JUSTICE Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla admitted on Thursday, April 10, 2025, giving clearances for the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte and his immediate transfer to The Hague, Netherlands on the basis of the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
During the resumption of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations inquiry into Duterte’s arrest, Remulla said the clearances issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) “was probably the most important part” of the process, which put the former president to where he is now -- inside the ICC detention facility.
“In some ways because I gave them the legal basis for all the actions that happened… If I have to be the one, if I’m the one that is being referred to,” Remulla said.
“I will admit it kasi I gave the clearances to, number one, serve the warrant of arrest as I saw it, as I deem fit. And number two, to fly him to The Hague, to be surrendered under Section 17 of Republic Act 9851,” he added.
Remulla said he then coursed the clearances through his brother, Interior and Local Government Secretary Jonvic Remulla, who oversees the Philippine National Police (PNP).
Before this, Senator Imee Marcos, the panel’s chairperson, and Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa were trying to determine from the government officials present at the hearing who had ordered Duterte’s arrest --specifically, who had authorized him to be boarded onto a plane for his immediate transfer to The Hague.
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) director Major General Nicolas Torre III, who led Duterte’s arrest on March 11 until he was taken into a private plane that brought him to The Hague, said he is taking orders from Philippine National Police (PNP) chief General Rommel Marbil.
Marbil, for his part, said his order to the CIDG is for the provision of assistance to the Philippine Center on Transnational Crime (PCTC) for Duterte’s arrest.
Executive Director Anthony Alcantara, however, denied ordering anyone to board Duterte to the private jet, noting that his mandate is only to coordinate law enforcement agencies to comply with the requirement of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol).
“For the record, I am not the authority to order the boarding (of Duterte) on the plane,” Alcantara said.
Marbil denied lying, later invoking the executive privilege, which gives government officials authority to deny the senator’s query.
“Kung sinu-sino na ang itinuro mo, ngayon mag-e-executive privilege ka?” said Marcos.
(You've already pointed fingers at so many people, and now you're invoking executive privilege?)
At this point, Remulla intervened, accusing the senators of “bullying” the resource persons by making them admit something that they would not admit.
“An executive privilege is a valid excuse not to answer any question,” Remulla said.
“If you’re trying to make a person admit something that should not be admitted, it means that there is something more to it,” he added.
Duterte’s children earlier filed several petitions questioning the legality of their father's arrest and transfer to the Hague before the Supreme Court.
'Warrant legal, surrender not'
Meanwhile, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna Jr., during the hearing, said that while Duterte's arrest on the basis of the arrest warrant issued by the ICC amid its investigation into the alleged crimes against humanity in the Philippines during the implementation of his drug war was legal, the former president’s surrender to the court is not.
Azcuna said the Philippines still has “residual obligations” to the ICC even after its withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the establishing treaty of the body, in 2019.
“Therefore, in my view, the warrant of arrest is legal. However, I believe that the surrender is not. Because the surrender must be pursuant to a treaty and therefore our own law, Section 17 of Republic Act 9851 brought back the statute of Rome even after withdrawal because it requires that a surrender must be pursuant to the applicable treaty,” Azcuna said.
“And therefore, in this case, the applicable treaty remains the statute of Rome, and thus, we have to follow Article 59 of the Statute of Rome that requires that the custodial state -- namely the Philippines -- must first bring the arrested person to a local court to determine two things,” he added.
Azcuna said two things that needed to be determined were whether or not the person named in the warrant was indeed the same person, and whether or not the individual had been informed of the charges against them.
“This was not done. Therefore, there was, in my view, a violation in the act of surrender,” Azcuna said.
Azcuna added that in the ICC, even if the arrest is legal, detention can still be lawful, as it does not automatically mean that if the arrest is illegal, the person arrested must be released.
Remulla said the extradition process could not be applied to Duterte since the Philippines is no longer a member of the Rome Statute.
The Philippine government earlier said Duterte was arrested not because it is continuously cooperating with ICC but because it has a responsibility to the Interpol, which was tapped by the ICC for the former president’s arrest.
After being tapped by the ICC, the Interpol issued a red diffusion notice indicating that Duterte should be located and arrested “with the view to extradition.”
“Kung tayo po ay member ng ICC, kailangan po ng judicial proceedings. E, hindi na po tayo member ng ICC. Kung miyembro po tayo ng ICC, nakatulong sana kay President Duterte na hindi po siya ililipad pero siya po mismo ang nag-atras ng ating membership,” said Remulla.
(If we were a member of the ICC, judicial proceedings would be required. But we are no longer a member of the ICC. If we were still a member, it could have helped President Duterte so that he wouldn't be flown out, but it was he who withdrew our membership.)
“May treaty po na kinakailangan para ho magkaroon ng extradition, e, wala pong treaty, e, kasi nga nagwithdraw na tayo sa ICC… It was the best judgment under the circumstances for our country,” he added.
(There is a treaty required for extradition, but there is no treaty because we withdrew from the ICC... It was the best judgment under the circumstances for our country.)
Remulla again noted following Republic Act No. 9851, otherwise known as the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity.
Section 17 of Republic Act 9851 states, ''In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable under this Act if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime. Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court, if any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties.”
During an ambush interview, Marcos said the law should already be revisited for possible necessary amendments for the benefit of the Filipino people. (TPM/SunStar Philippines)