withdrew from the ICC, and according to the
Rome Statute, the court does not have jurisdiction over crimes committed after the
withdrawal. The case of Burundi serves as a precedent, as the ICC investigation started
two years after the country's withdrawal, rendering the investigation irrelevant.
5. Resource Allocation: The opposition argues that the ICC's resources could be better
utilized in addressing more urgent and severe cases in countries that are still members
of the court. The lack of jurisdiction over the Philippines, coupled with concerns about
consent, domestic legal systems, sovereignty, and selective targeting, suggests that
alternative mechanisms like truth and reconciliation commissions may be more effective
in addressing alleged crimes.
In conclusion, the opposition's stance is that the ICC should not intervene in the
investigation of the drug war in the Philippines due to concerns about sovereignty,
legitimacy, effectiveness, delays, lack of jurisdiction, and resource allocation. The
Philippines has withdrawn from the ICC, and its sovereignty and legal system should be
respected in handling internal affairs.