This is so wrong in all levels. Let me reiterate that the ICC has a track record of being double-standard. It easily prosecuted African presidents for alleged acts of genocide but has not taken action in the US aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan. In short, it can only bully the states they can bully.
The insistence of the ICC that the CHR will investigate will not be acceptable due to two huge reasons. First, its Chairman is politicized being a known supporter of the opposition and an Aquino appointee. You cannot trust him to be fair. Second, the CHR is a constitutional anomaly. It is a toothless tiger. It can investigate but it has no prosecutorial powers. PRRD did not make the Constitution, blame those who made it.
So does it mean that the ICC can intervene because the state does not have mechanisms to prosecute Duterte?
No, the ICC cannot. The Philippines can prosecute its President. We have done it to Erap, GMA and hopefully PNoy. We have systems in place. It is just that we cannot prosecute PRRD now because he is still doing his job as our President. A necessity to grant him immunity so he can focus on his job at hand. So those who want to make him pay can wait until the end of his term to file these cases.
Lastly, on ICC intervening in order to put a stop to the killings, let me just put forward this challenge.
Before you dip your nose on the Philippine problem, why don't you first intervene in countries with a much higher rate of killings like Myanmar (save Aung San Suu Kyi), Venezuela, Colombia, Haiti and Mexico before acting like a whipping boy to our very minority opposition.
This is the reality that has happened with the ICC. It pretends to be a criminal court but it's a clown court. Like why hasn't it investigated even MUCH BIGGER problems and may I add the Middle East or North Korea?
Wait... so why are the ultranationalists now mad that President Duterte is withdrawing Philippines from the ICC?
This also puts the whole credibility of leftist lawyers working for "nationalist" organizations such as Alliance of Concerned Teachers and Bayan Muna into further sinking. Here's what I learned from the Inquirer concerning President Duterte's withdrawal:
ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio said Duterte’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, was "utterly self-serving and driven by sheer panic at the prospect of a trial before the ICC for crimes against humanity related to his murderous war on drugs."
"However, President Duterte won’t save himself from ICC investigation by withdrawing the Philippines as a State Party to the Rome Statute," Tinio added.
The lawmaker cited Article 127 of the Rome Statute which states that the withdrawal "shall come into effect one year after receipt of notice." It further provides that "a State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have accrued."
Tinio said the Statute also stated that the withdrawal would not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings, and the withdrawing State’s duty to cooperate in the said investigations which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.
"In short, since the ICC has already commenced with proceedings regarding Pres. Duterte’s war on drugs, it has the authority to proceed and the Philippine government has the obligation to cooperate with an investigation, regardless of the notice of withdrawal," Tinio explained.
"Whether he likes it or not, he will be held accountable," he added.
Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate likewise slammed Duterte’s withdrawal from the treaty as "ominous" and a "grave setback to human rights and accountability."
"Pres. Duterte’s withdrawal from the Rome statute is intended to escape accountability by present and even future officials for crimes committed against the people and humanity. This is ominous of an even worse human rights situation in the country," he said.
"For all the bluster of the present administration in the manner it launched its bloody wars, this withdrawal also means that it is gravely petrified of the long arm of the law and accountability," he added.
ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio said Duterte’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, was "utterly self-serving and driven by sheer panic at the prospect of a trial before the ICC for crimes against humanity related to his murderous war on drugs."
"However, President Duterte won’t save himself from ICC investigation by withdrawing the Philippines as a State Party to the Rome Statute," Tinio added.
The lawmaker cited Article 127 of the Rome Statute which states that the withdrawal "shall come into effect one year after receipt of notice." It further provides that "a State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have accrued."
Tinio said the Statute also stated that the withdrawal would not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings, and the withdrawing State’s duty to cooperate in the said investigations which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.
"In short, since the ICC has already commenced with proceedings regarding Pres. Duterte’s war on drugs, it has the authority to proceed and the Philippine government has the obligation to cooperate with an investigation, regardless of the notice of withdrawal," Tinio explained.
"Whether he likes it or not, he will be held accountable," he added.
Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate likewise slammed Duterte’s withdrawal from the treaty as "ominous" and a "grave setback to human rights and accountability."
"Pres. Duterte’s withdrawal from the Rome statute is intended to escape accountability by present and even future officials for crimes committed against the people and humanity. This is ominous of an even worse human rights situation in the country," he said.
"For all the bluster of the present administration in the manner it launched its bloody wars, this withdrawal also means that it is gravely petrified of the long arm of the law and accountability," he added.
The situation has also inadvertently reveal the hypocrisy and self-contradiction of the likes of Atty. Tinio and Bayan Muna Representative Zarate. I thought these guys were nationalistic to the core but it turns out that they can't even have a real stand. I talked about how Atty. Tinio himself is such an enemy of foreign investors in the name of "nationalism". The same can go for Bayan Muna and their quest to promote the stupid Filipino First policy. So what happened to "Filipino First" already? I thought they wanted to promote their "nationalist" views. How ironic that they don't want to open up the Philippine economy to foreign investors and they want U.S. troops out of the Philippines while they complain that President Duterte wants to remove the Philippines from the ICC which is an INTERNATIONAL court?
Knowledge of ICC's inefficiency is no longer just limited to Filipinos but the world
The reality is that if you can't get your fellow Filipinos to believe your B.S. anymore then why not lie to the international community that KNOWS NOTHING MUCH about what's going on in the Philippines? Worse, you have some Dilawans who are bragging that "Dutertards can just f*** off because the world believes us instead." all the while they still oppose foreign investors doing business in our country. They say that foreign investors will mean the loss of sovereignty (which is but a dumb assumption because foreign investors are bound to the local laws wherever they invest) but what about the ICC? Don't tell me that the Philippines hasn't lost a huge part of its sovereignty with the ICC? Instead of being a partner with fellow members -- it has become a willing bootlicker which isn't a good thing. Also, since when did certain foreign organizations become "experts" of certain countries in the world?
It's more than time to consider why withdrawing ICC is indeed good for Filipinos. Let me state that there's nothing wrong with getting help from foreigners but make sure that it's a healthy partnership. Foreign investors is a form of getting help from foreigners to help enrich the economy. The problem with the Philippines' membership with ICC that it has made the Philippines a dependent rather than a business partner. Filipinos need foreigners as business partners and not as their oppressors. Foreign investors granted 50% and above (their choice) will be helpful in gaining economic gains to modernize and increase the Philippine national defense. In return, the Philippines will ask for help and help in return -- not always be the damsel in distress but a useful ally that will ask for help and help its ally.
Should I mention that maybe the ICC won't help the Philippines or investigate the crimes done if Mar Roxas and Antonio Trillanes IV were president and vice president? Chances are it'll just ignore the pleas of Filipinos to investigate the increase of crime under their reign. I guess they decide to bully President Duterte because he doesn't want to stand by their B.S. and want to investigate him based on very loose evidence -- making withdrawal from a USELESS organization all the more valid. After all, why isn't the ICC focused on the Maute terrorists in Marawi instead of alleged crimes done by President Duterte?
To close, Forbes Magazine (which as cited both positives and negatives about President Duterte) has also cited why ICC is useless based on the introduction of an article about the ICC's inefficiency:
News stories recently reported that the International Criminal Court convicted a Congolese warlord of being an accessory to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Rarely were readers told that this is only the second conviction obtained in the Court—both of Congolese warlords—after 12 years of the Court’s operation and over $1 billion in expenditures. Rarer still was the insight that even this conviction, on a 2-1 vote, was long in coming and disappointing in outcome since the criminal was acquitted of the most serious charges, and was only convicted at all because of a mid-course correction to charge him with being merely an accessory to the crimes.
The obvious question few seem to be asking is whether the I.C.C. is simply too expensive and inefficient to justify. Originally designed to make certain that war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity were not ignored, the Court is supposed to achieve a sufficiently robust presence that it contributes “to the prevention of such crime.” To that end, it has 34 judges, over 700 staff, and an annual budget of $166 million. They say you can’t put a price on justice but $500 million per warlord conviction seems high by any standard. And what do 34 judges do all day? You don’t have to be a legal expert to figure that the preventive effect of convicting 2 warlords in 12 years doesn’t exactly leave international war criminals shaking in their boots.
In short, it's common sense just how weak ICC turns out to be in punishing international crime. Only two warlords in twelve years and the budget is worth $ 1 Billion? Talk about extreme inefficiency! I wonder if they will use due process as an excuse. Sadly, the ICC is really rendered useless because of the people handling it. It's supposed to be an international criminal court but instead it has wasted badly needed resources. With that in mind, the Philippines doesn't need ICC at all because it will just waste its income on such a useless organization.
It's more than time to consider why withdrawing ICC is indeed good for Filipinos. Let me state that there's nothing wrong with getting help from foreigners but make sure that it's a healthy partnership. Foreign investors is a form of getting help from foreigners to help enrich the economy. The problem with the Philippines' membership with ICC that it has made the Philippines a dependent rather than a business partner. Filipinos need foreigners as business partners and not as their oppressors. Foreign investors granted 50% and above (their choice) will be helpful in gaining economic gains to modernize and increase the Philippine national defense. In return, the Philippines will ask for help and help in return -- not always be the damsel in distress but a useful ally that will ask for help and help its ally.
Should I mention that maybe the ICC won't help the Philippines or investigate the crimes done if Mar Roxas and Antonio Trillanes IV were president and vice president? Chances are it'll just ignore the pleas of Filipinos to investigate the increase of crime under their reign. I guess they decide to bully President Duterte because he doesn't want to stand by their B.S. and want to investigate him based on very loose evidence -- making withdrawal from a USELESS organization all the more valid. After all, why isn't the ICC focused on the Maute terrorists in Marawi instead of alleged crimes done by President Duterte?
To close, Forbes Magazine (which as cited both positives and negatives about President Duterte) has also cited why ICC is useless based on the introduction of an article about the ICC's inefficiency:
News stories recently reported that the International Criminal Court convicted a Congolese warlord of being an accessory to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Rarely were readers told that this is only the second conviction obtained in the Court—both of Congolese warlords—after 12 years of the Court’s operation and over $1 billion in expenditures. Rarer still was the insight that even this conviction, on a 2-1 vote, was long in coming and disappointing in outcome since the criminal was acquitted of the most serious charges, and was only convicted at all because of a mid-course correction to charge him with being merely an accessory to the crimes.
The obvious question few seem to be asking is whether the I.C.C. is simply too expensive and inefficient to justify. Originally designed to make certain that war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity were not ignored, the Court is supposed to achieve a sufficiently robust presence that it contributes “to the prevention of such crime.” To that end, it has 34 judges, over 700 staff, and an annual budget of $166 million. They say you can’t put a price on justice but $500 million per warlord conviction seems high by any standard. And what do 34 judges do all day? You don’t have to be a legal expert to figure that the preventive effect of convicting 2 warlords in 12 years doesn’t exactly leave international war criminals shaking in their boots.
In short, it's common sense just how weak ICC turns out to be in punishing international crime. Only two warlords in twelve years and the budget is worth $ 1 Billion? Talk about extreme inefficiency! I wonder if they will use due process as an excuse. Sadly, the ICC is really rendered useless because of the people handling it. It's supposed to be an international criminal court but instead it has wasted badly needed resources. With that in mind, the Philippines doesn't need ICC at all because it will just waste its income on such a useless organization.
Comments
Post a Comment