Duterte in the ICC: First three days of coverage allowed claims of illegal arrest without counter-arguments
THE MARCH 11 arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte on a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) came as a surprise for many who had not heard any news lately about the Court. But Duterte himself apparently knew about the impending action, as noted by some media who described his trip to Hong Kong as an effort to evade arrest.
In the evening of the same date, Duterte was flown to The Hague, The Netherlands. He was accompanied by his former executive secretary Salvador Medialdea as temporary legal counsel. The charge: “Crimes against humanity” perpetrated during the “war on drugs,” including the so-called Davao Death Squad when Duterte was still mayor of Davao City.
Media followed closely the quick turn of events through live field reports on March 11: from Duterte’s arrival from Hong Kong at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), the actual arrest by Philippine authorities once he landed from his Hong Kong flight; the efforts of his family and political allies to gain access to him while he was in custody; the immediate reactions of lawyers who represented the surviving families of the victims; and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s statement that the Palace cooperated with the Interpol for the arrest based on the government’s current commitment.
In an ambush interview at Villamor Airbase, Vice President Sara Duterte called the arrest “state kidnapping.” She was not allowed to see the former president before his chartered jet left for The Hague.
On the day itself, reports cited sources who questioned the legality of the arrest, a narrative which would hold without any strong counter-argument for three days. Even as international law experts began to establish its legality, news continued to cite Duterte’s family and allies, allowing their views to dominate the public discussion.
In general, media attention did not give ample attention to the victims killed during the war and their families. Coverage did not expand on the initial reactions of lawyers working with this community. News did not review the sights and scenes recorded by the “night crawlers”—photojournalists who filed the images of corpses lying in the streets with signs identifying them as dealers or addicts. There was no mention of children who lost their lives when their homes were raided. Those who did not experience the “war” or may have forgotten the Duterte’s war on drugs got little help from journalists to look back to the past. News failed to recall the terror of those dark days when the threat of killings haunted mostly poor Filipinos.
Without their side, media gave the former president and his family a free ride, to be seen as victims while forgetting the actual victims of “crimes against humanity.”
CMFR monitored the coverage of three primetime newscasts (ABS-CBN 2’s TV Patrol, GMA-7’s 24 Oras, TV5’s Frontline Pilipinas), Manila-based broadsheets Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, Manila Standard, The Manila Times and Daily Tribune and their online counterparts, and online news sites Rappler and Vera Files from March 11 to 17.
Duterte’s camp cries illegal arrest
The petition filed before the Supreme Court by Davao-based lawyer Israelito Torreon on March 11 served as the first salvo. It asked the High Tribunal to compel the government to suspend any ICC cooperation and issue a temporary restraining order against Duterte’s arrest. The following day, Duterte’s children Paolo, Sebastian and Veronica filed separate petitions for habeas corpus through their legal representatives, asking that their father be released from The Hague.
These documents all argued that the arrest was illegal because of the following reasons, as reported by the media:
- The Philippines is no longer a member of the ICC, having withdrawn from the Rome Statute in 2019;
- The withdrawal makes any cooperation with the ICC unconstitutional;
- The ICC only intervenes in countries with no functioning justice system, so it has no jurisdiction over Duterte as he is only an individual;
- The “principle of complementarity” should have been followed, so Duterte should have been brought to a domestic court.
The above points were the same echoed by Duterte supporters as posted and shared in threads on social media, which the media also covered.
Juan Ponce Enrile, Chief Presidential Legal Counsel of Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., was the first to comment on the development, posting online that, “Philippine domestic laws have nothing to do with his (Duterte’s) current legal problem.” March 11 newscasts carried his statement without asking Enrile to elaborate.
Independent legal insight
In its March 11 edition, TV Patrol asked Prof. Michael Tiu, Jr., faculty of the UP College of Law and an expert on international criminal law, about the ICC’s jurisdiction. Tiu clarified that under the Rome Statute, the ICC retains jurisdiction on crimes committed prior to a member-state’s withdrawal. Unfortunately, Tiu was the lone voice in the wilderness at that point. Media did not find any other independent and authoritative source to assert the same fact.
On March 14, the UP College of Law gathered a formidable panel of international law experts whose discussion established their consensus that the arrest was legal. No less than Raul Pangalangan, a former ICC judge, spoke via Zoom and made two important points: The ICC operates differently from national courts. It is hardly concerned even with the manner by which the accused is arrested.
Sadly, media did not pick up the key points made during the forum. The crucial insights in the UP forum did not gain significant traction in the news, receiving neither front-page treatment nor leading airtime in newscasts.
Unprepared newsrooms
The ICC and its investigation had been in the news for years. The media even carried announcements which predicted the arrest as imminent. And yet newsrooms had not prepared for the development. Journalists did not build up their own knowledge about the ICC —how it works, its special powers— so it can pursue justice where national courts are unable to do so. Media did not know how to promptly engage the legal luminaries here or those based abroad who could have helped them to check the uninformed criticism or to promptly provide a counter-argument.
Of course, there may be other reasons for the failure. The patterns noted in the coverage of Duterte as former president strongly suggest a strong bias for the man. This is a matter that editors and publishers should check, unless of course, the bias is imposed from above.
ERRATUM:
On March 14, the UP College of Law gathered a formidable panel of international law experts whose discussion established their consensus that the arrest was legal. No less than Raul Pangalangan, a former ICC judge, spoke via Zoom and made two important points: The ICC operates differently from national courts. It is hardly concerned even with the manner by which the accused is arrested.
Sadly, media did not pick up the key points made during the forum. The crucial insights in the UP forum did not gain significant traction in the news, receiving neither front-page treatment nor leading airtime in newscasts.
Correction:
CMFR failed to note as exceptions the reports published online: “Duterte’s arrest was ‘by the book,’ within ICC’s liberal rules” by Lian Buan (Rappler) on March 14 and “Due process, witness rights: What the ICC does differently” by Chelsea Visto (Philstar.com) on March 15 discussed key points made in the UP Forum on the legality of the ICC arrest of former President Duterte.
Leave a Reply